Rumors swirl of imminent White House shake-up

close

Video

Rumors swirl of imminent White House shake-up

Questions surround the future of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen; reaction and analysis from Fox News contributors Ari Fleischer, Jason Chaffetz and Jessica Tarlov.

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

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: All right, breaking tonight, official word now that the deputy national security advisor, Mira Ricardel is out.

The first lady's office made it clear yesterday that she was on rocky ground, and we are now learning that John Bolton was in Asia, and unaware that the acts was about to fall on his second in line. And tonight, the homeland security secretary just wrapped up a tour on the border with the defense secretary. There may be an effort underway to keep her in her position. But the rumors are swirling, as they often do.

Sometimes it means the movie is coming, sometimes it doesn't. The president ignoring questions today about all of this at the White House this afternoon, and that is where our correspondent Leland Vittert stands by for us this evening. Hi, Leland.

LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Martha, as pointed out, oftentimes, it is so difficult to tell which comes first. The rumors about somebody being on the chopping block, or them actually being on the chopping block.

Kirstjen Nielsen, though, clearly is on very much shaky ground tonight.  President Trump speaking to The Daily Caller in an interview today. "I will be making a decision on homeland," meaning, homeland security secretary, "shortly. I have not made decision, yet. I will be making changes on various things."

It's widely understood that the president is less than happy with how she is dealing with the caravan. The question remains over how long chief of staff John Kelly will remain in his post. Kelly and Nielsen are very close that same interview, when asked about Kelly, the president quickly responded, "Always in an administration after the midterms, we make changes."

The leading public contender to replace Kelly is Nick Ayers, who currently serves as the vice president's chief of staff. Unclear what, if any, roll the first lady has playing in the staff shake-up. But despite her unambiguous statement yesterday about Mira Ricardel, of the National Security Council. Here's the statement, "It is the position of the office of the first lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in the White House."

Now, a source tells Fox News that the first lady was merely expressing her opinion, not calling on Ricardel to be fired. There was a reported falling out between the first lady's office and Ricardel over Mrs. Trump's recent trip to Africa.

The statement from the first lady's office came out while Ricardel's boss, national security advisor John Bolton, was out of the country. Adding to the chaos of such an unprecedented statement from the East Wing. From the West Wing this evening, in the past 45 minutes, "Mira Ricardel will continue to support the President as she departs the White House to transition to a new role within the administration.

Martha, unclear what that role is going to be, and this has you wondering whose job at the White House is safe? You are not alone among those even who work in the West Wing.

MACCALLUM: Leland, thank you very much. So, joining me now by Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. Jason Chaffetz, former House Oversight Committee chairman. And Jessica Tarlov, director of research at muscle.com. All are Fox News Contributors.

Ari, let me start with you, you have worked in the West Wing, what do you read here in these tea leaves?

ARI FLEISCHER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, let me make two points. Number one, most Americans don't know the names of anybody who works at the White House, probably on the president and vice president, and they don't care.

MACCALLUM: Very true.

FLEISCHER: They just care about the decisions that are made. Second point, this is one chaotic White House. And I have never in my life, as much as I've gotten used to the chaos of the Trump White House, seeing a first lady have to go public and issue a statement, and I'm just stunned that this wasn't handled privately. That it reached the boiling point where she felt the need to go out. And she something publicly, as does she had to lobby publicly --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, but she's far from the first lady -- from the first, first lady Ari, who has expressed through this pleasure. Hillary fired the entire travel team, and there are other examples.

FLEISCHER: But she just did it. And it was she -- it was -- it was not as she put out a press statement urging for it to be done, and that backfired on Hillary.

My point is here, first ladies have tremendous power, they have the power of talking to the president, and then the president makes that power felt.  In this instance, I don't know why she had to go public. It tells me she went to the president, he didn't do it, and yet, she still had to go public. That's chaotic.

MACCALLUM: Jason?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look, I'm with the first lady on this one. It's rare to none that the first lady says much of anything, and it must have been awfully bad. I think it also is very telling that this comes roughly a month after she took this trip into Africa.

And it may be more about the aftermath. I mean, they may be squabbling about a seat on an airplane, it was one of the reports. But, how that went down, and what did and did not happen? If somebody wasn't truthful or if somebody was maybe exaggerating what happened, or changing their story, you -- very quickly, in a small office like the West Wing, you start to understand that maybe that gets out of the skin of somebody.

So, I, I think Melania Trump, I think she has earned the trust of so many of us because she does speak so infrequently to make this hard stand. And make such a statement is very compelling, and I think it's probably best, that they separate and go in different ways.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it sounds for some of these reports, Jessica, like she may have been speaking for other people, as well.

There were reports that this woman, Mira, was -- you know, sort of bullying people, talking down to them. And as Leland rightly pointed out in his intro here, sometimes there are stories that get out there because other people want other people to be fired. So they start saying nasty things about them, and you know, time will tell.

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. We certainly know about leaking in this White House for a certain purpose. And to Jason's point, we don't really know what happened aboard that flight or on that two-week trip.

But obviously, the first lady was extremely displeased with her interactions with this woman. Bloomberg is also reporting this evening that she had a bad reputation for being inflexible within the West Wing.

And when you think about how chaotic and kind of fly by the seat of their pants this administration is, her kind of more George Bush type approach to working in the West Wing that is where she came from originally a few years back with Ari, I guess. It might not have fit in with the vibe of this White House generally. And not -- it not just been a problem that Melania had with her.

MACCALLUM: I want to play a sound bite from my interview a couple weeks ago with Kirstjen Nielsen. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Ambassador Bolton has a big job to do. He and I worked very closely together.

MACCALLUM: So you don't think that John Bolton is in the president's ear saying, we're not tough enough on the border, you got to make a change at homeland?

NIELSEN: I do not think he is, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, the big question here, you know -- for America, as already pointed out, most people don't care about the deck chairs when they move around on the deck. But they do care about homeland security, and they do care about who's running the country, Jason.

So, when you look at this administration, and you look at the cabinet, do you -- do you think changes needs to be made or is this not appropriate?

CHAFFETZ: Well, the president is taking a very tough stance on immigration. And now, you know, when you talk to people kind of within the bowels of the organization, there's a lot of frustration that maybe Secretary Nielsen has not moved things fast enough, move them aggressively enough.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What (INAUDIBLE).

TARLOV: Right.

MACCALLUM: I mean, Congress really has to make these changes.

CHAFFETZ: Oh, yes.

MACCALLUM: And she's not going to pay for the wall, she's not going to build the wall herself. Congress needs to make these changes, I don't know how much more she could have done. What do you think she should have done, Jason?

CHAFFETZ: But I'd also think that the secretary does have to go to Congress and help make that case and have them understand what's going on and not going on at the border in the imperative that she needs.

TARLOV: She's been in Congress many times.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, and look, I am a very supporter on the outside. But behind the scenes, there's obviously something that's bothering the president because it's not moving fast enough.

MACCALLUM: What do you think, Ari?

FLEISCHER: Well, I think the president is perfectly entitled to make whatever changes he wants, it's part of the tradition of midterms. But here is my advice, if you make a change, have the replacement ready to go the same day you make the announcement.

Because otherwise, you create these vacuums. And in Washington, the vacuum was filled by nothing but nastiness and negativity. But if you announce X is out Y is in. You've now created debate over the qualifications of Y.  Typically that's a stronger better debate for you to be involved in.

So, make whatever moves you want to make. But then, have those names ready to roll same day.

MACCALLUM: Yes, great point. And everybody obviously knows that they serve at the pleasure of the President.

FLEISCHER: Right.

MACCALLUM: And it's my experience that when you watch these changes happen, it's the big dust-up for about 24 hours. And then, everybody gets used to the new person, and that person steps in front of the microphone.

FLEISCHER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And everyone accepts that person as the new one that they are hearing from Jessica. And yet, I hear -- you know, all across many other media outlets, every third day, pretty much that there is a complete meltdown that the White House is melting down that is practically not functioning. And yet, it seems to go on.

TARLOV: It does seem to go on, but that might just be in meltdown mode, and they might be really good at handling it. To your question that you posed to Jason about what else she could have done, I think that the president has not enjoyed some of her media appearances, like whether our own Chris Wallace, where he really pressured her about the caravan.

Talking about the women and the babies who are in there. And the president's language that these are MS-13 members, gang members, there are drug trafficking, they're bringing an infestation, et cetera.

She also struggled during the family separation policy, not her first outing, but when she had to come out again and face the press on this issue he apparently refers to her as bushy. He has problems with members of the George W. Bush administration. And I think that he might be looking at someone like a Crisco badge.

And if I'm pronouncing that properly, from Kansas, who didn't win his race, someone that's a hardliner on immigration who also shares his point of view about voter fraud which has been debunked.

So, I think that he is looking for someone who is more hardline if he is going to be replacing her.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thanks, everybody. Great to see you tonight.

TARLOV: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, is the president about to get a deal speaking of that to secure the border. And what would he have to give a bid on to get it from Congress in the lame duck session Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell, joins me next on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You can come up with the greatest border plan, the greatest immigration plan, you won't get one vote from a Democrat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: THE STORY is brought to you by the Lincoln Wish List Sales Event.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Defense Secretary Mattis, paying a visit to troops deployed on the southern border today, as some members of the caravan arrive in Tijuana, others are still quite far away. While back in Washington, there are talks of a new White House plan underway to get to secure the border,

During the lame duck Congress, the president will meet at the White House tomorrow with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and others to put together their plan for a budget -- you know, they have to come up with something by December 7th, and they want to try to get the wall in there.

Earlier tonight, I spoke with Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell of California.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us this evening, Congressman. Thanks for being here.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF., HOUSE INTELLIGENCE SELECT COMMITTEE: Good evening. Thanks for having me back.

MACCALLUM: So, they're going to try to get a budget deal through, and they want to connect wall funding and the relief for California. Is that something that you could sign on too?

SWALWELL: I hope we can get that through, Martha. We're also going to insist that we protect the rule of law in our country and the Mueller investigation. That's going to be something Democrats will insist on, as well.

But ideally, we can have border security. I don't know if that's necessary a physical wall as the President wants. I think we want to be smart about our security, take care of people in California, and make sure that we protect you know, investigators right to investigate.

MACCALLUM: So you are open to that -- you're open to that. Now, what exactly -- what form exactly does it take protecting the Mueller investigation? The President has said you know, that he's not going to try to impede it and that he has been letting it go forward for more than two years and is waiting for it to wrap up. So what would that look like a protection for that?

SWALWELL: I wouldn't -- I wouldn't call what the President's doing is letting it go forward. He fired James Comey, he's fired Andrew McCabe, he fired Jeff Sessions, he seems to have done just about everything you can do to stop or impede the probe.

MACCALLUM: Wait, that's not all true, first of all. I mean Andrew McCabe was fired by the Justice Department for leaking to the press, so you know, not all -- everything on that list --

SWALWELL: The President fired Andrew McCabe. Now --

MACCALLUM: The Department of Justice fired Andrew McCabe.

SWALWELL: The Department of Justice works for President Trump so --

MACCALLUM: That's true but you know why Andrew McCabe was fired and it did not come directly from the White House. However, we could we can go back and forth on that for a while. So tell me what does the language look like that would protect the Mueller investigation and that you would be willing to sign on to that goes to secure the border and also help folks in California?

SWALWELL: Yes. So Martha, what -- as far as the Special Counsel, it would be that he could only be he or she because it could be someone else in another time, could only be fired for cause and that it could be reviewed by a court panel. Now as it relates to the border security, yes, I want to make sure our border is secure and we've got a lot of technologies we could deploy, but a physical 2,000-mile wall to the tune of $20-$40 billion, I don't think is the way to do it. And of course, we want to make sure that there's immediate relief for families who've lost their homes to this devastating fire and that we smartly rebuild that.

MACCALLUM: And do you think -- do you think that could possibly get done in the lame-duck Congress before the end of the year?

SWALWELL: Yes, we're going into these negotiations with an open mind and wanting to collaborate whoever we can.

MACCALLUM: OK, you -- getting back to the Matt Whitaker question, you said that you felt that he had been hired as an assassin to kill the Russia investigation. What evidence do you have of that?

SWALWELL: Well, there was a Vox story that the President and Matt Whitaker have been --

MACCALLUM: A Vox story?

SWALWELL: A Vox-VOX.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I'm familiar.

SWALWELL: Vox story that that Matt Whitaker and the president been plotting for months to take over this probe. Matt Whitaker has prejudged the Mueller investigation throughout the last two years. And so again, we want to make sure that he recuses himself and that Bob Mueller treats the president like any suspect and that politics does not play in this investigation.

MACCALLUM: All right, but I mean, today the Department of Justice came forward and said that they believe that the President's appointment of Whitaker as the Acting Attorney General is legal and they've wrote a 20- page document supporting that it's legal. So if you have the assurances that Matt Whitaker who has said that you know, he has every intention to carry out his job in a respectful way and with the rule of law. You know, are you open to having that assurance and feeling -- and being confident that the man is speaking the truth?

SWALWELL: So Martha, I want to separate the opinion you just referenced because that speaks to his appointment, not whether he has to recuse.

MACCALLUM: That's true.

SWALWELL: If the Ethics Department at DOJ says that they see no need to recuse, I'm going to respect the rule of law just as I asked the President to. But I don't think any ethics lawyer can look at his prior statements, his connection to witnesses in this case and believe that he doesn't have a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict which the law says is just the same.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean you sound open now, but before you said that he was hired as an assassin to take out the Russian investigation, so it doesn't sound like that you're that open on that. But we'll --

SWALWELL: I'm pretty confident that the ethics -- the same ethics team that said Jeff Sessions had a conflict is going to say because of all of the evidence concerning Whitaker that he has a conflict so --

MACCALLUM: We will see. Maybe, we'll see. I want to pull up a tweet that you put out with regard to your coming work --

SWALWELL: Martha, you read too much of my Twitter feed.

MACCALLUM: Yes, well, you know -- on Intel and Judiciary you say that you are not going to chase -- you said earlier you're not going to chase every ball when it comes to the investigations, but you said this as well. The days of presidential immunity are over, gone, no more free passes to catch in on the access to the Oval Office, no more colluding with Russia and we'll see if you're a tax cheat. America is putting a balance of power on your abuses of power. Welcome to democracy, you wrote. That that's it that sounds like you're pretty much chasing every ball.

SWALWELL: Oh no, there's a lot of balls that under any other administration that you would love to chase like the President's son-in-law and his security clearance issues, a lot of the issues around you know, the President and you know, foreign entanglements he has. But what we do, we should prioritize as to what's most important to the American people. If the president is making foreign policy and national security decisions because of financial interests that he has with Saudi Arabia or Russia, that has to be a priority and in his tax returns --

MACCALLUM: And that's all part of the Mueller investigation. You guys are going to double up on all that and spend your time --

SWALWELL: No, Mueller --

MACCALLUM: -- and your money doing that again when they've been doing it for two years?

SWALWELL: So Martha, Mueller can only speak through indictments and indictments have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

MACCALLUM: Right. Well, he's going present a report and then the Justice Department will decide whether that they're going to pursue it. But I'm asking you a question. Are you going to double up your time and the country's money on the same stuff that's being investigated for the past two years?

SWALWELL: No, and that -- we shouldn't do that.

MACCALLUM: All right, what is your priority in terms of legislation, in terms of what you think the Democrats and Republicans can come together and get done for the American people because I think that the American people have limited patience on the other stuff that you're talking about here?

SWALWELL: Many of our priorities are the President's spoken priorities, trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, passing the DREAM Act, passing background checks, prescription drug reform. He has said that he supports all of those, a Republican Congress has refused to bring that forward.  He's going to see us bring that forward and hopefully it builds momentum in the Senate and that would help a lot of people.

MACCALLUM: I think the American people would love to see stuff get done so we will see how that goes and how much focus is on investigation and how much focus is on the business of the American people. Thank you very much.

SWALWELL: Of course, all right.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

SWALWELL: You too. Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Congressman. Coming up next, it's time for El Chapo to get his day in court on charges of drug crimes, murder, and torture.  What we are now learning tonight, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: El Chapo, one of the world's most notorious drug lords is just a few miles from here on trial in Brooklyn. The man named public enemy number one broke out of prison on a motorcycle, you see him go down there, in a tunnel about a mile long. His freedom was short-lived though. And now mountains of evidence were rolled into the courtroom today as he faces 17 counts including drug trafficking, murder, and torture, even with unprecedented security measures in place. The lawyers, the jurors, even the judge are in fear for their lives. Trace Gallagher with the backstory for us tonight from L.A. Hi, Trace!

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha! Two days into what could be a four-month trial and prosecutors are laying the groundwork for extensive audio and video evidence along with dozens of cooperating witnesses. The federal government plans to paint El Chapo as the leader of the feared and infamous Sinaloa Drug Cartel which spanned continents and triggered waves of bloodshed murdering enemies and family members alike.  El Chapo was said to have armed his men with assault rifles while he himself carried a gold-plated AK-47 and a diamond-encrusted handgun.

But the defense says Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman was the leader of noting, that his reputation as a drug kingpin is a myth, an urban legend, pointing out that even with Guzman and prison, cocaine continues flooding into the U.S. at impressive levels. For now, the defense is saying very little publicly. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY LICHTMAN, LAWYER OF JOAQUIN GUZMAN: I really don't want to foul of any of the court orders. I respect the judge, I don't want anybody (INAUDIBLE) not follow the rules.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Attorneys on both sides and the anonymous jurors are getting armed escorts to and from the courthouse, a building that has become a fortress including heavily armed federal marshals, bomb-sniffing dogs, and two separate security clearances to get inside the court. No surprise considering El Chapo has proven to be a man with great resources, famous for his elaborate prison escapes. In 2001, while serving a 20-year sentence in Mexico, El Chapo broke out of a prison by hiding in a laundry cart. He was recaptured in 2014 only to escape again in 2015 through a hole in his cell, that led -- that mile-long tunnel you referred to, it just happened to have a motorcycle waiting.

Experts say the tunnel took at least a year to build and clearly had inside help, a benefit of having a $14 billion empire. El Chapo was extradited from Mexico nearly two years ago and finally, we should note that two days in, one juror is out because of too much stress, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All right, it's going to be stress -- very stressful. Thank you very much, Trace. So coming up, Kim K and Kanye went to the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you want this meeting to lead to in terms of prison reform?

TRUMP: Honestly from my standpoint, this was just set up to be a lunch of two people that I like and I guess they liked me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: But now it looks like it may be more than just lunch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The legislation I'm supporting today contains many significant reforms, including the following.

First, it will provide new incentives for low risk inmates to learn the skills they need to find employment. Second, this legislation will allow federal inmates to be placed closer to their home communities in order to help facilitate family visitation.

Today's announcement shows that true bipartisanship is possible. And maybe it will be thriving. We are going to get something done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: President Trump tonight making a push for criminal justice reform, backing a bipartisan bill that has already passed the House, and the president hopes it will get through the Senate. Although, it may face some headwinds.

His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has champion of this bill and brought celebrities to the Oval Office to raise its profile. Meeting with Kim Kardashian, who campaigned to free Alice Johnson, and her husband, Kanye West, they are to talk about Chicago crime, and also reform.

I'm joined now by Kelley Paul, wife of Senator Rand Paul, who was on the hill today for the push for this passage, and he's been a big driver in this. Kelley, welcome, good to have you here tonight.

KELLEY PAUL, SEN. RAND PAUL'S WIFE: Thanks, Martha. Thanks so much for having me.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, explain, first of all, what this bill would do. Because at one point, when the present was talking, he said that it would, you know, make it easier for some offenders to get out a little bit sooner. He also said it would make it tougher -- the laws tougher -- on people who are committing more serious crimes.

PAUL: Well, the bill as it's just recently been released from the Senate, and it's being sponsored by Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin, has both prison reform, which he was alluding to there, things like allowing people to be incarcerated closer to their families.

We now have people that are literally many days drive away, and we have more women incarcerated than ever before, more mothers, so that is, I think, something that almost everyone would agree on. It also has, as he was saying, more opportunities for people, while they are incarcerated, to get training, to get drug and alcohol rehabilitation, to anger management, mental health, all of these things that would give people possibilities for basically redemption, when they get out. Ways to have a job, and hopefully a lot less recidivism.

In terms of sentencing reform, they are looking at some of the, you know, really frankly, draconian mandatory minimums that were in the '94 crime bill, they are not taking those away. But they are giving judges some discretion on some of those.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PAUL: In terms of the types of enhancements they put on, on those mandatory minimums, because as we have seen, you've seen -- you've situations where people like Alice Johnson -- I mean, my goodness, she was a first-time offender. She had worked at FedEx, had a great career, was a wonderful mother, a model citizen, went through divorce, was losing her home. Made a bad choice through some neighbor or friend to be involved in some kind of a drug deal over the phone, facilitating something, and she got life in prison for that.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, it's an interesting story. And you know, I want to go back -- the president alluded to the 1994 crime bill, which this is trying to fix the damage from, and here's the president on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Among other changes, it rolls back some of the provisions of the Clinton crime law that disproportionately harm to the African-American community. And you all saw that and you all know that, everybody in that room knows that. It was very disproportionate and very unfair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And now, I want to also play Lindsey Graham here on the issue of sentencing reform. This is obviously something that some of these Republicans senators and members of Congress feel is a possible bipartisan win for them if they can also get this through. Here is Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: To pass it would be huge. There are thousands of African-Americans and Hispanic males in jail under three strikes and you are out for 30 and 40 years for non-violent offenses. So, the goal is to give people who are in sentence under the old system the chance to get out of jail and go back to work. And make sure that the bad spaces are for those who are really violent criminals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: But there are some, obviously, who was spoken out against this. Jeff Sessions is among them. And Mitch McConnell hasn't spoken out against it, but he's not sure that it's going to be a priority in the lame duck session in terms of the time it may have left. He said we don't have a lot of time left, the first step is to finalize what the proponents are actually four, and then we'll float it and we'll whip the vote, and we'll see whether or not we can get to it. What's your reaction to that?

PAUL: Well, I'm still very, very helpful, I've been here on the hill, I've been talking to Republican senators all day long, trying to really focus their attention. The bill has just been released, so most of them have not had a chance to read it yet.

The fact that the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed this bill, the sheriff's associations, we have a whole host of law enforcement groups that are behind this bill. Because it makes our system more effective. We do need to free up a bad space for people who are truly violent and who are truly a danger, and we have so many people now that are caught up in these low-level, nonviolent offenses, that are literally serving decades of time.

And I think we've all sort of evolved in terms of understanding addiction more, understanding drug abuse as a mental health issue, a social issue, and for many of these offenders, they would be better served in a treatment and recovery program, as opposed to being tossed in jail.

MACCALLUM: Kelley Paul, thank you very much. I'm sure you have one vote that you know of on the Senate floor, and your husband, I would imagine, is he for this? I'm assuming.

PAUL: Yes. You know, Rand has been working on this issue since 2010.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, he's there in the -- yes, he was in the office there today.

PAUL: He partnered with Cory Booker and Kamala Harris on some different bills. This is something that he has been passionate about since he was elected.

MACCALLUM: Indeed.

PAUL: So, for the first time, I'm just really hopeful that we may be able to pass a bipartisan way, some good legislation here, and really makes a step forward, finally, on criminal justice reform.

MACCALLUM: Kelley Paul, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight. Thanks for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, Amazon smart speaker, the echo, may have been listening and recording during a brutal murder. And now prosecutors say that the Alexa is a witness. Mark Eighlarsh next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A judge in New Hampshire ordering Amazon to turn over what Alexa may know about a double murder that happened in the victim's kitchen where she was plugged in.

Trace Gallagher has the latest for us live from our west coast newsroom again tonight. Hi, Trace.

GALLAGHER: Hi, Martha. This is in Farmington New Hampshire where two women were killed in January of 2017. The suspect, 36-year-old Timothy Verrill is accused of using a blunt object to stab Christine Sullivan and Jenna Pellegrini inside their home.

He then allegedly wrapped their bodies in tarps and place them under the porch before scrubbing the murder scene. The 6-foot 2, 280 pounds suspect has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors believe that recordings from an Amazon Echo inside the house may provide further clues about the killing.

The court documents say there is probable cause, the recordings may include, quote, "the attack and possible removal of the body from the kitchen." Police seized the Echo device when they secure the crime scene, but all of the recordings are stored on Amazon servers, so now New Hampshire judge has ordered Amazon to turn over two days of recordings, along with any information about cell phones that may have been linked to the smart speaker during that time period.

Initially, Amazon pushed back, releasing a statement, saying, quote, "Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand, properly served on us. Amazon objects to overboard or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course."

But because New Hampshire doesn't provide electronic access to court records, it remains unclear if the search warrant on Amazon has been served, or if Amazon complied.

We can tell you, a few years ago, Amazon was also asked to turn over data from an Echo device found at a murder scene in Arkansas after first refusing, the company later agreed. But experts say it's a fine line, because tech companies want their smart speakers to be helpful assistance, not unwanted sooks. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Here now with more, criminal defense attorney Mark Eighlarsh who also authors the blog that SpeaktoMark.com, which sounds of like speak to Alexa.com.

But you know, I'm fascinated by this, Mark.

MARK EIGHLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Because these devices are on in so many homes across America now, and Amazon downloads the information and uses it for advertising purposes. So, they have these recordings of what's been said. Talk to me about the prosecutor's desire to have this one and to have the information uploaded for them.

EIGHLARSH: I get their desire to want to get it. They need to prove a brutal double homicide case. The problem is, the argument that Amazon is making, well, it's overbroad, it's invasive, it is a violation of privacy. They are on a fishing expedition.

And if I'm making the argument on behalf of Amazon, which I'm not, but if I was, I'd say, the only time that the recording kick on is when you say the wake word, Alexa. So what leads prosecutors to believe that at any point, the alleged murderer said Alexa, and then said maybe things like how do you get rid of bloodstains? How do you dispose of bodies? Why do they believe that recordings will provide evidence to prove this double homicide case?

MACCALLUM: But I mean, Mark, sometimes it does kick on without saying, clearly, that word, Alexa, or whatever you've named it. You know, the difference is that -- how is this different than asking for phone records? Or asking for anything else that could have been relevant?

You know, if the phone, I mean, there's a million scenarios that you could go through that, I think would point to the idea that if that -- if it picked up anything, he's pled not guilty, if this picked up anything that could incriminate him, then that's information that the jury really should have, no?

EIGHLARSH: Absolutely. And so, if we are talking about this guy, and assuming that he is guilty for one moment, then screw him, who cares, let's grab everything. But this is not about just this guy. This is about potentially his neighbors, it's about us, it's about precedent.

Where then, law enforcement, can then take this ruling and then say, you know what, maybe anyone on the block, for some reason, might have something, we want everybody's recording devices. I don't want to give up my recording devices. I don't want to give up my laptop, I don't want to give my phone. That's why Apple--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I mean, I don't want it recording me in the first place. I can't believe that, you know -- I mean, even that in and of itself is just -- I think people really need to understand these devices in their homes and how much it is recording and picking up and downloading, and they've got it on servers until the end of eternity.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGHLARSH: But we're starting--

MACCALLUM: But I want to ask about San Bernardino case.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGHLARSH: We are starting to understand that, though. We are starting to understand that, though, though, Martha. Because we are learning that, while these companies claim privacy is their utmost selling point--

MACCALLUM: Yes.

EIGHLARSH: -- they have these back doors where they are taking our information, they're combing our e-mails, for key terms that they are selling to advertisers. So, our privacy rights are being diminished every day.

MACCALLUM: People really need it to read the story, they really need to think about how much of their privacy they really are willing to give up in these cases. And I understand the argument for wanting -- for wanting this information, and it is like the iPhone, that they wanted opened in the San Bernardino case, right?

EIGHLARSH: Right. And fought hard against it. Listen, Alexa is cool. It is amazing what you can get from it. We want to use technology. The problem is, now, we have to understand that anything you are saying is recorded and can be turned over to law enforcement at any time.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. That's why I don't have one in my house. Mark, thank you. Good to see you tonight.

EIGHLARSH: Take care, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, another interesting story that's breaking tonight, you may have seen this coming across, Michael Avenatti is, right now, being held in a Los Angeles prison. He's been arrested. We understand that he could be moments away -- no, I'm sorry, we are waiting for the mug shot to be released. I don't think he is going to be released at this, just moments away, but we are going to bring you the latest on this case.

It is an abuse case brought by the prosecutor as a felony charge. Those are the details we know so far. Jesse Watters after the break and more on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A rather shocking development tonight in the Michael Avenatti story, the attorney who who has been all over everything for the past year, I would say, he is the attorney for Stormy Daniels, very out storm outspoken critic of President Trump.

The Los Angeles Police Department has confirmed now that he has been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. In a statement through his attorney, Avenatti is calling the claims bogus, quote, "I've never been physically abusive in my life, nor was I last night. Any accusation to the contrary are fabricated, and meant to do harm to my reputation. I look forward to being fully exonerated," he says.

Here now for Wednesday with Watters, Jesse Watters, co-host of "The Five" and host of "Watters' World." He finds himself, Jesse, in a difficult position here tonight having given these kinds charges lots of airtime to other people, with the president, in particular, with regard to Stormy Daniels.

And now he finds himself arrested in a Los Angeles police precinct. And we understand, we're waiting for a mugshot to be released, and when that's released, we will put it up for you.

JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: He is innocent until proven guilty. I'm going to give him more benefit of a doubt than he gave Kavanaugh. If you look at the statement, he said that it's almost the exact same thing that Kavanaugh said, these allegations are totally bogus.

But that's not the way that he treated Kavanaugh. He didn't listen to that at all. If you ask me, I believe his 15 minutes are up. I think, at the end of this, if he is guilty, he is either going to be bankrupt or in prison.

I mean, he has read in this lawsuit into fame, then parlayed into a presidential run, he's being investigated for lying to the Senate, judge ruled he has millions to his business partners. Now he is in the middle of a felony domestic beef, that he could go away for a long time. He's got a nasty divorce situation, as well. It is all spiraling out of control for him.

He has this luxurious lifestyle that he can't handle at this point, and is spread way too thin. I think the world is crumbling beneath him right now. And all of those networks that put him on all year and help to prop him up, they have to feel a little bit icky right now if this is actually true.

MACCALLUM: You know, the early suggestion -- great point. The early suggestion was that it was his wife, who you pointed out, he is going through a divorce, but then she came out, because TMZ said it was his wife. She came out and said to a reporter -- that she hasn't seen Michael in months. She says it's a complete fabrication. She said bruises on my face, it's insanity, he wouldn't hit anybody, especially a woman, he's got two daughters. That's according to his ex-wife.

And we take him again, to note that this is an accusation, and that's all we have at this point with regard to Michael Avenatti.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: We don't know.

MACCALLUM: But you know, he also has dreams of running in at 2024 the presidential nomination. He has spent time in Iowa.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Yes, what's his campaign slogan is going to? His campaign slogan is going to be she hit me first, because that's actually what he said, there is this quote that's been documented that said "she hit me first." I don't if that's TMZ the source.

But if any of this is even close to true, and he laid his hands on a woman, he is toast. I mean, that is one of the most despicable things you can do, especially coming from someone that's supposed to empower women. I mean, he has been saying all along that, this porn star Stormy Daniels needs to be believed and supported, and he is helping her.

He is not helping anybody when he touches a woman like that. But we're going to have to wait until the facts come out, obviously, and see how it plays out. It could've been a set up, it could have been a misunderstanding, or it could have been true. We don't know.

MACCALLUM: Yes, exactly. And that's the point to be made. What we do know is that his bail has been set at $50,000.

WATTERS: He can't afford that, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Well.

WATTERS: He owes so much money to the state of California to his business partners and to the IRS, 50,000 is not chump change, even for him.

MACCALLUM: He could be released at any time this evening, if indeed he or a friend can come up with the $50,000 to have him released this evening. You know, this is going to be an interesting journey for him as he goes through this.

And he says, as we pointed out, that he didn't do anything. And we are going to hear more from him, no doubt.

Let's go to a slightly very different story.

WATTERS: OK.

MACCALLUM: And talk about a former first lady who has a book out this week called "Becoming," Michelle Obama, she has gotten a lot of press and done a lot of interviews about the book. She was asked about the 2020 election, speaking of Michael Avenatti, and she basically -- and she was asked about Hillary Clinton and whether or not she thought that Hillary Clinton would make another run at it. Go around for a third time, which is an awkward question for a lot of people to answer--

WATTERS: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- because, I mean, although, you know, her folks claim that she still has a ton of support, it's an awkward answer for some questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you hear, recently, one of Hillary Clinton's former advisors speculating that she could run again. Do you think she should?

MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER FIRST LADY: You know, I think, at this point, everybody is qualified and everybody should run.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: It is a dodge. Michelle, dodge appeared she was asked about Hillary, and she pivoted to everybody. Because you know what's going on, even Democrats want to lock Hillary up at this point, they don't want her close to the 2020 presidential race.

Third run, Martha? I don't even think she's got a shot at all. Think about it. Her match up against Donald Trump, all of her weaknesses, the fainting, she is crooked, the lack of sincerity, the lack of charisma, that's all Donald Trump's strength.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I know. But her side was she won the popular vote. Mark Penn says that she is more popular than Donald Trump right now in the country and that there is a lot of people out there who are big Hillary supporters who would like to have a redo.

WATTERS: You know what, let's have a run then, Martha. I think Hillary should run, I endorsed Hillary's run, I think it would be good for the president, and I don't want to ever keep a woman down, I think women deserve a third shot, even if --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's good because I don't -- we don't want to keep men down, either.

WATTERS: No, not at all.

MACCALLUM: So, we have that in common. We don't want to keep them down.

WATTERS: Yes, we want to empower everybody.

MACCALLUM: Exactly. Thanks, Jesse.

WATTERS: Welcome.

MACCALLUM: Always good to see you. So that is "The Story" on this Wednesday night. We will see you tomorrow night at 7 o'clock. Tucker Carlson is coming up next with lots of news tonight from Washington, D.C. as we wait for more on that Michael Avenatti case. And we will have more coverage for you tomorrow night. Back here on the story. Thanks for being with us. Have a great night.
 
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.