Napolitano: It is not wise for Sessions to publicly testify
On 'The Story,' the Fox News senior judicial analyst looks ahead to the attorney general's testimony
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," June 12, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Breaking tonight, now the administration will get to tell its side of the story for the very first time tomorrow. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, will do just that in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There was some doubt as to whether this was going to be behind closed doors, we now can report tonight that it will definitely be an open testimony and we will, of course, carry it live here. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story."
So, also tonight, senators are calling for an investigation into Loretta Lynch after James Comey revealed that she had influenced him to soften the language surrounding the whole Clinton email matter. Plus, more questions about when the former FBI Director began leaking his side of the story to the New York Times? Does it actually go back a lot further than he has so far admitted?
Lots to cover tonight, but let's dig in with a preview of how the administration intends to handle this whole thing tomorrow. I'm joined by Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge, good to see you tonight top of the show. The big story, tomorrow and a lot of preparation to get ready for what we're going to see here. First of all, what do you expect, and do you think it's wise for Jeff Sessions to be doing this in open testimony?
ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: I do not - as much as I want to hear him and as much as I know the public wants to hear them-if he had asked my advice, I would say it is not wise for you to do this. You were going to be attacked personally and you're going to have to defend yourself. You are the head of the Justice Department, and you're going to have to defend it; that includes Bob Mueller. You are close to the President, and the President expects you to give his version of events, which contradicts Jim Comey's version.
What do you do when those three constituencies, you yourself, the Justice Department, and President Trump have conflicting interests? Which side do you take? What answer do you give? The Democrats are going to start right off the bat: you committed perjury, you lied to Judiciary Committee, and then when you corrected that statement, you committed perjury again. I'm mouthing what I expect them to say, so I don't believe this myself.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, clearly, one of the first questions is going to be why did you not report that you had met with Kislyak three times?
NAPOLITANO: Correct. The meetings with Kislyak-
MACCALLUM: What if his answer is good? What if his answer is: look, here's the content of the meeting. I'll tell you exactly what was said. This third meeting, his people are now saying that, you know, they're on a line, a receiving line and that it was not a meeting at all.
NAPOLITANO: The meetings with Kislyak, in my view, are either standard operating procedure or utterly harmless.
MACCALLUM: But why is it off then? Why there aren't any reports?
NAPOLITANO: Correct! And that's the problem, the problem is lying to Congress or-this is a more difficult one: misleading Congress. One can be technically truthful and therefore not be charged with perjury, but misleading and therefore charged with misleading. Now, he's a lawyer, he's a smart lawyer, he's the Chief Prosecutor of the land. He knows this, but he's got to be mindful of it.
MACCALLUM: All right. You know, so, why now? I mean, do believe that he was going to have to testify at some point so that he wants to just get it over with? Because this clearly makes a whole another day of the Russian news that the Trump administration says they don't want.
NAPOLITANO: Correct. I am sure someone will ask him why now, and my guess is the White House wants him to do this. The President gave his version in inimitable his style, I don't think that most respectively, effectively dawdled or neutralized what Jim Comey said. Whatever you think of Jim Comey, and there are cracks in his armor, in my view, he was credible and compelling. I think the White House believes that General Sessions - Attorney General Sessions will be credible and compelling when he gives his version. But there are a lot of problems here, he's not going to be speaking as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land; he's going to be speaking as a witness in criminal investigations and FBI counterintelligence. So, he's limited in what he can say.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, I mean, what if the White House is saying that there's nothing there. So, go ahead. Go tell your story?
NAPOLITANO: That's probably the best argument that they can make. I'm not sure that Jeff Sessions is the person to do that because these conflicts I spoke about, but that's probably-
MACCALLUM: And it will be-
NAPOLITANO: MacCallum you'd be brilliant down there. This is not the best argument they could make.
MACCALLUM: But it will become all about why didn't you disclose this meeting, right?
NAPOLITANO: Yes.
MACCALLUM: It's not going to be about the content. I mean, they're going to try to keep driving it off the content of the meeting, and to the issue of misleading.
NAPOLITANO: From the e-mails we're getting tonight, the Democrats on that committee-and some very smart ones-are salivating to go after their former colleague. He should not expect softball because he's a former member of the Senate, and I think he knows that.
MACCALLUM: All right. Judge, thank you so much.
NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: I want to get to - with you tomorrow night on this. So, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions preps for this testimony tomorrow, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, is putting together his investigative team for the probe into Russia's 2016 interference, as it has been called including these two gentlemen: Michael Dreeben and Andrew Weismann, who you see here. Prominent legal voices are blasting these two additions to the Mueller team. Constitutional Scholar, Jonathan Turley, warning that one Mueller Lieutenant has pushed before and been struck down for obstruction charges. Newt Gingrich, also raising the alarm on this; calling this investigation in his mind a "big witch hunt and a setup." Watch him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER: Comey said, I deliberately leaked through an intermediary to create this counsel, who happens to be one of his closest friends. Then look at who now he's starting to hire. And these are people that, frankly, look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump. Including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. I think this is going to be a witch hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, joining me now, Republican Congressman, Sean Duffy; and former Chief Economist to President Obama, Professor Austin Goolsbee. Good to have both of you with us tonight. You know, Newt Gingrich, prior to this, at some very positive things actually about the selection of Robert Mueller. But now, he has changed his mind, why, Sean Duffy?
REP. SEAN DUFFY, R-WIS.: Well, I think there's a reason for concern. Number one: you have a relationship between Mueller and Comey - they're best friends and Comey might be a star witness, number one. But you're hiring a litigation team, a bunch of prosecutors who have given thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates. If you're going to an investigation, let's hire investigators to see what impact Russia had in the last election. This seems more like an effort to prosecute Donald Trump than it is to investigate.
And my concern, Martha, is what the hell are we investigating? You had Comey, and the other Director, Clapper, both with knowledge come out and say there's no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians. Why are we going through an investigation? Why are we going through this charade of an investigation when there's no evidence that Donald Trump had anything to do with the Russians? This is the Democrats' effort to undermine the election results of last November and get the result, which is a Donald Trump out of the White House.
MACCALLUM: All right. I want to put a quote from Jonathan Turley's piece to get your thoughts on this Austin; he's talking about Michael Dreeben. He says, "He argued in an unsuccessful appeal, a sweeping interpretation of obstruction of justice - an interpretation that I criticized as wildly overbroad. The interpretation resulted in a unanimous rejection of the Supreme Court. Dreeben's addition should be a big concern." All right, he didn't say big, "Should be a concern to the Trump defense team." What do you think, Austin?
AUSTIN GOOLSBEE, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to have to take his word for it. I know Mr. Turley was a very outspoken advocate for the impeachment of President Clinton and has been a defender of President Trump. What I don't understand about this and, Martha, what you and I talked about this in transition, Donald Trump had one in the first inklings about the Russia stuff that come up.
And the Trump administration's approach - I understand where it came from, it's absolutely a business approach as opposed to Washington approach, and that was shut it down, deny everything, turn over no documents. And if you remember, I said back then, the problem with that is that it runs the risk that the whole story and the whole investigation morphs into, instead of a nothing burger that there wasn't anything to it, it becomes all about why did you cover it up? Why did you not admit this meeting? And that will suck his policy agenda down the toilet. He would not be able to do anything, just as Bill Clinton was not able to do his policy after the Lewinsky.
MACCALLUM: But the judge and I were just talking about that. I mean, you've got - you have a Special Prosecutor - Special Counsel, rather, who's involved in this now. The more sort of fuel - the more you feel this fire, you know, Jeff Sessions isn't going to go out there tomorrow, that's going to be a whole another day of Russia, Russia, Russia, Sean Duffy. So, is the White House making a mistake in not sort of saying, look, this is contained, we are not going to discuss this anymore, and trying to kind of move on to get more focused on their agenda as they say they really want to do?
DUFFY: Well, that is what we're thinking, because the Democrats in the House and the Senate, and the left-wing media is going to continue the drumbeat of Russia, Russia, Russia. But to your point, I think the White House will be served well if they focus on the agenda that got them on. I mean, we have to start talking about the economy, and jobs, and tax reform, and health care, and the security, and the southern border.
Those are the issues that my constituents care about, they don't care about Russia. And that's what I think Donald Trump has to do. Put away the Twitter with regards to Russia, and focus on the agenda and stay silent. But I do think that appearances matter though, Martha, you have the appearances of Mueller and his procedural team that don't look good, I think they're going to be fair and impartial.
MACCALLUM: Are Democrats, Austin, concerned with the bottom line issue here, whether or not there was intent on the part of anybody who is related, a satellite as he called it, to the Trump campaign? Because they said there's no investigation to the President. Are Democrats concerned with that issue, and are they truly concerned with figuring out the hacking and, you know, preventing future elections from being subjected to this, or is it about bringing down this President?
GOOLSBEE: Well, for sure they're concerned about the issue of Russia, and I would be a little - it's not exactly true to say that Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion. What Clapper said was it was not his decision and that there was enough evidence that he thought there should be an investigation by the FBI of whether there was collusion. That's not the-
MACCALLUM: I mean, if Democrats and Republicans, you know, who've all said that there is no evidence of that yet. But we all - as we all well know, the investigation is continuing, so who knows.
GOOLSBEE: Yes. But they said there should be an investigation. I think some of the Democrats, for sure, are more critical-
MACCALLUM: But I was asking you if it's all politics where the Democrats are concerned, and is it all about bringing the President down or-
GOOLSBEE: I said that they're critical of the President and them - and if there is evidence of obstruction of justice, they would like the investigator to go after that.
MACCALLUM: So, that's what this all about now. Austin, thank you very much. Sean Duffy, thank you. Good to see you both.
DUFFY: It's nice to see you, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, politicians on both sides of the aisle demanding answers tonight after President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, apparently told the FBI Director James Comey, "Can you go easy on your language when you talk about the Clinton e-mail investigation please?" That bombshell report is straight ahead. And then Ivanka Trump saying that she is shocked by the viciousness in Washington, D.C.
The leftist quickly pounced on this, highlights from her comments this morning here on Fox News and some of the reaction to it straight ahead. Plus, this story is getting crazier by the minute. The hit reality show "Bachelor In Paradise," no stranger to provocative behavior, but it may have gone way over the line. When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: I think we need to know more about that. And there's only one way to know about it, and that's to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So that was Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, reacting to the troubling James Comey admission that former Obama Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, asked him to downplay the Clinton e-mail investigation. This Senator is joining a group of Republicans demanding some answers about that whole thing. That Lynch requested that he referred to the investigation as a "matter," rather than an investigation which was the same language that the campaign was using at that time. So, for more on this, we go to Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry, live at the White House tonight. Hi, Ed!
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Martha, that's right. Republican, Lindsey Graham, not always an ally of President Trump, wants to make sure that Loretta Lynch now has to testify before one of the many Senate Committees investigating Russian interference in the last election. Particularly, Graham wants to know more about the Obama administrations' own interference and the last election. Why exactly the former Attorney General told James Comey to call that criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her e-mail server merely a "matter" to downplay it.
Comey, of course, testified that it gave him a queasy feeling and did not always follow Lynch's guidance. Republican, Peter King, also wants to see if Comey wrote memos on his talks with Lynch like he did with his talks with President Trump, in part to see if this had anything to do with that highly unusual Arizona tarmac meeting that Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton last June, something White House Counselor, Kellyanne Conway, today teed off on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: It also goes back to the tarmac meeting between Lynch and President Bill Clinton. It takes about 4.5 minutes, not 45 minutes to talk about golf and the grandkids, a couple of selfies included. So, I think those questions will be swirled around, and I think what Senator Feinstein as a Democrat did is very refreshing because of the Democrats - now, they basically say that Russia more than they say America. They are obsessive about this, they are obstructionist-
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now, the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer says he has not yet heard Lynch's side of the story, so he's not sure it rises to the level of dragging her up to the Hill to testify. Schumer says he just doesn't want anyone to "jump to any conclusions," a deference that Trump officials here say they have simply not gotten from Chuck Schumer so far. Martha.
MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. Here now with more: Marc Thiessen, an American Enterprise Institute Scholar and also a Fox News Contributor; and Juan Williams, co-host of the "THE FIVE" and a Fox News Political Analyst. We have some other news we want to, but let me get you reaction to that story first, gentlemen. Juan, what do you make it?
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST AND "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Well, I mean, to me, it's like comparing a pimple to cancer. I mean, yes, people want to know-
MACCALLUM: One is not so bad, one is very bad.
WILLIAMS: So, already, Clinton, has not only been investigated. But this is like water over the dam, it's done. But I think that there are lots of people on the Trump side who want to focus on Lynch, Clinton, and especially the character of Jim Comey, asking why didn't he take notes, was he bullied? Was he, essentially, being used as a puppet by the Democrats and, of course, the campaign? But that's nothing comparable to what's going on in terms of the investigation of the President, and the President campaign for its ties to Russia.
MACCALLUM: Marc, what's your take on it?
MARC THEISSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE SCHOLAR: That's not true, Juan. What you just said is not true. There is no investigation of the President of the United States, Comey testified to that fact. And that is the difference between these two cases, Juan is that Donald Trump is not, has not, and never was under investigation for criminal activity by the FBI. Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation and Loretta Lynch aided and abetted her ability to lie about it. She repeatedly said it is not a criminal investigation, it's a security review; she said over, and over, and over again.
And her campaign - they cited the Justice Department in saying it. In 2015, the campaign fact sheet from Hillary Clinton, question: is the Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton's e-mail use? Answer: no, as the Department of Justice has made clear this was not a criminal in nature, as misreported by some in the press. It was of criminal nature. That is a lie.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Quick stop from Juan, and I do want to get your thoughts on this other news.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, Martha, one: remember, what you heard from Jim Comey was that while Jim Comey was the FBI Director there was no direct investigation of President Trump, personally. The campaign was under investigation and given what he said about potentially being told to back off of the investigation. He is now.
THIESSEN: That's not true!
WILLIAMS: He is now potentially under investigation by Robert Mueller.
THIESSEN: Juan, you can't say that. It's not true what you're saying!
MACCALLUM: No. What - he's talking about the fact that now they're potentially looking at obstruction of justice. There was not investigation into President Trump with regards to the issue-
THIESSEN: Of the Flynn matter which has nothing to do with Russia.
WILLIAMS: Of course it does!
(CROSSTALK)
THIESSEN: That's not true!
MACCALLUM: I want to say about something else, because, you know, it's potentially a big deal. There's story coming through that Chris Ruddy of Newsmax spoke to Judy Woodruff and said that the President has not ruled out the idea of axing Robert Mueller. You know, if - and that's, you know, you have to sort of keep in mind the way that it's being presented, but he wouldn't say that it was absolutely off the table. Marc, what do you think?
THIESSEN: Here's one where Juan and I are going to agree 100 percent, you've to let the investigation go. I mean, to ax Robert Mueller would be the dumbest thing that Donald Trump could possibly do. Donald Trump is not under investigation, personally, did not interfere with the Russia probe, Comey testified to both of those things. And if he did nothing wrong - in fact, he even said if my associates, my satellites did anything wrong, I want to know about it. So, if that is true, if he did nothing wrong, and he wants to find out if his satellites did something wrong, he should just let the investigation go.
MACCALLUM: Marc. No. I understand what you're saying, but it looks like they're getting concerned about the people that Mueller's bringing on, and this one attorney who has the very broad interpretation of obstruction of justice. So, you know, you have to wonder, you go back to the Jeff Sessions issue that the President was very unhappy with Jeff Sessions for recusing himself, which forced him to have to put this Special Counsel in this case, in the first place. And now they're getting, perhaps, some cold feet about the whole thing. Judge Napolitano said, at one point, you know, Jeff Session could un-recuse himself. He could put himself back in charge of this thing if he wants to.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think your description is absolutely accurate. And the problem here is it would be explosive, I say explosive, it's beyond explosive, because it would just heighten the attention, the anger, the partisanship around this case. I don't think it's helpful, but it's not my position to say it's helpful. I'm just telling you this would be incendiary.
THIESSEN: 100 percent agreement.
MACCALLUM: Final quick thought, and then we got to go.
THIESSEN: 100 percent agreement. That will be the stupidest thing Donald Trump could do.
MACCALLUM: All right. Thanks, you guys! Thank you very much.
THIESSEN: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: All right. Tonight, coming up, another violent act depicted against the President of the United States. And now, sponsors are fleeing from a New York City theater company after it opens a scene - performs a scene, rather, depicting the bloody murder of Julius Caesar. Or is that man in the middle in the red tie, and a reddish really Julius Caesar? Also today, critics labeling Ivanka Trump a hypocrite after she said she is shocked by the "viciousness" that has been shown to the administration. Katie Pavlich and Matt Bennett, take this one on next. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN KILMEADE, CO-HOST, "FOX & FRIENDS": Is it harder than you though to stick to the things you want to do because of what keeps coming up, whether it's the Russia investigation or something else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: All right. You are looking live at Defense Secretary, James Mattis; and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, James Dunford. They are testifying right now live in Washington in an evening hearing, very unusual, about military readiness. And both not happy with the level that they are seeing right now, and sadly this comes as we learn the identity of three American soldiers killed Saturday in Eastern Afghanistan.
The soldiers were assigned to the 101st Airborne division in 4th Campbell, Kentucky. Defense Department identifying them as 25-year old, Sergeant Eric M. Houck, of Baltimore, Maryland; 29-year old, Sergeant William M. Bays, of Barstow, California; and 22-year-old Corporal Dylan C. Baldridge, Youngsville, North Carolina. Another U.S. soldier was injured in that attack by a member of the Afghan Security forces who was working with our United States troops.
So, a "filthy liar," that is what some very harsh critics are labeling Ivanka Trump tonight in the wake of comments that she made exclusively to Fox News earlier today. When she was asked if working alongside her father at the White House is harder than she thought? Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FOX & FRIENDS")
IVANKA TRUMP, AMERICAN BUSINESSWOMAN AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: There's a level of viciousness that I was not expecting. I was not expecting the intensity of this experience, but this isn't supposed to be easy. My father and this administration intends to be transformative and we want to do big, bold things and we are looking to change the status quo, so I didn't expect it to be easy, I think some of the distractions and some of the ferocity - I was a little blindsided by on a personal level.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Swooping a lot of reaction to that today, here with us this evening is Katie Pavlich at townhall.com and Fox News Contributor, as well she is; and Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way. Welcome to both of you.
MATT BENNETT, THE THIRD WAY CO-FOUNDER: It's good to be here.
MACCALLUM: Matt, let's go to you first. What was your reaction to that?
BENNETT: I mean, come on! Her father has blown through almost every barrier that was to protect the presidency against this kind of ridiculous behavior. When he was running for President he mocked a reporter who was disabled, he attacked a gold star family, he attacked a federal charge on his ethnicity. He bragged about assaulting women and he spent two years undermining the legitimacy of his predecessor on racist grounds. This guy, the gall of his family to complain about harshness in Washington-he is off the charts.
MACCALLUM: I mean, Katie, you know that's the obvious argument to this, that nobody pushed the limits of, you know, sort of good behavior, or polite behavior I guess I should say. When you look back on the debate stage, and you look at the incidences that Matt just cited. So, did Donald Trump, sort of, get what's coming to him on that front when he got to Washington?
KATIE PAVLICH, TOWNHALL.COM AUTHOR: Well, look, I think there's doubt that Donald Trump ran a campaign that was less than above bar when it comes to the types of things he said and the types of things he said against certain people, that's for sure. And a lot of Republicans, let's not forget, criticized him for that. But I think in the context of what Ivanka was asked today, she's talking about the campaign being over and her experience working alongside her father in the White House. She's an advisor and you see she is an Advisor, and you see in the media and the press them trying to drive this wedge between her and him, and accusing her of being complicit if he doesn't do exactly what she want them to do, saying that she's lost on things like the Paris climate agreement. And the other issue here, Martha, is that you've heard her say -- this administration wants to be transformative, this is the swamp, and it's really difficult to understand how powerful it is until you're here and feeling it. When you start going after government programs, civil servants which need reforming, those are fighting wars and people are going to really hold on to what they had because people like Donald Trump want to change it.
MACCALLUM: I think that's the translation. First of all, when I watched it again, and when I watched earlier today, that moment, she seems to be speaking from a very personal perspective on this. She's saying I didn't expect this when I got here. And, you know, I think you look at the family and they're in that moment of victory on election night, and it's like now we're going to go to Washington and we're going to do what the people who elected her father to do -- we're going to get that worked on. But I think she's -- also because, you know, I mean, Donald Trump used to be a Democrat, I think they really thought that they were going to be able to sort of cross some lines there and the fact that there's no cooperation from the Democrats is something that I think has taken them a bit a back.
MATT BENNETT, THEIRD WAY CO-FOUNDER: Well, that's perhaps true. But look, Ivanka -- nobody forced her to become a senior administration official. She could have remained in charge of her family business. And I think the impact on her and her husband didn't have to take the job either. They chose to enter this arena and it's a rough one, particularly given the guy that they're working for. This is a guy who routinely steps on his staff's attempts to direct them towards these big transformational changes that she claims she wants to make by bringing it back to these personal and petty grievances and, you know, constantly referencing the sizes of Electoral College victory.
MACCALLUM: But the question becomes can you separate yourself from that at some point? And I think the swamp is very real. And Katie, you talk about - - when I think about this long investigation that it looks like we're on the cusp of, right? I mean, Washington loves a long investigation. It's expensive. It employs a ton of lawyers. I mean, this is exactly -- and, you know, it's just going to keep feeding on itself because it feeds the swamp.
PAVLICH: Right. These investigations are the epitome of what we call this town here down in Washington, D.C. And look, I think that Ivanka is also referring to the pushback from the intelligence agencies, all of the leaking that we're seeing, left over Obama political appointee really trying to sabotage his first five months in office. And I do want to push back a little bit in the sense that I don't think she was complaining in that interview, I think when you listen to the rest of it she specifically says, you know, this is hard, but it's not as hard as a mom who lost her son to the opioid crisis, or the factory worker who lost his job.
MACCALLUM: Good point.
PAVLICH: And we're going out to talk to the real Americans and doing the work that they elected us to do, even though there is a viciousness that we have seen in opposition to the administration.
MACCALLUM: We've got to leave it there. Thank you so much. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Katie. So very important day in court today for the parents of Tim Piazza who died in a hazing incident at Penn State, the video of his final moments was played in that court today and it was hugely emotional, the details straight ahead. And coming up, a New York Theater can't get enough of going after President Trump. Speaking of that, last year, Meryl Streep dressed up as the president, but how about this version of Julius Caesar? Et tu, Brute? Oh, yes, him too. Why the stabbing scene has sponsors running for the exits when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's going on today?
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We have a friend who's unconscious. He hasn't moved, he's probably going to need an ambulance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That was the 911 call made 12 hours too late for Penn State sophomore, Timothy Piazza. A hearing wrapped moments ago, and the decision is expected tomorrow and whether there's enough evidence to move forward with a case against several of his fraternity brothers. They face charges starting with involuntary manslaughter, these are pictures of them coming in today, the video of that night was shown, although the family of the pledge who died during the hazing incident left before the video began. Our Fox producer describes some of what has been seen in the video on that courtroom today.
It shows Piazza being carried through the lobby unconscious and limp. Multiple frat brothers carrying him, placing him on the couch, on the left side of the tape a visible bruise on his abdomen, he then falls off the couch, they pick him up, they put him back twice. They slam him on his back onto the couch, slapping him on his side where he is already been injured. It shows him on the floor rolling around at one point in the fetal position. He then gets up, heads towards the basement, steps over to people and falls down, and according to the reports.
Hours later they carry him up and he is draped in a black coat that is said to be too small for him. His fraternity brothers, so to speak, stand around him, put their hands upon their heads like what's going on, what do we do? They put a blanket on him. Finally someone called 911 according to the detective. The judge says there will not be a gag order in this case. So we are covering that very closely as you know, and we'll bring you more as we get it.
In the meantime, beware the eyes of March, right, especially when the character is wearing a long red tie and a famous comb-over. A production of Julius Caesar in New York depicts the tragic roman ruler looking just like Donald Trump. He also has a Slavic, well-dressed wife. And some say the stabbing scene, which is generally pretty rough in Julius Ceasar, is pretty rough here as well. So Delta Airlines and Bank of America said no more, we're pulling out of this production, no more money towards this production. Trace Gallagher had details for us tonight from L.A. Trace?
GALLAGHER: Hey, Martha. In this version of Julius Caesar, the emperor is a familiar businessman known for well-cut suits and a bad temper. Now, Donald Trump name is never mentioned, but the lead is played by a Trump look-a-like, he's name is Greg Henry, who admits that he's playing a man drunk with ego power and ambition, and his idea was to shown that this could be Donald Trump. And, of course, just like in the original play, to curb Caesar's power he is summarily stabbed to death. Many who saw the preview were offended saying something like this would never have flown if it was about President Obama or George W. Bush.
As you said, Delta Airlines and Bank of America, who's sponsored Shakespeare in the park, have decided to pull their funding with Bank of America releasing a statement that reads in part, quote, the public theater chose to present Julius Caesar in a way that was intended to provoke and defend, had this intention been made known to us, we would have decided not to sponsor it. Donald Trump, Jr., also weighed in, tweeting, quote, I wonder how much of this artists funded by taxpayers? Serious question, when does art become political speech and does that change things? Well, we checked, and it turned out the national endowment for the arts is not funding this production, but oddly enough, Donald Trump's foundation did fund Shakespeare in the park back in the 1980's. And despite the outrage over the Trumpian figure being stab in public, some theatergoers say it's much ado about nothing. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You know, if SNL is going to have the right to depict Donald Trump in satirical ways, this is not in a satirical way, this is the ancient Shakespeare way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: The theater just issued a statement standing behind the production. And we should note opening night of Julius Caesar gets underway on Central Park in about 15 minutes.
MACCALLUM: Yeah, pretty hot up there tonight in Central Park. So what about free speech? Thank you, Trace, by the way. Let's bring in Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of dailywire.com, and Jessica Tarlov, senior director of research at Bustle.com and a Fox News contributor. Free speech, they have the right to do it. Saturday Night Live, it's a good point then that was made by that young man, but is there something wrong with this, does it go over the line?
BEN SHAPIRO, DAILYWIRE.COM: Well, I think it crosses a number of lines. Again, Trace mentioned the idea that if somebody had done this about Barack Obama it would have been the end of the world in the media, and in fact it was. A rodeo clown in Missouri got fired for having the temerity to put on a Barack Obama mask, and then run around like an idiot. And I remember the lieutenant governor of the state, senator from the state condemned it. So it's not rare that politically advantageous things from one side of another are done and people react badly to it. I think that the sponsors have every right to pull their money, obviously. And if I were at Delta I would not want the blowback. But I think is a general rule we should be careful about when I think are sometimes astro-turf campaigns against particular pieces of art or particular expressions because that's a very slippery slope. If we all start boycotting products because we don't like the views expressed by some of the people that the products are sponsoring we could be in serious trouble just in the political media in general.
MACCALLUM: Yeah. It comes on the heels of Kathy Griffin holding of the head with -- catch up on it or whatever. It's horrific. Is this OK, Jessica?
JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I happen to think it is OK. And I take all Ben's point and the free speech first and foremost. But I wanted to remind the audience for the first time that there's actually was a 2012 rendition of Julius Caesar starring someone who looked exactly like Barack Obama, and there was no uproar from that and certainly not from the liberal left, but everyone claims they're just snowflakes all the time. So this has been done before, it will be done again. I think this is particularly sensitive in light of what happened with Kathy Griffin just last week. And I think that Don, Jr., weighing in on this and not acknowledging, first of all, that this has happened before with Barack Obama specifically.
But the free speech importance here and the fact that we have to protect art, and since we defined that it wasn't taxpayer-funded specifically for this piece is critical. I do like though that both Delta and Bank of America did not pull funding general from the public theater, they did for just this specific production, and I think that's an important distinction.
MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, think back to the origins of Shakespeare when it was originally done, a lot of times it poked fun at people in power. It's part of the -- Queen Elizabeth was poked fun at it, but it's always done in a sort of a subtle Shakespearean way, and this is really not so subtle. I mean, it really slams you over the head, like the stabbing scene in the end of Julius Caesar. Generally, I love Shakespeare and the productions that they do. In the past couple of years have not been well done, so I don't know if people are going to vote with their feet and not go to these things anymore. It's fantastic venue. It should be well done. And unfortunately it hasn't been recently -- very quick thought on this t-shirt, the top of the t-shirt. This is a totally different story, but a kid wore a Trump t-shirt in his yearbook and it was removed by the people who do the yearbook. We put the picture -- there it is. See, Trump, no Trump. Ben, what you think?
SHAPIRO: Well, you point discrimination. I think that, again, this comes down to if they are just banning people from wearing Trump shirts or obliterating the Trump watermark on people's yearbooks. Apparently they removed Trump's quotes.
MACCALLUM: Yeah, yeah.
SHAPIRO: He's the president of the United States. I mean, this seems a little bit over-the-top to me, and by a little bit, I mean a lot.
TARLOV: Yeah, I totally agree, going in full agreement with the conservative tonight. Yeah, I thought it was ridiculous. In the end, really, actually, just hurts liberals because it makes it look like we're all crazy and that we think that the work Trump is hate speech. I would also like to add though the message of Julius Caesar is actually anti- assassination, to add insult to injury there, about coming after it.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, guys. Good to see you both.
TARLOV: Thanks.
SHAPIRO: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: So the show "Bachelor in Paradise" abruptly halts filming and brings everyone back from Mexico, when alcohol and a pool scene turns from steamy into something potentially much darker. Is the lid about to be blown off of reality TV? We're going to ask Attorney Mark Eiglarsh for the legal fallout when we come back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE BACHELOR"/ABC)
CORINNE OLYMPIOS, CONTESTANT: I didn't come all this way to watch everybody else get their chance. I always go after what I want. I want Nick right now. Right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Developing tonight, ABC's hit show about summer romance just got very serious. Now, Bachelor in Paradise, has been suspended indefinitely. Trace Gallagher reports live from the west coast with the story. Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Martha, the show just began taping its fourth season in Mexico. It was supposed to start airing them in August, which apparently won't happen now. The controversy reportedly involves contestants Corrine Olympios and DeMario Jackson, both are veterans of the Bachelor franchise. But the sexual misconduct complaint wasn't fired by Ms. Olympios, instead it was a field producer who said it appeared that Corrine Olympios was so drunk on the first day of filming she had no ability to consent to DeMario Jackson's sexual moves, which included the two stripping down, getting into a pool, and having various sexual encounters without having intercourse, and the cameras were rolling the entire time.
After the complaint was filed, Warner Bros. shut down production and issued a statement that reads in part, quote, once the investigation is complete, we will take appropriate response of actions. DeMario Jackson reportedly said that touching and rubbing was consensual and he says Olympios was the instigator. Those who have seen the videotape say it appears Corrine Olympios was lucid and fully engaged. And TMZ is now reporting that Olympios is not blaming DeMario Jackson, but she is blaming the producers saying she was in a blackout state and would never have behaved like that because she has a boyfriend. She did not explain what she would have told her boyfriend had she ended up engaged at the end of the season. The remainder of the Bachelor in Paradise contestants has been set to stay in Houston, though it's unclear exactly why. Martha.
MACCALLUM: Wow, a lot there. Thank you, Trace. Joining me now, Mark Eiglarsh, criminal defense attorney. Mark, what do you make of this whole thing?
MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: One more reason to dislike these types of shows. Look, they've got some problems here. If she alleges that she didn't consent and they created an environment, which is supposed to be about relationships in a secluded and dreamy scenario, right? What it really is, is alcohol with villains and enemies, so there's as much drama and hook up as possible. It's reasonably foreseeable that something like this is going to happen.
MACCALLUM: I mean, you just look at the video that we've just show before, I mean, this makes the Bachelor and the Bachelorette look pretty tamed. I mean, basically like an orgy, right? There all just like -- we've showed the pictures just moments ago. But where do you draw the line? This is a producer initially who brought this out and said that she felt uncomfortable because it was obvious according to the original statement that this young woman was so drunk that there was no way she could consent to what was going on. So how culpable are the producers who, you know, obviously, the more salacious this thing gets, the better it is for the show, right?
EIGLARSH: They know exactly what they're doing. They know on one hand it's wonderful TV. That's what they want, as much drama and hook up that they can get. On the other side they're going, my goodness, there's a lot going on here. There's alcohol, but let's keep going, let's keep it rolling.
MACCALLUM: But don't these people all sign agreement saying that everyone is going to be drinking, I know it's going to be physical. I mean, legally, how culpable are the producers or the show itself?
EIGLARSH: There is nothing in that agreement that says that we're going to facilitate an alleged rape. And if she alleges that she was in a blackout state, and producers continues to foster that environment -- hold on, I have something for you, by the way. Again, I'm happily married, but will you accept this final rose?
MACCALLUM: She said she had a boyfriend. Is it the whole idea that you're supposed to be looking for a boyfriend when you go on this trip?
EIGLARSH: It doesn't make any sense. And I'm sure they're going to fire back and point the finger.
MACCALLUM: All right. In terms of what happened next, and I know you suggested in the comments that you sent before, Mark, that you think this might be a publicity stunt, this whole thing?
EIGLARSH: I'm not convinced that any of this is real. I mean, we're all talking about a show.
MACCALLUM: There was video, we know that.
EIGLARSH: There is, but the intricacies, what's really happening. This all wonderful for the show that will continue on once they determined that everybody is cool with it, right? That's what's going to happen. By the way, there's precedent for this. The Real World was sued when a girl claimed that she was rape, and they cut her an undisclosed amount to settle that one in 2012. Not admitting responsibility, but that may happen here.
MACCALLUM: It will cost them a lot of money, there's no doubt about it. Mark, thank you very much, good to see you tonight.
EIGLARSH: See you my friend.
MACCALLUM: So stay tuned, our quote of the night features one of President Ronald Reagan's most memorable moments of his presidency and it happens 30 years ago today, an interesting fact about this night when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: On this day, 30 years ago, President Ronald Reagan delivered a speech that was seen as possibly a big, antagonizing mistake. Overall, it was barely noted in the press at the time, although the New York Times did run a story that day about scuffles between the Polish police and workers. Both that and the speech were signs that big change was coming. Gorbachev later wrote that he was not angry at President Reagan that day, he saw the admonishment was aimed, he thought, more at the West Germans. So here's our quote of the night, watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you speak prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.
(APPLAUSE)
REAGAN: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: It's quite a story. We want to know your stories too, so send us tweets @thestoryFNC. We'll be back here tomorrow night. Tucker is up next. We'll see you then.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox