Reps. Gowdy, Ratcliffe on FBI losing key anti-Trump texts
Congressman sounds off on 'The Story.'
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Breaking news this evening, everybody, on the intelligence front. Lots going on.
Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and "The Story" tonight as the FBI claims to have lost five months of text messages between these two individuals, who were kicked off and removed from the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. Now, top Republicans say that they have really gotten to the point where they're fed up with the lack of answers on all of this, and they say there may now be real grounds for a second special counsel to investigate what is going on.
According to a statement just released moments ago by Congressman Gowdy, Goodlatte, and Nunez: "Rather than clearing up prior FBI and DOJ actions, these recently produced documents cause us to further question the credibility and objectivity of certain officials at the FBI." Congressman Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe will be here in a moment with more on that. With the question that is seriously being considered now on Capitol Hill tonight: was there a fix at the FBI and the DOJ to not go after Hillary Clinton? That's the baseline question.
Fox News chief national correspondent Ed Henry live at the White House with the breaking news tonight. Hi, Ed.
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good to see you. And breaking tonight, sources close to the House Intel Chair Devin Nunes tell Fox that, in fact, he and some other key Republicans are now moving to begin the process to release that four-page memo that is at the center of these allegations that top Obama officials at the FBI and the Justice Department were conducting surveillance of top Trump officials. These Republicans include Nunez, who I mentioned, but also Trey Gowdy, and Bob Goodlatte, who's Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That's important because he has oversight of both the FBI and the Justice Department. And what they're doing, I'm told, is going through the steps they have to take to release that memo to the public by early February.
Now, the FBI just put out a statement a few moments ago under pressure, saying they want a copy of this four-page memo -- and they requested it from the House Intel Committee but so far, they've declined. The FBI says they'll take appropriate action if they see the memo. These Republicans, though, on the House Intel Committee and elsewhere say that the FBI knows what's in the memo, and they think that by releasing, it will put pressure on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a second special counsel beyond Robert Mueller to probe these allegations that during the campaign and the transition, Obama officials were basically spying on Trump officials. I'm told, Nunes and the other Republicans involved were compelled to act because they were angry about learning this weekend: the FBI is claiming it did not retain text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page from December 14, 2016 to May 17 of 2017.
That's an amazing coincidence since that covers a good chunk of the presidential transition, the early days of the Trump administration, but also because May 17 happens to be the day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to take over the Russia probe. Now, the attorney general just puts out a statement warning: "We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced. We'll use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recovered from another source." Republicans' upset because this is reviving those suspicions about e-mails wiped from Hillary Clinton server on top of the fact that some of the new text messages between Strzok and Page may cause trouble for former FBI Director James Comey. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
ED HENRY: You were the official in charge, did you wipe the server?
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What? Like, with a cloth or something?
HENRY: I don't know. You know how it works digitally. You do try to --
CLINTON: I don't know how it works digitally at all.
JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FBI: I have not coordinated a statement or reviewed it in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I'm about to say.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
HENRY: Now, Comey was testifying there under oath that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other top officials did not know in advance he was not going to suggest criminal charges in the Clinton probe even though these new text messages suggest between Strzok and Page that, in fact, Lynch knew that charges were not coming. Meanwhile, Sessions tonight is saying that the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is probing what happened to these text messages. And there are rumblings on Capitol Hill tonight that the inspector general at the Justice Department may have already gotten those text messages before they disappeared, so we may see them soon and there could be some real trouble for the FBI. Martha.
MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. My next two guests are the only two House Judiciary Members who have seen the new texts between Strzok and Page. Congressman Trey Gowdy and Congressman John Ratcliffe joining me now. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here tonight.
REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TEXAS: Martha, good to be with you.
MACCALLUM: Ed Henry -- good to have you with us. Ed Henry laid out a lot of the breaking news this evening and the memo that you put out. I want to go back a little bit, though, because with regard to Lisa Page and the fact that she says in these text messages -- and let's put up what she said. And she's referring to the fact that Loretta Lynch has said at this point that she is going to step aside, that no politically appointed official is going to make a judgment on the Hillary Clinton situation. She's going to let the FBI do it, and that's how we know that Comey came forward and made his announcement. And she says, well, you know, about that, she said this: "It's a real profile in courage since she knows no charges will be brought." And here's an exchange with James Comey and Congressman Ratcliffe. Let's watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RATCLIFFE: Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the second?
COMEY: After. All I can do is tell you again, the decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen in that interview.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Congressman Ratcliffe, what's your thought on that exchange now that you've seen these text messages?
RATCLIFFE: Well, I don't think that former Director Comey could've been more clear that the decision wasn't made until after that July 2nd interview, and that's the way that it should've been. But, as you just said, those text messages that we saw earlier today indicate that Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and Loretta Lynch all apparently knew on the first of July that Hillary Clinton wasn't going to be charged. That's inconsistent with what the director said. So, he needs to be given the opportunity to come back and clarify his testimony under oath.
MACCALLUM: Yes. So, Congressman Gowdy, will he be given the opportunity to do that, especially given the piece that Ed Henry also just included on July 5th where he said no one knows the conclusion that I came to until now.
REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C.: Yes. You have to talk to Jim Comey if you're looking into decisions made by the Department of Justice and the FBI in 2016. He's frankly shown no reluctance to come, to testify before Congress, primarily if it's in a public session. At some point, we'll be going to have to talk to him again, not so much about Russia and his removal from office, but about the decisions, he made in 2016. It's really clear to me that the decision was made in May of 2016, two months before the press conference. So, of course, Loretta Lynch -- it wasn't going to be a charge, everybody except the public knew that she was going to be charged.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Gowdy, with regards to these new texts and the idea that there could be a special counsel, a second special counsel requested to look into this, how are you pursuing that?
GOWDY: Well, these texts are incredibly important for a number of reasons. Both what's there and what's not there. So, lay aside this glaring five- month gap in texts that the world's premier law enforcement agency somehow missed, lay that aside. What we have seen, what John and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation because remember that had been reopened in the fall of 2016, or whether it was the Trump investigation. I just find it interesting, the head of the FBI was going to update the president of the United States, who at that point, would've been President Obama.
MACCALLUM: Yes, who by the way, had said on the record -- let's roll the President Obama sound bite from his interview with "Fox News Sunday" about this. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy. I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security. Now, what I've also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there's carelessness in terms of managing e-mails that she has owned, and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: It's interesting to me, Congressman Ratcliff, that at the beginning of that, he uses the word intent because that's the word that was used by James Comey, that there was no intent to allow this classified information to go into places that it shouldn't have been. Your thoughts on that?
RATCLIFFE: Well, it does make you wonder. Again, it's a strange coincidence. Just as, you know -- it's possible that these text messages that are missing, perhaps they really were lost, perhaps it is another strange coincidence. The problem, Martha, is for former prosecutors like Chairman Gowdy and myself that worked at the department and FBI, it makes it harder, and harder for us to explain away one really strange coincidence after another.
Look, the point, I think, with respect to the issue of bias that Chairman Gowdy mentioned before, we knew that Strzok and Page had an intent anti- Trump bias. And that's OK so long as they check it at the door and do their job. But we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that.
There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president. We learned today about information that after -- in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against them. I'm not saying that actually happened, but when folks speak in those terms, they need to come forward to explain the context with which they used those terms.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Gowdy, do you want to expand on the secret society idea?
GOWDY: Sure, I wish I could. I wish I had been the one who either sent that text or received it. You have this insurance policy in the spring of 2016 and then the day after the election, the day after what they really, really didn't want to have happened, there's a text exchange between these two FBI agents, these two supposed to be objective facts-centric FBI agents saying, perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society. So, of course, I'm going to want to know what secret society are you talking about because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the electoral college. So, yes, I'm going to want to know.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Gowdy, you know, in terms of that glitch of the missing text messages, those months, are you going to subpoena the phone companies to get those text messages?
TREY: You know, Martha, Congress is not great at using legal processes like subpoenas and search warrants. Of course, we want that, I hope the Mike Horowitz, the Inspector General, got them. Unfortunately, the way our government is set up, law enforcement is better able to go to communications carriers and get texts and instant messages than the Congresses. So, I want them, but I don't want them two years from now, and I don't want them after a motion to be held in contempt of Congress. I want them sooner rather than later. So, either the bureau needs to find them or we need to have someone who has really easy access to these text messages and it may be law enforcement.
MACCALLUM: Let me ask you, I want to do this last very quick question. The four-page memo of the FISA abuses that it details, will there be a criminal referral made to DOJ with regard to that?
GOWDY: I don't know that. Johnny and I, either one or in the referring case -- you know, we used to work there; we're not there anymore. I'm going to let them sort out the criminality. It's not my job to make criminal referrals. It is my job to provide oversight.
MACCALLUM: All right. Chairman, thank you very much. Good to see you both tonight.
RATCLIFFE: Thanks, Martha.
GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, this is not the first time that crucial evidence has as some would say conveniently disappeared at times. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, the State Department pushed back on a separate story first reported by Fox News concerning two missing bankers' boxes of Clinton e-mails. According to the report, the FBI may have left the boxes behind at one of Clinton's Washington offices.
JOHN KOSKINEN, PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF FINNISH DESCENT: I'm advised, the actual hard drive was recycled and destroyed in the normal process. I have no idea what the recycler does with it. This was three years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These transcripts covering hours upon hours of conversation should place, and so my better (INAUDIBLE), the controversy over the 18-and-a-half-minute gap in the tape of a conversation I had with Mr. Halderman back in June of 1972.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Here now, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst. I mean, that's not a very good record when you look at the times when we've seen this kind of thing happen before.
ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: No, it's not a very good record. I don't know how many more blows the DOJ and the FBI, each of which is headed by Republicans appointed by Donald Trump, can take before the president decides it's time to change leadership. This just seems to be getting worse and worse. Now, I have not seen what Congressman Gowdy and Congressman Haldeman have seen, and I've had certainly not seen the --
MACCALLUM: Congressman Ratcliffe.
NAPOLITANO: Ratcliffe, excuse me.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
NAPOLITANO: And I have not seen the four-page memo on the FISA abuses. But we have heard comments about them which are so outrageous, indicating that if the public did see these things it would lose such faith and, as Congressman Gowdy says, the premier law enforcement agency in all the world.
MACCALLUM: The FBI is now saying they've requested, they want a copy of this memo in order to evaluate the information and take appropriate steps if necessary. They're upset because they haven't gotten a look at this four-page memo, which is, you know, according to the people who have seen it, so awful that it could lead to people losing their jobs.
NAPOLITANO: And described as government behavior KGB-like. More KGB-like than what we expect the FBI to be. KGB, of course, was the Soviet secret police, which they don't even have any more, at least not of that name. So, this is really very bad stuff. I don't know if a new independent counsel is going to be necessary, but I am curious when Congress can see these things and the rest of us can't. Look at the timeline of this FISA memo. Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee knew of this and sat on it while Congress is voting to expand FISA authorities. Shouldn't Congress have been called about these abuses, which were known and testified to so they could be informed about it before they decided?
MACCALLUM: -- from President Trump, because he was saying, you know, that he didn't think that the FISA approval should go through based on some of these abuses.
NAPOLITANO: Yes.
MACCALLUM: And then, the next one he had to sort of do a cleanup on aisle seven because, you know, that wasn't necessarily the policy of the White House and the larger sense at that point.
NAPOLITANO: Right. So, we don't know if the president knew about this. We do know that members of -- 12 members of Congress knew about it. We knew that -- know that all 520 other members of Congress did not know about it, and they all voted either yes or no to extend, to expand the power of the NSA to examine what Americans are saying in their text, e-mails, and phone calls.
MACCALLUM: I mean, it may be that, you know, the egregious events that happened according to this four-page memo is isolated to a certain individual, and doesn't reflect the larger FISA rules.
NAPOLITANO: The American public has the right --
MACCALLUM: -- that took advantage it, I should say.
NAPOLITANO: Correct. The American public has the right to know how governmental power, which we have given to the FBI and NSA, and CIA, has been used or abused.
MACCALLUM: Judge, great to see you. Thank you very much. So, the government is back in business, but is this really a win for the American people, or could you consider it a win for illegal immigrants? Folks who didn't have a vote in the first place have wielded an enormous amount of power in this discussion. David Bossie and Mark Penn take that question on, how this small group wielded so much power.
Plus, Patriots do it again. Pulling off an unbelievable win yesterday, and I was fortunate enough to be there to watch it -- a ticket to the Super Bowl LII. But tonight, the fresh controversy surrounding their win. I mean, have we -- can we stop, please? The video proof that the game some say was rigged. Come on, Jesse Waters is going to join me. Diehard Eagles fan will step into this controversy moments away. Do not miss this, folks. Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: In case you are worried, the government is back in business. Within the last hour, the House approved the Senate bill to fund the government through February 8th, and then we get to go through this one again. But the story that nobody is talking about is how this three-day shutdown actually came about? It was months in the making. Democrats demanding no deal without protection for the DREAMERS -- a group of 800,000 illegal immigrants who did not have the right to vote in the country. Compare that to 327 million legal Americans who did not have a say in this part of the process really at all. Trace Gallagher is live in our West Coast Newsroom with the backstory here. Hi, Trace!
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Hi, Martha. You know, it wasn't too many years ago the DREAMERS remained in the shadows -- 700,000 or 800,000 young people who are part of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. But by the end of the Bush administration and beginning of the Obama term, not only had they come out of the shadows, the DREAMERS were openly defying the government to deport them. They were invited to the State of the Union address, welcomed into the oval office and spoke at Democratic conventions.
By the time President Obama signed his DACA executive order protecting DREAMERS, they had become a political force. So, when President Trump announced that he was phasing out Obama's DACA protection, the DREAMERS started flexing their political muscles and demanding that the Democrats use filibuster power in the Senate to deny government-funding unless they gained full legal status. At first, those requests went nowhere but the movement slowly picked up steam, and late last year, a number of Democrats came out in support of the DREAMERS' demand, saying they would vote against funding.
Now, that didn't stop a funding bill in late December from passing, but it certainly ginned up the DREAMERS influence in last week's government shutdown. The question now is whether that influence led Democrats to miss read polls and overplayed their hand. The polls, as you see, do show that American voters on both sides of the aisle support legislation to allow DREAMERS to remain in the U.S. legally, but experts say voters did not support shutting down the government to make that happen. But now, immigrants' rights activists are blasting Democrats for "retreating" on the shutdown and walking away with no concrete gains. Today, the White House offered this advice for those fighting for DACA. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think that they should storm Capitol Hill and protest there because that is the place that has held up this discussion. Democrats are the one that shot this discussion down by forcing a government shutdown. By being unwilling to fund the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Democrats have a much different take and say they are now hoping Republicans will live up to their end of the bargain to deal with the DREAMERS in good faith. Martha.
MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. I'm joined now by David Bossie, President of Citizens United, he was Trump's Deputy Campaign Manager, and is a Fox News Contributor; and Mark Penn, Chairman of the Harris Poll and a Former Presidential Pollster and Advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Gentlemen, welcome, good to see both of you today.
Mark, let me start with you. You heard the critics that were cited in Trace Gallagher's piece who say that they are shocked that the Democrats gave in so quickly on this idea that they wanted to go to the mat for.
MARK PENN, CHAIRMAN OF THE HARRIS POLL AND A FORMER PRESIDENTIAL POLLSTER: I think in the end Democrats come out here with a nice win. I think they raised the profile of the DACA issue so that it has to be on the table now, it can't be pushed down or ignored. I think that's a good thing. The mini shutdown in some ways worked. I was personally pleased that moderate Democrats pulled back before this went too long in the week. They made their point, they can't be ignored, and I think it was a success.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, polls show that people don't like a shutdown. They weren't enthusiastic about it. They didn't want DACA to be the reason for the shutdown. So, David, we saw that Joe Manchin and Doug Jones, the two senators from West Virginia and Alabama got together with the president today, and they say he was very upbeat that he wants very much to work with them. And he has set himself that he wants to find a path for the DACA recipients.
DAVID BOSSIE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND PRESIDENT OF CITIZENS UNITED: Look, we just have to go back a couple of weeks when the president had that bipartisan group in the White House. He said, send me a deal, and that deal was in the form of the Goodlatte Bill in the House of Representatives. They already have an outstanding bill that the president supports that gives us border security, the things that voters want, right? The build the wall, get rid of the chain migration, get rid of the ridiculous lottery system, but give those DREAMERS -- give the DACA recipients an opportunity to stay here with legal status and that's called a compromise. That's what the president supports. And that's what these -- that's this is so ridiculous. These Democrat leaders use these folks as a political pawn to try to score political points against the president, and the American people don't like a shutdown and I think they overplayed their hand.
MACCALLUM: Mark?
PENN: Well, look, I think they played their hand just right. I think had this gone on, it would've been a real problem for Democrats, but it didn't. Look, 77 percent in our polls support relief for DACA recipients, but it's also true that most people don't like the lottery, most people don't like chain migration, and most people really want to have strength and borders - -
MACCALLUM: And most people want more security on the border, which is --
BOSSIE: But most people -- a deal should be made here, but most people want Americans first, not putting illegals, people are here illegally ahead of them.
MACCALLUM: I think that was a very strong argument in all of this, especially when it comes to the military. I got a minute left. I want to put this poll up. This is a CNN poll. It shows that the Democratic advantage in the coming 2018 races has narrowed. 49 percent to 44 percent. The same poll last month showed Democrats ahead by 18 percent. What's your thought on that, Mark?
PENN: Well, look, I think the biggest change is that people -- in my poll two months ago, they opposed 2-1 the tax bill, now they are 1-1. I think the economy has been surging. I think those two factors probably are the reasons you see that kind of closing.
MACCALLUM: David?
BOSSIE: Without question, this economy -- we've already seen just in three weeks since the tax bill was passed, we'd seen hundreds of companies, millions of employees get the benefit of this tax plan without even seeing their taxes cut yet. So, these businesses are giving bonuses and raises, and 401(k) matches. The American people are seeing it and it's the economy is stupid, right? That's what we all learned 20-plus years ago and it's still true today. The Democrats used to be the party of the working men and women and they've given that all away to really have, you know, people like these DACA recipients that they put ahead of American workers.
MACCALLUM: I got to go, you remember it's the economy, stupid, Mark. I know you got a smile on your face. I remember those days. Thanks, you guys. It's really great to have both of you on. Thanks for being here.
PENN: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, still to come tonight, new details just released in the Las Vegas shooting massacre. But it's what's missing from that same report that is raising a lot of questions this evening. And millions of women take to the streets in protest of President Trump, but should it really be a celebration of what he's done for women over the past 12 months as some of the other sides is saying? It depends on who you ask. Tammy Bruce and Kathy (INAUDIBLE) here to debate it, coming up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How can we're not holding our president accountable?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think women are fed up. We want Trump gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So did you see the women's march over the weekend? More than a million people marching in the streets in the name of women's rights, but if you're watching on TV, at times it felt like it didn't have that much to do with women and perhaps had more to do, by some of the critics in the crowd, with President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anti-Trump protest across the nation, all on the president's one-year anniversary in office.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Hundreds of thousands of women marched across the country protesting the president.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: They're demanding women's rights and protesting the Trump presidency.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: The resistance was strong on Saturday with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across more than 250 cities taking to the streets to protest the Trump agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
MACCALLUM: But that was not how President Trump saw it. This is a tweet he sent out, beautiful weather all over our great country, a perfect day for all women to march. Get out there now and celebrate the historic milestones and unprecedented economic success and wealth creation that has taken place over the last 12 months. Lowest female unemployment in 18 years. Here now, Tammy Bruce, columnist for the Washington times and a Fox News contributor, and Cathy Areu is a liberal analyst and publisher of Catalina Magazine. Cathy, is he wrong about that?
CATHY AREU, CATALINA MAGAZINE PUBLISHER: He's a little wrong. His perceptions versus reality are a little off. Usually off. Yeah, his administration is mostly white men. We haven't seen so many white men in the White House since the Reagan days. So, women are making advances under his.
MACCALLUM: There's a lot of women at work in the White House, a lot.
AREU: Not as many as they did with Obama.
MACCALLUM: Here's my question for you on that, what difference does the number make?
AREU: We need to hear different voices. We need to hear women's voices and we're not hearing them under this administration.
MACCALLUM: But some men might represent women really well and some women might do a lousy job of it.
AREU: I'd rather have women represent us than men represent us.
MACCALLUM: Tammy?
TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Also, I guess then, you're going to be really prepared for a Nikki Haley presidency. It's good to know.
MACCALLUM: Or Condoleezza Rice
BRUCE: Or a Condoleezza Rice presidency.
AREU: I'd like that.
Tan: I think that the media certainly wanted that to be an anti-Trump movement. It clearly was because of the fact of the matter is facts are facts. And we do have the lowest unemployment rate for women in 18 years. We have $6.7 trillion entering into the economy because of the stock market and look, a lot of women and men have not been looking at the 401(K)'s for the last eight years. Go look, right. Go look at your IRA, your 401(K), because there's money there now. So, the economy is working for also small business owners. The majority of which are started by women and people of color. So, women's lives are benefiting now with the numbers of this march as well. The first one, of course, had millions of people. Even the New York Times admits that this was considerably lower. Women are realizing that they may not like him so much, but the fact is he's delivering on these economic promises that changed their lives.
MACCALLUM: I mean, Cathy, when you go back over the course of the women's movement you have the push for the vote, obviously very important, and then you have the women's movement in the '60s which broke down so many barriers.
AREU: Right.
MACCALLUM: What is the main goal of these women on this march do you think?
AREU: Well, the main goal they have said is immigration, women's rights. I mean, the Me Too Movement has just come about. So women are speaking up their feeling their power. And really, Trump has really inherited a wonderful administration from Obama, so a wonderful economy. So, thanks to Obama things are looking up. Trump really hasn't done anything but the tax reform.
MACCALLUM: I mean, that's very debatable, as you know. I do want to ask you something else before we get too deep into that. In terms of pro-life women and conservative women.
AREU: Right.
MACCALLUM: . they feel very alienated by this movement, that they're not welcomed. Why are they not welcomed?
AREU: Well, they had their march and the president does support their march, so I don't see why they feel alienated.
BRUCE: I don't think any of us think segregation in this country is worthwhile. We thought there's a civil rights movement and a civil war to end the segregation.
AREU: No, Trump is all for segregation.
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: We just talked about conservative women, women who are pro-life who aren't welcome. So, this is not about the expanse of the nature of women's lives of who we are, and there's the variety of who we are and the choices we might want to make. But when we talk about what Barack Obama left American women, 92 percent of the jobs lost in his first term belong to women. Extreme poverty among women was the highest ever recorded under Obama, and 3.7 million women under Obama entered poverty. So, if we look at the nature of what's good for women, women know it's about the pocketbook, about the choices they can make for their own family and their children. Not marching with hats on arguing for illegal immigration or.
AREU: What has Trump done for those women?
BRUCE: Everyone should look at their paychecks next month, look at your 401(K), your husband, your brother, yourselves, your children now have a job other than delivering pizza.
AREU: Oh, really?
BRUCE: These jobs that are being created are not part-time jobs, their real professional jobs.
AREU: No thanks to Trump. No thanks to Trump. I don't think he has anything to do with it.
BRUCE: So I guess it's the leprechauns then?
AREU: It's Obama's leftovers.
MACCALLUM: Thank you leprechauns. Thank you, ladies. Great to see you both.
BRUCE: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, the Patriots ticket to Super Bowl 52 is, of course, already being questioned as some claim that this video of a ref saying, hey, nice job, proves that Tom Brady cheated. And brand-new details just released tonight in the Las Vegas shooting. So many questions remain. But what is missing from this new report is raising a ton of new questions about who is not letting this information out. Bob Massi here with what the people of Las Vegas want to know.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I know and believe there was only one suspect who killed 58 people and injured hundreds more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Tonight, Nevada police have unveiled chilling new details about the worst mass shooting in our nation's history. Still, one major question remains unanswered in this report, why did Stephen Paddock do it and what evidence has not been released? Trace Gallagher, report live tonight from our west coast newsroom. Hi, Trace.
GALLAGHER: Hi, Martha. Investigators still don't know why Stephen Paddock did it, but they're now convinced that he did it alone. They say after conducting hundreds of interviews and scanning thousands of hours of surveillance video, there is no evidence at all that Paddock conspired with anyone. The Las Vegas metro police did release a bit of a bombshell by acknowledging that as part of the ongoing investigation, potential charges against someone else are now pending. As for the context on another possible suspect, police will only say it involves the FBI. And we now know that in the weeks and months leading up to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock did extensive research and not just on the concert venue outside the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Investigators say Paddock also did internet searches for the biggest open air concerts in the U.S. and for how crowded Santa Monica beach gets here in Los Angeles. Paddock's research included information on Las Vegas SWAT team tactics, as well as exactly what weapons and explosives police in Las Vegas use. And police did confirm that a week before the mass shooting, Paddock rented rooms at another venue in downtown Las Vegas that overlooked a different outdoor concert. Police say the shooting from the Mandalay Bay Hotel was well-planned and well hidden. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There was no suicide note, nor a manifesto left behind, no ideology or radicalization was discovered. We hope that the work continues to be done on this case, which usually paint a more complete psychological picture on why Paddock committed such evil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: And Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley, we're told will not be facing any charges. Martha.
MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Joining me now, Bob Massi, Las Vegas resident and Fox News legal analyst. Bob, good evening and thank you very much for being here tonight.
BOB MASSI, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening.
MACCALLUM: Your community has been through so much and we all continue to grieve with Las Vegas. You all need answers. Did you feel like you got them from Sheriff Lombardo?
MASSI: I was a little concerned the way that it was handled. There was a sense that he was reluctant to be there and probably was. And I think what was offensive to a lot of the community is when he was asked a question, where Steve Wilson, district attorney was of the FBI. And Steve Wilson is a great D.A., he's a great communicator. The way that he said was very terse. Well, I totally didn't have to be there. There was nothing -- he didn't bring any endearment to this. And I realize he was in a tough spot and this was a forced issue, but the bottom line is the silence has not helped the anxiety of the community. And the way this was handled I think could have been handled just a little more tender by the sheriff.
MACCALLUM: In terms of the evidence and what we have seen, and the lack of video, and the reports that he went back and forth, in and out, amassing more and more weapons and his cash over the course of this time at the Mandalay Bay, why is that?
MASSI: Yes. Well, a couple of things. When you read some of the timeline, he went between Las Vegas and Mesquite almost every day, including the day of the shooting. Now, Mesquite from Nevada is 77 miles north, small town. The amount of suitcases this guy brought up to the room, the fact that he got in through the service elevator, if you talk to some of the people there, and I have, they have said that many times that people who are VIP's that gamble get up through the service elevators. We already know from the civil side of this litigation what's going to happen, that's going to be something that they will concentrate on very much. But the fact that you could bring this many suitcases with one guy in a room, the room that he was in was under girlfriend's name. He requested certain things -- what time he gets food to be delivered, how he dead bolted the doors. All of these things you wonder why didn't something catch somebody's eye?
MACCALLUM: What about these civil cases, Bob?
MASSI: I've got to tell you, I've been in some litigation for 35 years. First of all, I think there's an unspoken word here, Martha, that the MGM may be controlling the editorial on this. I don't have personal knowledge of that. I love the MGM and the people they employ, and the men and women that work there in executive positions. I get it. But you and I are lawyers. We know, number one, this report was vetted very closely. We also know that the MGM's involvement in major litigation. From a civil perspective, some of the information even in this report is very helpful to the civil litigation because of the things you're bringing up tonight. How did this happen without somebody's eye -- if you remember when Mr. Wynn was on several months ago and he talked about their policy at the Wynn, and how service elevators aren't used, and how they do not disturb sign after 12 hours, somebody knocks on the door. Let me tell you something. These are the kinds of things that are going to be looked at in this kind of case from civil liability. The MGM is going to have one hell of a defense.
MACCALLUM: All right. We look forward to hearing more. I'm not a not a lawyer, but thanks for the degree, Bob. That's why we bring you on because you're the expert. Good to see you tonight, thank you, bob.
MASSI: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, the Patriots are headed to another Super Bowl after an amazing finish at the AFC championship. That was an amazing touchdown. I don't know how he caught that. But, anyway, is it rigged as some of the critics are saying? Eagles fan, Jesse Watters, enters "The Story" with me, Pat's fan. Don't miss this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Well, have you heard? The Patriots are going back to the Super Bowl, folks, but there's always controversy, of course. Now, there's these conspiracy theories that are flying tonight claiming that New England's AFC victory was rigged, of course, because they have no other defense, right? Some argue that the Pats received the fewest penalties in a playoff game in years. Well, yes, that's a fact. This video allegedly showing one of the referees -- oh, he did. He pats him on the back. He goes, hey, Tom Brady, greatest of all time, nice job. Jesse Watters, cohost of The Five and host of Watters World has entered my world now. It's a Patriots world.
JESSE WATTERS, "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Oh, no.
MACCALLUM: You're an Eagles fan.
WATTERS: I am.
MACCALLUM: You grew up in Philadelphia, I grew up in New Jersey, but I'm a Patriots fan.
WATTERS: I'm sorry to hear that.
MACCALLUM: I know how to take the grief.
WATTERS: How did you become a Patriots fan growing up in New Jersey?
MACCALLUM: Because part of my family hails from Massachusetts, and we go to Massachusetts in the summer. Plus, here's the other reason.
WATTERS: You're just not a frontrunner, is that it?
MACCALLUM: . it always ticks me off that the New York Jets and the New York Giants live in New Jersey, play in New Jersey, practicing New Jersey, and dissed New Jersey by calling themselves New York teams. I don't like that.
WATTERS: You're very smart because if you had a choice between being a Pats fan and a Jets fan I think you made the right decision.
MACCALLUM: I was a Jets fan as a kid, but they're my fallback team. Never the Giants. I rooted for the Patriots against the Giants.
WATTERS: You have a fallback team.
MACCALLUM: Two Super Bowls when they lost.
WATTERS: I don't have a fallback team, I just like the Eagles.
MACCALLUM: No. I'm a Patriots fan. If someday the Jets ever revived, you know, maybe I'll take another look at them.
WATTERS: Yeah. I'm not waiting for that.
MACCALLUM: Listen, so are you among these who think that the game was rigged?
WATTERS: No, but I see why people do think it's rigged because you guys are like crooked Hillary. You have a reputation for being crooked because you've done crooked things with spy-gate and deflate-gate. I actually think that deflate-gate was bogus, but spy-gate was real. But you know what? He's patting the guy. I don't think that's a big deal, but you guys are going to need all the help you can get from the referees in the two weeks when you face the Eagles.
MACCALLUM: This referee, Clete -- I forget his last name, but his first name was Clete, which was pretty cool for a referee, right?
WATTERS: Very funny.
MACCALLUM: Blakeman. They were worried, the Pats fans, because they said, oh, we have this guy, this guy is so bad. He always gives us the worst deal. So, I think he was just, you know, saying Tom, great job, he just wanted to make it clear that he's an impartial referee.
WATTERS: Impartial. Yeah, you guys did get a lot of nice calls, Martha. Let's be honest. You had the pass interference call, and then that fumble was obviously a fumble. That should have been a turnover.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Dion Lewis fell, the ball fell out of his hands. Pats fans were like, no, no, he had it, he had it. It went against them. That went against them and everybody accepted it.
WATTERS: I don't know, Martha. The pass interference down the sideline, that was critical. That was critical. And it was untouchable.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I think it's time we looked at (INAUDIBLE) you guys at home , I think so too? Honestly, this throw. It wasn't the best throw I've ever seen.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: He looks to see. He's looking at his feet, yes, I'm good, I'm in, I'm in.
WATTERS: Calm down. Listen, we didn't really have a lot of trouble taking our team out. I think it was 38-7. You guys barely hung on. I mean, you guys were losing the whole game. Ike it out with some nice calls from the refs.
MACCALLUM: I'm happy for you guys.
WATTERS: You guys need to practice for the next few weeks.
MACCALLUM: Because, A, you've never won a Super Bowl, right?
WATTERS: Yeah.
MACCALLUM: is that right?
WATTERS: Thanks for bringing that up, Martha.
MACCALLUM: And the last time you went you lost to the Patriots, right? That was 2005.
WATTERS: Can't argue with the fact. But listen, I'm not going to argue with that.
MACCALLUM: At least we're going to have a rematch. It is a good match. The Eagles and the Patriots is a, you know.
WATTERS: You know what? If the Eagles wins, I think you should wear an Eagles jersey on the set, how about that?
MACCALLUM: All right, I'll do that. I'll do it for the last block.
WATTERS: OK. And for my last block on The Five.
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: I won't be doing it, but for the interest of the wager.
Marth: Most important question of the night, do you think that just now we have convince management that you and I both need to go to the game.
WATTERS: Yeah, I think that's pretty clear. Send us.
MACCALLUM: We want to go.
WATTERS: Let's go.
MACCALLUM: All right. Jesse, may the best team win.
WATTERS: Good luck. It's going to be the Eagles.
MACCALLUM: We might have to do this again next week.
WATTERS: Let's do it.
MACCALLUM: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Finally tonight, we're remembering the woman known as the real life Rosie the riveter. Naomi Parker Fraley, seen here in this 1942 picture, working at a California factory. Doesn't she look awesome? Which is believed to be the inspiration for the famous poster showing a woman flexing her arms with a quote, we can do it. Fraley was 96-years-old and we will miss her. We will see you back here tomorrow night. Tucker is 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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox