Rove: Flynn's request for immunity is 'troubling'; Police union leader talks Trump's support of law enforcement

This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 30, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL THE FIRST 100 DAYS HOST: Breaking tonight, as the White House tries to turn the tide, could the Dems be breaking for Judge Gorsuch? Brand-new information tonight on the vote count on the democrat side, as Senator McCain says he's trying to push the nuclear option off the table. Can he get to eight yes from the democrats? That is one of just several big questions that are swirling on day 70.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, welcome to "The First 100 Days." Also tonight, the president back on Twitter this evening. He is looking for a win. He is pushing to get back onboard with health care and to turn the wheels on hugely popular tax reform. If Mark Meadows, he writes, "Jim Jordan and Raul Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts and reform." And another one, "Where are Rep. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and Raul Labrador? He is clearly targeting three individuals here, repeal and replace." He says #ObamaCare.

So, more to come on that. But first tonight, the White House intends to get on offense on this Russia story. Pushing Congress now to review new classified executive range of information that may put the new former Obama administration on the hot seat, they think. Until today, the only member of Congress to see that material was Devin Nunes, the chairman of the Intel Committee. Now, the White House wants to open it up to other Republicans and democrats to take a look for themselves.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We want them to look into this. There's a belief that the president has maintained that there was surveillance that occurred during the 2016 election. That was improper and that we want people to look into this and take the appropriate, legal, responsible steps to both understand it and then address it.


MACCALLUM: So, that offer was greeted with a heavy dose of skepticism from democrats. Watch this.


ADAM SCHIFF, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: There's no question that there is a cloud over the investigation. I'm more than perplexed by how these materials have been put forward. Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?


MACCALLUM: Chief national correspondent Ed Henry is here with more on this in our studio tonight from New York. Ed, a lot on the plate here.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Martha. And that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing kicked off with lofty vows to keep politics out of this whole Russia probe. That was probably a bit too late for that. First off all, Newsweek reporting that FBI Director James Comey want to go public last summer with an op-ed declaring that Russia was trying to meddle in the American election, but was blocked from blowing the whistle by top Obama officials like Susan Rice and John Kerry, clearly, raising questions about why the Obama White House stopped Comey if democrats were so offended by Russia attacking our democracy.

Remember, President Trump has claimed perhaps Obama officials were hiding surveillance of candidate Trump and his associates. That got some credence when Republican Devin Nunes came forward to say an unnamed whistleblower revealed, there had been surveillance of team Trump, and some names had been unmasked in violation of federal law. Though democrats like Adam Schiff that you just heard from are skeptical, given that Fox News has now confirmed two Trump White House staffers assisted Nunes in reviewing that intelligence on the grounds of the White House on March 21st.

Then, an even murkier story about someone named Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-American businessman known as 'Source D' and that Russian dossier of negative information about the president. The Washington Post reporting, Millian claims he has no such dirt. And former Trump adviser Carter Page told our own Catherine Herridge, the alleged dirt on him was fabricated.


CARTER PAGE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: The stuff about me is just literally, completely false in every way, shape, and form.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Do you know this former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele?

PAGE: I've never met him.


HENRY: Now, breaking tonight, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that former national security adviser, Mike Flynn, has offered to be interviewed by the senate and House committees, as well as the FBI in this whole probe and exchange for immunity from prosecution. What is interested is that we're learning tonight as well from the journal that so far, those congressional committees and the FBI have not accepted his offer of a deal. So, that suggests maybe they do not believe he has enough information that would put someone above him in trouble, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. Ed Henry with the latest there. Here with more, tonight, Karl Rove is with us, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush and a Fox News Political Contributor and Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five" and a Fox News political analyst. Gentlemen, welcome. Good you have you here tonight.

HENRY: Thank you

MACCALLUM: A lot of intrigue and this news that just broke a few moments ago, which Ed was talking about. And Karl, I want to get your thoughts on this. Mike Flynn saying that he will testify, but he would like immunity. What does that tell you?

KARL ROVE, FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH SENIOR ADVISER: That tells me his lawyers have told him, "You either have an exposure, or if you don't have exposure, let's get some suspenders and belts on you, nonetheless. I thought it was an unusual gesture on his part. One, it was OK for him to step forward to say I'll testify. I'd be happy to meet with him, but the request for immunity I thought was really troubling.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it looks as if, you know, if he testifies, he's either going to have immunity or he could plead the fifth. I mean, you know, that's how this is eventually going to go. Juan, what is your thought on what might Flynn is looking for here?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL THE FIVE HOST: I think we've seen a pattern. Just to reiterate what Karl said, though, I think this is troubling in terms of the idea of his involvement and his exposure. I just think that this means that there is some.

But secondly, I think it's a part of a larger pattern in which we've seen now Paul Manafort, Carter Page offer to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and we know that that's part of the effort that Devin Nunes was caught up in, apparently led by the White House, to share information with Nunes, to get people before the committee. Apparently, you know, to try to, I would say, derail the committee, but possibly to throw up smoke in defense of the Trump campaign.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, they're sort of - you know, when you get to the bottom of this, Karl, there are two things that are in play here. One is, is there any proof at all that the Trump administration or anybody, you know, prior to that during the campaign had relationships with anyone in Russia where they were trying to sort of aid them in their effort to manipulate the election? Now, that's on one side.

The other side, did the Obama administration look for ways, once they were, you know, completely shocked, as was - as were many people in the country, looked for ways to undermine the Trump administration on their way out the door by surveilling people when they shouldn't have been surveilling them and unmasking their names to reveal them to try to basically throw wrenches into the wheels of this new administration?

ROVE: Yes. Look, we don't have any evidence of collusion between people in the Trump campaign and the Russians. Democrats, like Adam Schiff, keep suggesting there might be, but I think we need to let the - particular the senate investigation to go forward, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. But so far, no evidence of collusion whatsoever. On the second question he raised, there is an important distinction. What we do think we know is according to multiple reporting, that there was surveillance of people who were not Russians in late in the campaign and after the campaign, foreign officials who were - who were subjects of FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants and in those conversations, swept up not Russians. We've got several confirmations that it's not Russians, they talked about their contact with people in the Trump campaign and the Trump transition, and their attempts to develop relationships with them.

Let me just tell you, having been through this myself in 2000, 2001, after the election, both sides, during the campaign are the - are the object of people trying to develop relationships with them, and after the campaign, everybody is trying to climb over the walls. So, what we do know is though is that the names of the people in the Trump transition and the Trump campaign, that were contacted by these foreign officials are unmasked in the documents. That is really troubling. Under the - under the federal law, that is an offense that if you unmasked the name of a U.S. official or a U.S. individual who's not the subject of a warrant, who's not the subject of surveillance, that incidental contact, that is - that you can go to jail for 10 years. And somebody apparently unmasked a lot of those names.

MACCALLUM: All right. Quickly, Juan -

WILLIAMS: But I just wanted to pick up on what Karl was saying, Martha, that, I think, from what I'm hearing that this may have been a conversation among Russians, for example, and that the unmasking even -

ROVE: Not among Russians. They -


WILLIAMS: It could be. It could be. But the point is that it was a legal warrant for the surveillance, some unintentional collection, or you're trapping of American names or American voices and that the unmasking as we're hearing, I think is really secondary. But I don't think that there's any question that it was unintentional, and you'd have to look at it and you could figure out, you could deduce who these people were.

ROVE: Oh, no. Listen, this has to be -

WILLIAMS: But let me finish. I think that -- I think -

ROVE: This has to be intentional. This has to be intentional.

WILLIAMS: I don't think it was intentional. But I think that's not the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand was that Obama administration trying to protect the idea that Russia interfered in our democratic process. Dick Cheney said recently, this was an act equivalent to war against the United States. That's how serious this was.


ROVE: Yes. Look, there's no - there's absolutely no disagreement on my part that the Russians tried to interfere in the election. The question is, are the democratic charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, has there been any evidence? And the answer is no. And Juan, don't be so quick - don't be so quick to pass over unmasking those names. It takes a deliberate act. This - when that comes through the NSA, that name gets masked automatically. It takes a special action by the officials to unmask it.

WILLIAMS: I agree.

MACCALLUM: And we know that there was a (INAUDIBLE) when we heard about it from the Obama administration.

ROVE: And there had to be - and there had - that's right. And it had to be intentional and it was likely not to have been done at the NSA, it was like to have been done in the -


ROVE: You go to jail - you go to jail for 10 years for doing that.


WILLIAMS: -- the magnitude of Russia interfering in our democratic process.

MACCALLUM: They're still going at it. We'll bring them back. All right. So, also tonight, and breaking in, in the last few hours, two democratic senators now say that they will support President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Dr. Charles Krauthammer here to tell us, if more don't join them, the democrats will suffer a political debacle perhaps of epic proportions, which is why some of them are now changing their minds.

Also, the latest battle over sanctuary city policies in the country includes public naming and shaming of municipalities, cities where this is being done. What do you think about that? And a story largely missed, earlier this week, President Trump held a very important meeting with police leaders from across the country. And now, those leaders are here to explain what the president is doing to bring law and order back to the nation.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, Judge Neil Gorsuch's chances to serve on the highest court in the land looking slightly rosier, I guess you could say this evening, as two democratic senators announced late today, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp that they will vote for President Trump Supreme Court pick. Basically saying that (INAUDIBLE) is part of their roles, and they believe that they should follow through on that. They are both up for re-election and they both represent states where Donald Trump won handily. Missouri's Claire McCaskill had a similar situation on her hands, and she is sending a bit of a warning to her fellow democrats about how they proceed.


CLAIRE MCCASKILL, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MISSOURI: Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we turn down Gorsuch. So, they pick another one off the list, and then they bring it over to the Senate and we say, no, no, no, this one's worse. They're not going to let us do that too long before they it to 51 votes. God forbid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, or Kennedy retires, or Breyer has a stroke, or is no longer able to serve. Then, we're not talking about Scallia for Scalia. We're talking about Scalia for somebody on the court who shares our values.


MACCALLUM: Bad news for some of those folks who now (INAUDIBLE) Dr. Charles Krauthammer joins us now. He is Fox News Contributor, of course, and the author of "Things That Matter". Charles, good evening to you. Good to have you here tonight. So, what do you make of how this is going?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: My pleasure. Well, I think McCaskill should be a pundit. Her analysis is exactly right. I think she's warning her party, they're a little bit heady because of the victory of sorts that they have had on health care, and they're feeling their oats. They don't have a lot of votes in this. Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court, no matter what. The only question is, will it require 51 or 60 votes. There's -- it would make no sense at all for democrats to force Mitch McConnell to abolish the filibuster if the democrats do not produce eight votes to -- for closure, meaning ending the debate.

So, you've got to have eight Democrats who agree not to support Gorsuch, but simply to end the filibuster. If they don't produce that, they're going to get an abolition of the filibuster. And the reason this is all important, the debates now, the argument now, the tussle now is not about Gorsuch. Everyone knows he's going on the court. It's about the next nominee. If the democrats force the hand of McConnell on this vote, abolish the filibuster, needing only 51 next time around, when you might even have a liberal seat going up. Then if it's only 51, the Republicans would be tempted to go for a far more hard-edged conservative than Gorsuch is. And that would be a self-inflicted wound by the democrats.

MACCALLUM: Indeed. I also want to put up a tweet from President Trump earlier today when he really went after the Freedom Caucus. He says, "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. We must fight them and Dems in 2018!" He wants to get back to work on health care, he wants to get to work on tax reform. What do you think of the message that he's sent in today?

KRAUTHAMMER: It's the kind of thing you do when you're deadlocked in a real estate deal and you want to scare the PGBs out of the other side. It doesn't work in politics. These guys in the Freedom Caucus are in very secure sets. They also are ideologically, philosophically serious people who believe, and they actually oppose the president on principle. It was not a political move. In fact, it would have been a lot easier to go with the presidents. So, this is not going to move them. And unless the president is willing to go entirely over to the democratic side, meaning to go for a repair of ObamaCare, improvement on ObamaCare, and perhaps even to a single-payer system, there is no way he is going to get enough democrats to allow him to get a health care reform. His only plate is Republicans and he's not that far away, at least Paul Ryan is not, in getting them to sign up. This is going to make it harder, rather than easier.

MACCALLUM: Well, here's Paul Ryan on this whole idea earlier today. Let's watch.


PAUL RYAN, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER: If we don't do this, then he'll just go work with democrats to try and change ObamaCare, and that's not going to - that's hardly a conservative thing. But if this Republican Congress allows the perfect to be the enemy of good, I worry will push the president into working with democrats.


MACCALLUM: I mean, he says, look, you've got your principles, members of the Freedom Caucus, but this is the most conservative deal that we're going to get, or, you know, it'll get adjusted in the Senate, but this is it.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think Ryan is right, it is the most conservative deal. It's possible you could tweak it slightly, but I think the Freedom Caucus ought to decide, allow this to go through, toss it over to the Senate. It's likely that the democrats will kill it in the Senate, in which case, you've got a good national debate, and the democrats are going to have to defend themselves, particularly in September when ObamaCare increases, the spike in the premiums is going to happen, and you are going to have a great diminution of the nostalgia for ObamaCare that you have now.

So, I think tactically, the president has nowhere to go on this. Chuck Schumer sent the president a letter saying, "Oh, we'd love to work with you, but first, you have to say you're not repealing ObamaCare," which, of course, a way to humiliate him.

MACCALLUM: Good luck with that. Charles, always good to see you. Thank you very much.

KRAUTHAMMER: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: So, tonight, some revolting reaction actually to the Pence's rules for their own personal happy marriage, as the vice president and his wife suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of tweets like this. "Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam, Sharia Law, mocked by people like Mike Pence?" There's more where that came from. We're going to debate their marriage and the reaction to it, coming up ahead.

Plus, the battle over sanctuary cities intensifies tonight as ICE releases its second public report, naming and shaming jurisdictions that fail to comply with federal law. David Wohl and Matt Bennett, up next.


MACCALLUM: The story developing tonight, the Trump administration using the public forum to take aim at sanctuary cities, as U.S. immigrations and enforcement -- and customs enforcement begins publishing something that the president promised he would do. It is a weekly report that lists and names and shames, you could say, jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal authorities and federal law. Some cities reacting to the president's push with legal action. Seattle has now filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for its threat to withhold funds. Gregg Jarrett has the story for us tonight from New York. Hi, Gregg.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Hi, Martha. Cities across the United States standing up now against the federal government, arguing it's their right to decide which illegal immigrants get deported, which get to stay, and not the federal government. The White House disagrees, and the Department of Homeland Security is shaming uncooperative communities by publicly disclosing which cities are the worst violators, those refusing to honor a detainer, which means to hold an inmate for 48 hours to give ICE time to come pick them up. In one week alone, ICE tried to deport almost 3,000 illegal immigrants arrested for or convicted of crimes, while the top 10 sanctuary cities, they released almost 600 criminal illegal immigrants.

Among the worst, Los Angeles releasing 162 undocumented inmates. New York City, Kern Country which is Bakersfield, California, Clark County, Nevada, which is Las Vegas and San Diego. Now, the crimes included assault, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, DUI, drug possession, but the mayor of Los Angeles defended letting them out.


ERIC GARCETTI, UNITED STATES MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES: We want ICE to be focused on those violent criminals, not on the grandmother who has overstayed her welcome or has too many parking tickets.


JARRETT: Well, some cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, have a blanket policy not to honor an ICE detainer, period, regardless of the crime. Others say it won't honor it unless the inmate is charged with a serious violent crime like murder or a gang member. Others require an arrest warrant signed by a judge. Well, today, Martha, Seattle sued the Trump administration over the president's threat to withhold federal funds from Sanctuary cities, claiming the Feds are commandeering local law enforcement in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Feds say, "Wait, a minute. We're not commandeering anybody. We're simply trying to get the cities to cooperate with the Federal Immigration authorities as the statutory law passed by Congress demands." Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Gregg. Here with more, David Wohl, attorney and supporter of President Trump; and Matt Bennett is co-founder of Third Way and former deputy assistant to President Clinton. Welcome, gentleman, good to have you both here tonight.



MACCALLUM: David, let me start with you. I know President Trump, he means business, he plans to follow through with this, right?

WOHL: Right. Absolutely. No question about it. You know, these mayors, by the way, Martha, have decided to prioritize protecting criminal aliens over protecting the innocent citizens that they prey on. We -- if you remember, we aired that exclusive story about my client whose fiance was killed by a criminal alien who had been deported five times, who had a rap sheet a mile long, and the reality was, he did nothing about it. This mayor, instead of reacting in a way a mayor - a responsible mayor should react, he wrapped up his rhetoric about sanctuary cities, protecting the criminal aliens and making L.A. into a sanctuary city, and ramped up his efforts to obstruct the federal authorities in deporting them. Just stunning.

And, you know, this is going on within cities all across the country. In L.A., it's probably the worst I've seen. And the reality is, in the 10th Amendment lawsuit that was brought -- that Gregg just talked about, that's basically means that power is not specifically delegated to federal authorities, are left to the states, but immigration is delegated to the federal authorities. That's the stunning part about it. That this is going to be a huge loss to the States in the end.

MACCALLUM: It seems to me, Matt, that the argument is always him -- we just heard it from Eric or said the mayor of Los Angeles. You know, oh, they want to kick grandmothers out of their house, but then when you look at the list of what they are documenting in terms of the crimes that are being committed, it's not that. It's burglary, it's theft, it's, you know, assault. It seems along those lines. I don't understand why there seems to be such a divide over what is actually being discussed here.

WOHL: Yes, it's a good question, Martha. And I think -- all due respect to the mayor, I don't think that's the strongest argument against what Attorney General Sessions and the federal government is doing. Rather, you know, don't believe the mayor or me, listen to law enforcement. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police. Both the chiefs and the line-level cops are saying do not take money from these cities that go to law enforcement. Do not impose these kinds of rules because --

MACCALLUM: But the money doesn't have to be taken away if they follow the law. That's the point

BENNETT: I know, but there's another point which is that if the law is enforced this way, they are getting much less cooperation in the Latino and Hispanic communities and it will make the cities more dangerous.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know that that's widely disputed.

DAVID WOHL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTER: That's just garbage. That's just not true.

BENNET: Well, it's fine for you to say it's not true but that is with the chiefs say and I'm going to believe the chiefs over you, with all due respect.

WOHL: Here's one reality. Here's the problem nobody knows about. The chief of LAPD for example serves at the will of the mayor. If the mayor decides to fires him, he will be fired. That's the shocking thing. Also, there is a U-visa it's called available to victims of crimes, available witnesses of crimes, which could be should be given to them to protect them from deportation if they cooperate.

That's available that's not ever talked about. That's the reality and by the way, Jeff Sessions is real about this. There is going to be an effort to defund cities of hundreds of millions of dollars and my guess is, that's what it's going to take to finally get them --


MACCALLUM: We know that there people who live in these communities who some who are illegal immigrants, some who are legal immigrants, who want their community to be safe from people like this, from people who do these kinds of things --

BENNETT: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: -- that happened to his client. So, you know, --

BENNET: Blunt force (ph).

MACCALLUM: -- that makes it a tougher argument, doesn't it?

BENNETT: Listen, there is a saying that undoubtedly David heard in law school, which is hard cases make bad law. Of course there are going to be people who commit terrible crimes and do terrible things in big cities and in small cities. That happens everywhere dozens of times a day. The problem--

MACCALLUM: And you can narrow that population by having people who are criminal illegal aliens not here.

BENNETT: But law enforcement says it is more infective for them to operate the way they always have operated so that they get cooperation from these communities. It is making their cities less safe --

WOHL: Well, that sure apply with the --

MACCALLUM: We got to leave it there.

WOHL: That didn't do my client's fiance, any good. She is now 6 feet under because of that lack of cooperation with the federal government. This is tragic and it's got to end.

MACCALLUM: The client, he was rejected from the country five times and let back in very similar to Kate Steinle case, which we have been following David's case for a while. Thank you, gentlemen. Matt and David, good o see you always.

So still ahead tonight, there are some brand-new developments in another very rough case. The Rockville rape case, as the defensive for one of the suspects forces an emergency bond hearing today. So we're going to tell you what happened with Jose Montano today when we come back.

Plus, a critical meeting between the president and police leaders, as the law & order president, as he has called himself, gets down to business. This is a story you haven't heard so stick around for this. The Fraternal Order of Police president Chuck Canterbury was in that room. He'll join us and tell us what happened.


MACCALLUM: President Trump making another sharp departure from the Obama era. He met with law enforcement leaders and basically doubled down on his campaign promise to restore federal support for police that was largely withheld, some would say, or the tone was very different in the last administration. Here he is.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will work every day to remove the gang members, drug dealers, and violent criminals from your communities, and we already are. My highest duty as president is the security of our people, the security of our nation.


MACCALLUM: Chuck Canterbury is the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, and he was among the officials who you saw around that table with the president. Good to have you here tonight, Chuck. Welcome.


MACCALLUM: Good to have you here. What would you say is the biggest difference that you see under President Trump with regard to these issues?

CANTERBURY: I think it's the whole tone that he takes that he wants to support the police officers on the street that have an impact on crime. And he is a true believer that we need to get back to the policing strategies that work in the '90s, when police officers were on their beat. They knew their neighborhoods. But he understands that there is a tremendous staffing problem.

He also wants us to work in a collaborative effort with the federal government instead of adversarial role that we sometimes saw under the Justice Department with Attorney General Holder. He wants to get into a collaborative type mode and we're very supportive of that.

MACCALLUM: So one of the things that's changing is that some of the heavy equipment, some of its military equipment that's no longer used by the military that was pushed to local law enforcement, and after Ferguson and some of the riots and some of the, you know, the backlash that we saw during that period, the Obama administration clawed back that equipment. They didn't want on the streets anymore. They thought it presented the wrong front for that local police. That equipment is going to come back. Is that able good thing or a bad thing do you think?

CANTERBURY: Well, it's a good thing in many respects. First of all, all of this equipment is demilitarized. There are no offensive weapons involved, the Humvees in the BearCats are not armed vehicles. They are armored vehicles. And you could ask the people in San Bernardino, the people that came out of the Pulse Club in Orlando, the people that were saved from the floods in New Orleans three or four weeks ago, that were saved with this equipment, with equipment that's already been paid for.

It saves taxpayers money. It's vital equipment and it provides that equipment to state and local agencies that couldn't afford. So it's good equipment.

MACCALLUM: Chuck Canterbury, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight, sir. Thanks for coming in. Here now, Gary McCarthy, the former superintendent of the Chicago Police Department and Dr. Wendy Osefo who is a professor at St. John's -- at John Hopkins, excuse me, university. Good to have both of you here tonight.

You've been listening to the debate and discussion that is going on. Gary, let me start with you. Do you think these policies are going to make the job of police officers across the country easier?

GARY MCCARTHY, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, CHICAGO POLICE: Absolutely Martha. You know, unfortunately, there was a lot of political knee-jerk reaction that happened in the last administration and much of it really to the detriment of law enforcement. I can tell you this, just like Chuck just said, those BearCats, we use them here in Chicago two years ago, when we had an active shooter situation. I had a captain who was shot in the head and the shoulder.

Fortunately, he survived. And I also had a detective who was shot in the leg. There was an active scene with a hot zone. We used those armored vehicles to remove people from inside the hot zone. Now, having said that, you know, we all looked at what happened in Ferguson and certainly I was a very vocal critic of the way it was handled. You don't put S.W.A.T. officers on the front line at a protest. You don't put an officer with a rifle up on top of a BearCat, pointing that rifle into a crowd because we can turn a protest into a riot.

It doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater. It means that you put standards on how you use it and make sure that they use it in that fashion. We need that equipment especially talking about terrorism because those guys don't bring .22 revolvers to terroristic scenes.

MACCALLUM: Let's see what Dr. Osefo has to say because you're shaking your head. What are you thinking?

WENDY OSEFO, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: No, what I'm thinking, my first thought is that we are talking about militarization of police officers in our own country and the truth of the matter is that when you look at the statistics, individuals who are harmed by police officers, it's 35 percent. On average, it's 35 people who are killed, whereas with police officers, it's only on average 27.

So, the question is who are we looking to protect here? And I too was also on the ground in Baltimore. I was there during the Baltimore uprising due to the death of Freddie Gray. And quite frankly, when you have a military like equipment, it only agitates the situation, it only makes it worse and that's not what we want to do.

MCCARTHY: I think I just said that.

MACCALLUM: Right, yes you did. Gary just said that.

OSEFO: Exactly, but what President Obama did, was he removed this so we could start building relationships with police and the community. So to bring this back out completely negates that.

MACCALLUM: Here is one of the issues that I want to ask you about Wendy before we run out of time. You know, there are a lot of people in places like Chicago and other cities where the crime rate has risen, who really are happy that there is an increased law enforcement presence on their streets, because there was a pullback.

A lot of officers, you know, claim that after the Black Lives Matter movement and after a lot of what happened, which was a horrific situation in many ways that it made them pull back. That's not good for people who live in these communities. Do you agree?

OSEFO: It's not good for people who live in the community, but in the same respect, the ways in which we stop crime is not to militarize our police. It's to have tougher gun control laws, it's to have jobs for youth. So instead of them picking up a gun, they are able to have a job. In Chicago, it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a job. That should not be the case. We cannot fix broken cities through the implementation of broker national policies. That is just the truth of the matter.

MACCALLUM: Let me get the last thought from you Gary. Go ahead.

MCCARTHY: They're not uprisings, those were riots.

OSEFO: They were uprisings, Gary.

MCCARTHY: They were riots.

OSEFO: They were uprisings.

MCCARTHY: Criminal activity -- criminal activity. Look, using the equipment doesn't mean that it's being used against civilians. It's being used to protect police officers, which I don't think is a bad thing.

OSEFO: In your own city, Gary, the Department of Justice found that you guys do not have good tactics. They found that you guys resort to deadly violence. And so quite frankly --

MCCARTHY: I've already addressed that DOJ report. Don't talk about that. You actually don't know what you're talking about.

OSEFO: I do know what I'm talking about Gary. I know that Laquan McDonald was killed.

MACCALLUM: Dr. Wendy Osefo, thank you. Gary McCarthy we got to come (ph) in there because of time but we'll have you back. Thank you very much.

All right. Other news breaking tonight, an emergency bond hearing today for one of the suspects in that Rockville High School rape case, after his defense team claimed to have new evidence that shows that he is innocent they say. We got the details breaking this evening inside the courtroom. We will take you there live.

Plus, after a profile piece revealed that Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen have rules shall we say or things they try to follow in their own marriage to stay together. They were mocked for the arrangement that has produced a 32-year long union. Jessica Tarlov and Lisa Boothe coming up on that, next.


MACCALLUM: All right, so Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, have been married for 32 years. So what is their secret? A "Washington Post" piece sought to find the answer. It revealed the vice president's commitment among other things -- there's a lot on this piece but one of the things was that he said, "Well, I don't go out for dinner like a business dinner with another woman alone, and when I am at an event where there is alcohol, I prefer to have my wife with me. I don't go to that if she is not with me."

Instead of celebrating the ground rules that have led to over three decades of marital bliss, the Twitterverse as you can imagine promptly weighed in with disgust. Pitchfork Phillips (INAUDIBLE), you know, OK. That's his name asked, "So, the GOP is up in arms over Sharia Law, yet Mike Pence won't have a business meal with a woman that's not his wife. Sure, that checks out." Another remarked, "refusing to dine with woman alone or drink at events without his wife present isn't "respectful," it's "Don't trust me."

Joining me with more, Lisa Boothe, Fox News contributor and president of High Noon Strategies and Jessica Tarlov, is a Democratic pollster and senior research director. Mollie Hemingway wrote a great piece on this in "The Federalist" today. And I just want to share with you what she said. She said, "Anyway Mike Pence is not a monster for not dining privately with women who are not his wife. What about not boozing it up at parties unless she is around? Not only is he not a monster, he sounds like he is a smart man who understands that infidelity is something that threatens every marriage and must be guarded against." He is safeguarding his marriage, Jessica.

JESSICA TARLOV, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: I agree with Mollie in so far as I think that every couple should work out what works best for them and I think if you can make it 32 years with someone, I mean I at maximum made it three years and that was exhausting.



TARLOV: Totally, and I eat alone with men all the time who are not my boyfriend. But I think there is, not to be too liberal about this or to be extreme. There is a larger point here about men in powerful positions, not necessarily mentoring women. There was a Harvard Business Review study about this that actually come to 64 percent of men in executive positions were opposed to mentoring women in junior positions, which does help with career advancement and through an affair.

MACCALLUM: I mean, that's a one-on-one thing now. I mean, there's no reason why he wouldn't be mentoring -- there's a lot of women at the White House.

TARLOV: But a lot of people go for dinner -- for business meetings, you know, if you're --

MACCALLUM: I think he would go with a few people perhaps.

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Your point Martha and I think the fact that they've been married for 32 years and, you know, the probability of a divorce is 40-50 percent, may be more Americans should be paying attention to people that have successful marriages. And it sounds like they want to avoid some of the pitfalls. It happened to a lot of politicians and there's a lot of distance from their wives. Clearly, he has an immense amount of respect for here and they have a relationship both on trust and their faith, as well, Christianity.

And to compare this to Sharia Law is absurd. We're talking about countries that have Sharia Law where spousal rape is okay. And if you actually read the profile piece, what it talks about is the fact that Karen Pence, he has an immense amount of respect for her. She sits in on meetings. She goes to these foreign trips with him, as well. That she is his prayer warrior. That she is his gut check. So if you actually read the profile piece, she's a very strong woman that he relies upon immensely in her decision-making and her discernment.

MACCALLUM: -- point because they pulled up this one bit, you know, about dining and going out. And he was funny about this going out thing. At one point he said something like, "You know, if I will have a drink in my hand I want to be with, you know, the most beautiful brunette I know, which is --

TARLOV: Yes. It's love, I mean --

MACCALLUM: But there are so much more in this piece. So, in the Twitterverse that we live in, this one item, which basically went to them saying, you know, we believe. We need to be together as much as possible.

TARLOV: Which is a fantastic thing and you want to hear that from everybody and certainly people that you're supposed to look up to. Politicians are supposed to be role models and you know, we --

MACCALLUM: And so many of them are.

TARLOV: So many --


BOOTHE: But I also think it it's kind of sad because you have this great profile piece about what a remarkable women that she is and how influential she is in his life, both, you know, professionally and just in his personal life as well, and then yet, this one tweet is what gets so much attention. I also do want to point out my parents have been married 37 years, also a relationship built on faith and trust. But yes, I mean it's just --

MACCALLUM: Congratulations.

BOOTHE: I just got to mention because they're watching. It's just sad that you know, somehow this tweet is what caught storm when there's, as you mention, so much more to the piece.

MACCALLUM: I mean, obviously, you know, they have very Christian relationship.

TARLOV: Right.


TARLOV: A big element in this.

MACCALLUM: This is not necessarily what everyone else does. But you have to respect them --

TARLOV: I think so.

MACCALLUM: -- and not trash them all over twitter, anyway.

TARLOV: Well, my parents also just 34 years, mom and dad, amazing job.

MACCALLUM: We'll get there one day.


MACCALLUM: All right, we'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: Some important developments tonight in the case out of Rockville, Maryland, which we have been keeping a close eye on. One of the suspects in the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl inside a high school bathroom was granted a bond review hearing today. His defense team seeking an emergency release of their 17-year-old defendant after they say new evidence proved his innocence. Doug McKelway joins us with what went on in the courtroom.

DOUG MCKELWAY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening Martha. We are at Montgomery County School Headquarters where a small protest is underway right now. And this is just a few miles where earlier today, a circuit court judge in Montgomery County denied the defense's request to release one of the suspects in this case, 17-year-old Jose Montano, to release him under supervision. Here is the state's attorney, John McCarthy.


JOHN MCCARTHY, STATE ATTORNEY: Other than the fact of the bond review was denied, the defendant is being held on a no bond status. I have no additional comment to make about this case at this time.


MCKELWAY: That after defense attorneys came into possession of a series of text messages between Montano and his 14-year-old accuser that were sent the day before the alleged rape. The text messages, which the defense maintains casts serious, serious doubt on the prosecution's case.


MARIA MENNA, ATTORNEY FOR JOSE MONTANO: She lied to the detective and left material information out. So, why would you believe anything after that?


MCKELWAY: In today's hearing, prosecutors introduce their own new evidence from electronic communications between Montano and Henry Sanchez-Milian, the other rape defendant. The prosecution describes one exchange, "Once she is nude, you come in and threaten her with telling a teacher, so she will put out." The prosecution claims that another text messages between the two defendants claims to show them flashing MS13 gang signs but the defense for one of the defendants vehemently denies that they are gangbangers.


ANDREW JEZIC, ATTORNEY FOR HENRY SANCHEZ-MILIAN: My client completely denies being associated with a getting a gang in anyway.


MCKELWAY: In the end, faced with a request to release Montano, the judge said he was not persuaded. He said that they encounter again in the hallway the day of the rape and not the day before with text messaging. He also said that the invitation for sex was for one defendant, not both of them. Martha back to you.

MACCALLUM: Doug McKelway on that, and before we leave you tonight, on this day in 1981, 36 years ago, President Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly assassinated. John Hinckley, Jr. shot the 40th president in these moments that none of us will ever forget as they left the Washington Hilton. Reagan was rushed to the E.R. at George Washington University hospital.

Once there, the head of trauma, Dr. Joe Giordano, treated the president on that fateful day and he says in the middle of all of that, the president managed to crack a joke. And that is our quote of the evening. "When we took him to the operating room, he looked up at me and said, I hope you're all Republicans, and I said, today, we're all Republicans, Mr. President." Good night, everybody. O'Reilly is up next with his interview with Jeff Sessions. See you tomorrow.

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.