Sen. John Kennedy on meeting Kavanaugh accuser's requests

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," September 19, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Breaking tonight, a brand new statement that we have just received from the attorney for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. With a list of conditions before she will agree to testify on Capitol Hill, come Monday.

Ford's lawyer saying moments ago, quote, "The rush to a hearing is unnecessary, and contrary to the committee discovering the truth." More on that in a moment, here is the president earlier today.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I really would want to see what she has to say. But, I want to give it all the time they need. They've already given a time, they delayed a major hearing. If she shows up, that would be wonderful, if she doesn't show up, that would be unfortunate.

MACCALLUM: Sources telling Fox News that Brett Kavanaugh is ready. A White House team has been putting him through the so-called murder board process of questioning. Once again, the order we went through it for the hearings, but this is to get ready for Monday. Sources say that he is "solid" and that there was "no wavering" in his unequivocal denial of these allegations.

Senator John Kennedy is set to ask questions come Monday if indeed it happens. He's going to join us in just a moment. But first, Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry, live at the White House with the breaking details this evening. Good evening, Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, good to see you. In fact, Martha, it's interesting that one of those potential witnesses could be Christina Miranda King. Earlier, she told NBC News that she's a classmate of Dr. Ford and had heard about this incident many years ago. But then, later put on social media that she doesn't have first-hand knowledge of such an incident.

So, it's very confusing about whether any of these potential witnesses will add anything new or corroborate anything. What White House officials believe is really going on is that Democrats are moving the goalposts.

Republican Chuck Grassley, today, chair of the Judiciary Committee saying, look, on Sunday when the Washington Post reported this story, the push from Democrats was Dr. Ford needs to be heard. Republicans say they're trying to let her be heard Monday at the hearing but she's adding all of these new conditions.

So, what Republicans believe is all of this is a push for an FBI investigation that will never happen. And so, ultimately it's just trying to delay all of this process beyond the midterms. The key tonight is that three Republican swing votes not always supportive of the president all calling for Dr. Ford to testify.

Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Susan Collins insisting she should appear Monday. Corker saying, if she doesn't show the Senate should go forward with a vote on Kavanaugh. Collins, a pivotal moderate woman giving Republicans cover this afternoon saying, quote, "It is my understanding that the committee has offered to hold either a public or a private session, whichever would make her more comfortable."

Contradicting a claim by Democrats that Dr. Ford is being pressured or forced into public testimony as Chairman Grassley made clear today they are doing everything they can to make it as easy as possible for her to come forward. Watch.


SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Where I'm focused right now is doing everything that we can to make Dr. Ford comfortable with coming before our committee either in an open session or a closed session or a public or a private interview.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: It rings true to me how she's divulged, who she's divulged to overtime over many years. And what they are forcing on her right now, I think is inappropriate.


HENRY: Now Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii who said yesterday, men should just, "shut up". Seem to reveal the real Democratic strategy telling Politico since Republicans blocked Merrick Garland for almost a year, if Kavanaugh fails, Democrats may hold this High Court seat open for two years beyond the 2020 election.

I can tell you Republicans I spoke to tonight say that suggests to them that Democrats are getting desperate here. And that maybe Kavanaugh is in better political shape. But frankly, tonight nobody knows where this story is going, Martha.

MACCALLUM: And Monday is a long way away in this news cycle. Ed, thank you very much.

HENRY: Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: Here now, Senator John Kennedy who is one of the 11 Republicans who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, good evening. Good to have you with us tonight.


MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us tonight.

KENNEDY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: I want to read from the statement from Dr. Ford's attorney. Part of it says, "There are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding. The rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth." Your reaction to that.

KENNEDY: I think you have to put all of this in context. Originally, Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous. Then she changed her mind and contacted the Washington Post and gave them the story. Then, she asked us to hold a hearing, we've agreed to hold a hearing.

Then, she changed her mind and said I don't want a hearing. I want an FBI investigation. Senator Grassley who's demonstrated extraordinary leadership, again, reached out to her and said look, we'll do it any way you want, we got to have a hearing, that's the way she said it works.


KENNEDY: We'll send somebody out to see you. And now, Dr. Ford has changed the conditions again.

MACCALLUM: I understood, and is that Henry said -- you know, it's the feeling on the Republican side of the committee that they're continually moving these goalposts. And I guess you know, one of the questions becomes who gets to run this process? Does she get to run the process, or do you all get to run the process?

And as you point out, you've given multiple opportunities but is there any effort underway to bring some of these witnesses in for Monday? Is that a condition that you would consider meeting for her?

KENNEDY: We broke Senate protocol and Senate rules to hold this hearing. The confirmation process is over. The hearing's over. The confident -- confidential meeting with Judge Kavanaugh is over. The written questions submission time over. The FBI investigation over. All those left was to vote.

Now, we have broken the rules and protocol by having the hearing at her request.

MACCALLUM: Now, I get -- I get what you're saying. I want to play this from your colleague in the Senate, Mazie Hirono who spoke out about you and others who she feels -- well, here's what she said about you. Watch.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HAWAII, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I expect the men in this country and the men in this committee and many of them. Believe me, because we all signed on to this letter to demand an FBI investigation. But really, guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions. It's the man in this country.

And I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.


MACCALLUM: For a change, she says. What do you have to say to that?

KENNEDY: Well, I have great respect for Senator Hirono. I am a man, but I'm who the people of Louisiana sent to the United States Senate. If she's unhappy with that, I guess Mazie needs to talk to the people of Louisiana. In the meantime, I've got to do my job. We're trying to do the right thing.

I don't know what more we can do. The goalpost says someone put it earlier, keep moving. I'm not interested in more political or cultural combat. I'm interested in two things. I'm interested in truth and I'm interested in fairness. And we're trying -- we're trying.


MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, that -- understood, understood.

Joy Behar, basically said the same thing. I don't know if you're a big watcher of "The View". So, I'll play it for you just in case you missed it.



JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW," ABC: This people in Congress right now in that Senate Judiciary Committee, these white men, old by the way are not protecting women. They're protecting a man who is probably guilty. If you're not a Judge Kavanaugh, take the lie-detector test.


MACCALLUM: What do you say about that, Senator?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm sorry she feels that way. I don't agree with her. We're -- our job is to protect the American people. Our job is to advise and consent, it doesn't say anything in the Constitution about be FBI advising and consenting or the media. No, disrespect advising and consenting, it's up to us.

And we're trying very, very hard to hold the hearing as Dr. Ford requested and give her a chance.

MACCALLUM: All right, so --

KENNEDY: But she keeps moving to the goalposts, and all I can say is I hope she comes Monday. I think it would be a huge mistake if she doesn't, I'm asking her if she's listening to attend, I assure her she'll be treated fairly. But, if she doesn't want to attend, that's up to her. We've even do it privately if she want.


All right, well, yes. And we know, Senator Grassley has offered for -- you know, staffers to go to California and take a statement from her as well.


MACCALLUM: So, lots of different options. Senator, thank you very much. We'll be watching with great interest as we head towards Monday on this.

KENNEDY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you here tonight. So, joining me now, Carrie Severino chief counsel and policy director at Judicial Crisis Network. A group that has poured millions of dollars into supporting Judge Cavanaugh and Richard Fowler, syndicated radio host and Fox News contributor. Welcome to both of you.


MACCALLUM: Good to have you here. Richard, you said earlier today, this is why the GOP has problems with white suburban women. What did you mean by that?

FOWLER: Will be, this is what I mean, and what you saw take place in the interview just ahead of you, or just before the segment started was the Republicans not giving the precedent when it comes to these type of cases. Under the -- in the Clarence Thomas case, where it was Anita Hill versus Clarence Thomas, George H. W. Bush ordered the FBI duel report. That report came back inconclusive. And Judge Thomas was put on the bench.

Let's be very clear here. Republicans kept this judicial seat open or the -- or the Antonin Scalia seat open for a year. Why can't we wait three more days to have the FBI investigate this --


MACCALLUM: Well, the word is that the FBI feels like this is doesn't fall into their purview. They did background checks.

FOWLER: They did it to 1991.

MACCALLUM: they -- no, but it was a totally different situation with Anita Hill. Because the -- an accusations had not yet been made public. In this case, the Washington Post printed all of the accusations. Those have already been out there. So, it is -- it is not actually the same thing,

FOWLER: But -- let me -- did the one -- so, the one thing I will say is this. Our Constitution guarantees due process.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

FOWLER: Judge Kavanaugh has, and in so does -- so does Professor Ford. And for that to happen has to be impartial. What you have in the Senate Judiciary Committee is half Democrat, half Republican, everybody sort of chomping at the bit.


MACCALLUM: And who have waiting to hear from her on Monday. It will state they have make a point there.

FOWLER: But, we could get an independent -- an independent investigation and come and let those professionals come to their conclusion and try to hand it over to the Senate.

MACCALLUM: All right, let me get to Carrie way in here. Carrie, what do you think?

CARRIE SEVERINO, CHIEF COUNSEL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK: Well, I think the comparison if you -- if you look at what happened with the investigations with Anita Hill after her story came out, and as you said, when the FBI has put the confidential part of it. After that came out, the FBI did not do further investigations. The -- that's when they went to a hearing.

And then, the -- because the information was out there, the Senators now it's their role to do the advice and consent process. Look, the FBI has completed its background information. They even had follow-up calls with the Senators to go over the new information. Guess how many Senate Democrats were on that call? Zero.

They are saying they want an investigation, they're saying they want the FBI, but they're not even participating in it as it is happening before them. I think, it's important as they said to have a hearing. I think Senator Collins is correct, there's lots of options. The Senator Grassley has his offer here. You can do it -- you know, in a confidential setting as well, and I think that would be great.

I think it would have been great if the Senate Democrats had followed the proper procedure she wouldn't be in this position right now because they could have done it confidentially.


FOWLER: So what's the rush here? What's the rush, what's the rush on getting -- what's the rush on getting this nominee that we can't wait three days for a proper investigation be done. Everybody's saying that it has to happen Monday. It happen --


MACCALLUM: I think one of the --

SEVERINO: They don't need investigation.

FOWLER: No, but wait a minute, let me finish. You say it has to happen, Monday, it has to happen Monday. What happens if it happens on Tuesday?

I mean, I think that's the argument a lot of folks are making here. What's the big rush? If he's innocent like he says he is, then both sides are going to be heard unless it's (INAUDIBLE), let the political process to take course.


SEVERINO: He's ready. He's, he's, he's ready.

MACCALLUM: I think the argument Richard is that what she has to offer is what he has to offer. Which is their recollection and their story, right?

I mean, that -- that's what's at stake here. Because it's 36 years old --

FOWLER: I agree.

MACCALLUM: It's unsubstantiated in terms of time and place. So what they each have to bring to the table is their own story. And he's ready to do that. And she should also do that.

FOWLER: I mean, I think -- I mean it's very hard for somebody to come forward and tell their story. And I mean, on both sides.

MACCALLUM: I don't deal that.

FOWLER: And due process is very important here. And I think --

MACCALLUM: That's why there's the privacy option.

FOWLER: I hear that but I don't understand what is the big -- what is the big deal for the FBI to get involve and investigate that.


MACCALLUM: I just don't know what's going to change three days from now. That ask the question. Carrie, go ahead.

FOWLER: H. W. -- George H. W. Bush got it.

SEVERINO: Look, there -- he -- that's the opposite of what happened. This that with that investigation was beforehand.

FOWLER: Wasn't there were report done by the FBI?

MACCALLUM: Let her to speak.

SEVERINO: It was done before this was leaked by Senate Judiciary Committee. That was done before it was not in conjunction with the hearings. The hearings were a separate thing because of the leak. What are we going to at least say, let's move it to Tuesday. What are we going to learn between Monday and Tuesday?

This is something we don't know exactly when it happened or where it happened. We're not going to be able -- you can't dust for prints. You can't find that out anyway, but asking her. That is -- that -- that's the challenge here and that's what to happen in a hearing.


SEVERINO: So, it's -- and unfortunately, they're creating a new process. That's part of this pattern of delay.


FOWLER: Let me just say this -- let me -- let me just say this at one point, Martha. To start with whom -- to where we started this segment of why white -- why white suburban bent women are looking at this very carefully is because we're having a process debate and we should be having a moral debate and a debate about due process.

Instead, we're having when it was done, how it was done when it was the least, how it was leaked? And that's part of the problem.

MACCALLUM: Due process is afforded to Judge Kavanaugh, as well. I mean, he -- you know, his integrity is also at stake here.

FOWLER: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: You have to give both of them an opportunity to step forward and say what is on their mind and to explain their story. It is not fair to him either. It has to be fair to both sides.


FOWLER: I agree. I just think that the idea of rushing it seems to be -- seems to be -- I agree.

MACCALLUM: And I think that -- and I think that suburban women across America care about that a whole lot too. We're going to leave it there.

FOWLER: I agree and I think what suburban woman I'm saying now is that it's not fair because she's not getting a chance to get the FBI investigation that she deserves.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I think women are about fairness on all sides. Not just for women, for man and for a woman.

FOWLER: Oh, I agree, I think due process should be on both sides.

SEVERINO: Look, exactly. I'm a mother of sons and daughters, I think they both deserve respect, not guilty until they have proven innocent.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. They sure of you. Thank you.

FOWLER: I -- listen, you're preaching to the choir.

MACCALLUM: Thank you both. Good to see you. So, coming up next. Is this proof of the deep state, President Trump has been complaining about? Listen to this.


ALLISON HRABAR, PARALEGAL SPECIALIST: And there's a lot of talk at work about like how we can resist from the inside and there's a lot of -- kind of like push back.


MACCALLUM: Jason Chaffetz, who literally wrote the book on The Deep State, says that this is more widespread than you think that's a continuation of what we talked about last night. Stick around.



STUART KARAFFA, MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYST, STATE DEPARTMENT: I work with the State Department. I mean, I'm a civil servant.


MACCALLUM: Kind of. You saw that disturbing undercover video here last night. And now, Project Veritas is back with a new video exposing what they say is the deep state, this time, within the Justice Department. Take a look and see what you think.


JOURNALIST: What are they doing, anything to, like, fight against Trump?

HRABAR: Yes. I mean, a lot of us talk about it, so most of them are like vaguely politically involved, so they might support candidates and do fundraisers, and some of them canvas.


HRABAR: And there's a lot of talk at work about like how we can resist from the inside and there's a lot of, kind of like, push back. Like, what's kind of lucky is at the DOJ, we can't really get fired.



MACCALLUM: So, here now, Jason Chaffetz, Former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a Fox News Contributor. He is also the author of the new book "The Deep State." How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy Donald Trump. Good to see you tonight, Jason.


MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here. You know, I mean, we always take these videos a little bit with a grain of salt. And we had Andrew McCarthy here last night, talking about the fact there's 2 million federal employees, which some people might think sounds like a rather large number.

But, the size is the point, he said, you know, so many of them served well and earnestly. How widespread do you think this kind of behavior and taking advantage of the system is?

CHAFFETZ: With 2 million people, most of them are patriotic, they are good hardworking people. But there is a concerted effort. There is this brazen group of people that want to attack Donald Trump and his agenda. They are Democrats by and large, and they like bigger government. They are very brazen. They're not off in some corner with some tinfoil hats and some conspiracy.

They literally will fight back by leaking information. The video that you saw, the person said, well; I essentially can't get fired, which is true.

MACCALLUM: That's also part of the problem.

CHAFFETZ: We had a situation where Elijah Cummings, the ranking member, and I, jointly -- be the whole committee on oversight, recommended that this person be prosecuted because they lied to Congress and Jeff Sessions and the attorney general's office, they said, no.

And how does it get any more -- even where bipartisan in saying this person is lying, you still can't get fired as a federal employee.

MACCALLUM: It's unbelievable. Speaking of Jeff Sessions, here is President Trump talking about his attorney general, he says he actually doesn't have an attorney general, which might come as new to Jeff Sessions. But here he is talking about it today, watch.


TRUMP: I'm disappointed in the attorney general for numerous reasons, but we have an attorney general. I'm disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons, and you understand that.


CHAFFETZ: I'm telling you, one of the worst experiences I had in my eight and a half years in Congress, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, was meeting with Jeff Sessions, because I think he's an attorney general in name only. I was very disappointed.

I went over and I explained to him that we had this person, Bryan Pagliano, twice, he was issued a subpoena by Congress, twice, he didn't show up and we held him in contempt and he should have been prosecuted for nonattendance on that committee.

And he looked me in the eye and told me, I'm not going to do that because it's too close to Hillary Clinton. And that is not equal justice under the law. And he did that time after time after time and it's not just him. It is this bureaucracy of 110,000 people at the Department of Justice.

And that's why I finally wrote a book about it because it's chock-full from the EPA to the Department of Justice to the State Department. You name it.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's so shocking because the whole -- what you hear from the Justice Department and from the FBI as well, and again, this isn't concerning everybody who works at these places, but is that --

You know, that they are outside of politics, that they are looking at everything with the, you know, sort of, unbiased eye, that they are representing the justice that exist in the Justice Department. But once you say that, that person is too close to Hillary Clinton, that whole notion is absolutely out the window. It's obviously political.

CHAFFETZ: It was political and when he looked me in the eye and said that, and he had this whole army of bureaucrats that are going to be there for a lifetime. That's what drove us crazy. Even when we were bipartisan and recommending that somebody be prosecuted said he said, what, that was the Obama administration. I'm not going to do that.

But if it happened as an average Joe on the street or Jill that did something wrong, if you didn't comply with the subpoena, you'd have handcuffs on and you'd be in jail.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

CHAFFETZ: And that's why the system has to get fixed.

MACCALLUM: And people have to be fired.

CHAFFETZ: And you have to be held accountable.


MACCALLUM: Absolutely no sense in the world. Jason, thank you.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight, more to come on that. Up next, with The Wall Street Journal editorial board has dubbed "Schumer's FBI Ploy" in all of this. What are the politics behind what's going on with Judge Kavanaugh?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: An independent investigation, a background check by the FBI, is essential.


SEN. DOUG JONES, D-ALA.: I am just absolutely stunned at why we are so -- why the Republicans and the President as opposed to letting the FBI do what the FBI has done for decades, and that is background checks on nominees.

GILLIBRAND: Even in the Anita Hill hearings, they reopened the FBI background check investigation and spend time to do that.

SCHUMER: What is now the FBI's responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis to Judge Kavanaugh's background and report back to the Senate.

MACCALLUM: Back to our top story and the Democrats effort to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation in the wake of sexual assault allegations saying the FBI must reopen the investigation and to the judge to verify the claims by Dr. Ford.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board disagrees, slamming Senator Chuck Schumer's strategy as a ploy, writing "This is not the role that the FBI plays in nominations, and their demand shows that their real motive is further delay."

Here now, Wall Street Journal editorial board members, Vilma Gern, Mary O'Grady and Daniel Henninger, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, also a FOX News Contributor. Welcome to all of you. Good to have you here.

The Wall Street Journal has been very outspoken, very strong on this issue, believing that the right thing to do is to go ahead and have this hearing, criticized on social media a bit, Dan, for not, sort of, indulging the idea that this woman who says she's a victim should have her opportunity to speak out and perhaps, to have an FBI investigation.

DANIEL HENNINGER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that's right. I mean, I think what we are speaking out for is the integrity of the confirmation process. Let's understand, it is the Senate's role, constitutional role, to conduct advice and consent on these nominations.

And they are basically asking the FBI to open this investigation to perform that role for them. They are supposed to make the judgment. In addition, the FBI does not to do "investigations" of Supreme Court nominees. They do background checks. They don't make pass judgment on this people. That is the job of these senators. Senator Schumer is trying to offload it onto the FBI.

MACCALLUM: I asked today because I was wondering, because this is such an old allegation, it goes back 36 years. You know, when the FBI does do a background check, how far back do they go? And interestingly, they go back to the age of 18.

This is an issue that deals with two adolescents, potentially. That's the charge. If these are two adolescents, then we know that adolescents are under different rules under the law, regardless of what -- we don't know actually what happened. But there's a reason that it starts at 18 though.

BILL MCGURN, EDITORIAL MEMBER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, there's a reason. I think as Dan points out, what the Democrats are asking for is against years of process and what the FBI does. My dad's a former FBI agent who still does background checks in the State Department. As you say, it starts when you're 18.

So I consider it kind of the family business. And as Dan said, they just ask people and take down what they say about the candidate. So, this is not a role. It's not a federal offense. So, if there was to be a criminal investigation, it would be by a state legislature.

And this comparison with Anita Hill is not true either because when the investigation -- when the FBI got involved on Anita Hill, her name had not become public. This woman went to the Washington Post and raised it publicly. So it's all -- it's all a smoke screen. Look, the fact, the main facts are that Democrats cannot defeat this nomination. Only Republicans can, meaning if an errant Republican goes, and they are trying to peel one off.

Chuck Grassley has been scrupulous about following the rules for this. And so the Democrats just want to dance it, they want to light. They don't want to take a tough vote in election.


MACCALLUM: But Mary O'Grady, I can see a scenario where it looks like right now the plan on the Republican side is to go forward and to vote on Wednesday. If they do that and this woman, who is accusing Brett Kavanaugh, goes public in a different venue, she says I don't want to do a hearing, I'm going to do something else that I want to speak out, it could politically continue to damage the Republicans, no?

O'GRADY: I don't know. I think that the very fact that she is not willing to come forward and testify -- because initially they asked for the delay so that she would be able to testify and once she won that, then she said, no, I'm not going to testify.

So the very fact that she won't come before the committee and talk about what her allegations are, and that she is lacking in a lot of substance in terms of what she's alleging. I mean, she doesn't know where it happened. She doesn't know how she got home. She really is not giving a lot of detail.

I mean, to the point where people who want to believe her are saying well, maybe it's a case of mistaken identity because her memory is so fuzzy about it. So I think that that mitigates against empathy for her.

Because, you know, while we're trying to say we want to believe her, we also know that we are in the process of destroying another person if we are not fair about this.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's a great point. One last question just to do quickly. President Trump in an interview yesterday said that he believes that releasing the documents on the Russia investigation, the FISA application and the 302s, could be a crowning achievement of the term presidency. What do you think about that, Dan?

DANIEL HENNINGER, DEPUTY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I think, you know, the president is obsessed with the investigation. This is probably something he should have done before this. I don't know why they've held it up.

We have to get some access to what was the basis of these FISA applications, what was the basis of the Russian collusion narrative and possibly with the release of these documents we will finally begin to get that.

MACCALLUM: A lot of pushback, though, Mary. People are saying that there's, you know, potentially classified information in there. Will it be a crowning achievement?

O'GRADY: Well, I think it will. I mean, I think he should have done it much sooner. I think if he is judged harshly about it, it's waiting so long. You know, the last time the Democrats said there were so much sensitive material in there it turns out there really wasn't any, so.

MACCALLUM: Some of it was a little embarrassing potentially.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that's it, you know, they said the Democrats are saying this is a red line if we release this. But from what I'm hearing we might find out what Peter Strzok's insurance policy was in that FISA application.

I don't understand how you can be against transparency. And make your case, right? If the truth sets us free, we should be on the side of disclosure and it's amazing to me how many journalists are on the side of keeping secrets.

MACCALLUM: Wall Street Journal editorial board, thank you all. Good to have you here tonight.

So, coming up, Juanita Broaddrick and California Governor Jerry Brown comments about the president that are raising some eyebrows. Stick around.


GOV. JERRY BROWN, D-S.C.: Something is going to happen to this guy. Because if we don't get rid of him, he's going to undermine America, and even the world.



MACCALLUM: No secret that California Governor Jerry Brown is not a big fan of President Trump, but this time has he taken the rhetoric a bit too far urging people to, quote, "get rid of him."

Trace Gallagher live in our west coast newsroom with the story on Governor Moonbeam. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. As you know, part of this battle is personal and part is situational. When he made the comments, Governor Jerry Brown was speaking to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell as an environmental summit in San Francisco were criticizing the president is as common as human waste on the streets.

But for almost two years, Brown and California have become opponents of the president and vice versa. For example, the administration sued California for its sanctuary laws and in turn, California sued the administration for its stance on environmental policies.

And beyond the big picture governmental aspect of dispute, the governor and the president have made it clear they really just don't like each other very much.

Back in March, the president tweeted, quote, "Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown pardoned five criminal illegal aliens, whose crimes include kidnapping and robbery, badly beating wife, and threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, dealing drugs. Is this really what the great people of California want?" And here's what Brown just told MSNBC about the president. Watch.


BROWN: He's not telling the truth. He keeps changing his mind. He is, you know, sabotaging the world order in many respects. So, it's unprecedented, it's dangerous. Something's got to happen to this guy because if we don't get rid of him he's going to undermine America and even the world.


GALLAGHER: Brown is also using his last month in office to thwart the president. Mr. Trump wants to open 1.7 billion acres of coastal waters to oil drilling and Brown has now signed legislation banning offshore oil platforms even though while he's been in office Brown has permitted 20,000 oil wells.

For the record, Governor Brown and President Trump have also battled over National Guard troops along the border, the Paris climate accord and of course the wall. And it's not as if Brown's departure will suddenly lead to a California federal detente, because polls show Democrats are poised to continue running the Golden State for years to come. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Coming up on The Story, Juanita Broaddrick will join us. She responds to Hillary Clinton saying that Brett Kavanaugh's accuser deserves due process. She has something to say about that.

And the president's critics pounce over this moment that happened when he visited the hurricane territory today. Jesse Watters joins me, coming up after this.


MACCALLUM: President Trump's critics pouncing on this moment earlier today when he visited the victims of hurricane down in the Carolinas and he embraced a young boy who said, hey, can I have a hug?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I have a hug?


MACCALLUM: Seems like a pretty cute moment, right? Sent Twitter right over the edge. Penny, I mean, there were so many of these. These are just two. Penny said in part. "Trump doesn't even hug his own kids. And where were the parents? Don't you monitor who your children are hugging?" And Bonnie chimed in, "How much did they pay the kid?"

Time for Wednesday's Watters. I saw this and I was like, my gosh. You know, if you're going to criticize that, they will criticize anything.


JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: If he kicked the kid he would have been in big trouble.

MACCALLUM: Or if he didn't give the kid a hug.

WATTERS: I know. He gets criticized. I mean, can you imagine being the president you got criticized for hugging a child?


WATTERS: Chris Christie -- I mean, Chris Christie, remember he hugged Obama?


WATTERS: That was bad.

MACCALLUM: That was political.

WATTERS: That was bad. Hugging a kid is not bad. I looked at some of the comments too. They said this was staged, the kid was a plant and they said in Puerto Rico Trump never hugged anybody. He's only hugging this kid because he's white! Can you believe that? And Melania wasn't even there to wear stilettos, so imagine if that happened, that could have been a huge scandal for that.

MACCALLUM: I know. Yes, they said probably he never hugged his own kids, all this stuff about his grandchildren.

WATTERS: They said the kid is getting therapy after getting hugged by the president.

MACCALLUM: My God. It was his idea.

WATTERS: I know.

MACCALLUM: He asked for it. All right. How about this one. This is a high school in Michigan. You know, everybody gets excited for the homecoming. The parade, the homecoming queen. But they are going to replace that with an excellence award and the excellence award will be given regardless of gender, it's not given to a woman, a girl necessarily, it could be given to a boy that it's based on academic excellence.

WATTERS: Well, listen, they did this because people were nominating on attractive girls to be homecoming queen and that was mean and bullying--


MACCALLUM: That is mean!

WATTERS: I do think that's mean as a joke. But life is tough, Martha. Kids are kids and if you go through that stuff you become resilient and the meek shall inherit the earth. I went to school with nerves in high school and now they all have mansions and the quarterback who bully them is like selling used cars.


WATTERS: So things end up working out for these kids.

MACCALLUM: I'm a big believer in the homecoming queen. This is my mom, she was a Christmas queen at Brown University. Let's put up there. My dad, who she married. And I -- and the cool thing about this contest, they wrote in the newspaper back then in 1955 that it would be judged on poise and beauty, but not on grades.

So it was the absolute opposite of what we are doing now.


WATTERS: It's the opposite.

MACCALLUM: They all of course had good grades because they were at Brown University to begin with.

WATTERS: Of course.

MACCALLUM: But it was like poise and beauty and what's wrong with that?

WATTERS: Nothing at all.


WATTERS: Or were you homecoming queen?


WATTERS: Why not?

MACCALLUM: I did not follow in my wonderful mom's footsteps.

WATTERS: Not enough boys.

MACCALLUM: No, not enough boys, not enough beauty and not good enough grades.

WATTERS: Not enough boys.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, I wouldn't won in Michigan.


WATTERS: I don't believe. I don't you.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's put up the billboard. They are worried that people's feelings might be hurt in California if they are called a stoner because pot is legal, recreational pot there and an eight other states so they are saying, you know, don't use that word, it's a little bit -- it's a little bit offensive. Call the person a nurse, call them a police officer, call them what they are supposed to be called.

WATTERS: yes. I didn't think stoners got offended. I think they are pretty chill, but what does smoking marijuana feel like, Martha?

MACCALLUM: I wouldn't know.

WATTERS: Yes, me neither! So I don't really know what being stone feels like so I can't really understand the offense taken. Is it like a feeling in the head like stoned?

MACCALLUM: Well, it supposed to mean that you are lazy.

WATTERS: You're lazy.

MACCALLUM: And that you are unproductive.

WATTERS: Is that what happens when you smoke pot?

MACCALLUM: Apparently.

WATTERS: Is that what you've heard?

MACCALLUM: That's what I've heard? You want to trap me here?



MACCALLUM: I feel like I'm being in trap. That's what I've heard.


MACCALLUM: But you know, the NIH study -- NIH studies -- not stoned, I just can't talk. No.

WATTERS: You're stoned, aren't you?

MACCALLUM: Said that it lowers productivity, lower graduation rates, negative impact on attention, learning and memory. So I wouldn't mess around with that.

WATTERS: Yes. Pot is definitely bad, say no to drugs, kids. But listen, now pot the industry is trying to make it a good thing.


WATTERS: Because you know, people are buying it and they want to make money. So you know, stoner, they said forget stoners. MACCALLUM: Right.

WATTERS: So I guess that's the slogan.

MACCALLUM: I want them to do like I got milk thing with someone with a joint in their mouth may be. Got pot?

WATTERS: A joint?

MACCALLUM: What do you think? Got pot?

WATTERS: What's a joint? I like it.

MACCALLUM: It will be on billboards everywhere. Thanks, Jesse.

WATTERS: Welcome.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. So, coming up here, this very serious topic to end the story with tonight. Hillary Clinton now saying that the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault deserves due process.

Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton's accusers, wants to respond to that and she's here now.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I think that you have to take each of these situations sort of on their own merits.



MACCALLUM: So Hillary Clinton is now weighing in on the Kavanaugh controversy saying that his accuser Christine Blasey Ford deserves the benefit of the doubt, an investigation and due process. Watch.


RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: You had concerns at the time? Your husband had concerns at the time he never really had due process to defend himself from allegations like this. Have we learned anything over the years about due process not just for the accusers but also for the accused?

CLINTON: Well, I think that you have to take each of the situations on their own merits. And what we have today is a process that has been rushed, that has been deliberately opaque. Yes, there should be due process for everyone involved.


MACCALLUM: My next guest takes some issue with those comments. Juanita Broaddrick says Hillary Clinton had a far different response when she came forward in the 1990s accusing former President Bill Clinton of raping her while running for governor of Arkansas in 1978.

Here now exclusively tonight is Juanita Broaddrick. Juanita, good to see you. Thanks for being here. What goes through your mind when you hear her talk about due process and fairness for the accused and the accuser?

JUANITA BROADDRICK, ACCUSED BILL CLINTON OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: The first thing you think about is she didn't give it to me, she didn't give it to Kathleen Willie or Paula Jones. She didn't give it to any of us. She is asking for things that she denied the victims of her husband.

MACCALLUM: And you also say that not only did she not acknowledge what you were accusing her husband of but that she intimidated you.

And this is a sound bite, a clip from an interview that you did while back, explaining that, I think it was the day after you claimed you were raped by her husband and what her exchange was with you. Watch this.


BROADDRICK: She grabbed a hold of my arm and my hand and she pulls me into her and she says with this very angry look on her face, which had been so pleasant second before. And in a low voice says, do you understand everything you do? And that frightened me.

At that moment -- and I have to go by what I felt then and the look that she gave me, I felt like she knew--


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That he raped you?

BROADDRICK: Yes. And that she was telling me to keep quiet.


MACCALLUM: You felt she was warning you to shut up?

BROADDRICK: Yes. She was so nice when she first said it to me. I was at a fundraiser that I had taken information up there. I was never going to stay for that. But she caught me before I left.

And she comes up friendly and says, you know, Bill and I are just appreciative of everything you do. And then her voice changed and that is when she said what she did. It frightened me, Martha. It really did.

MACCALLUM: You also say that when you look back at all of that period when you were making your claims that Dianne Feinstein was among those who refused to even read your deposition. So what do you think about of all of this now?

BROADDRICK: Yes. It's absurd. Not one Democrat would look at my deposition with the independent counsel.



BROADDRICK: Not one of them that consider--

MACCALLUM: What was the reason you were given? I'm sorry.

BROADDRICK: My gosh, it was absolute -- they didn't have -- they did not want to know about it. Just like Senator Ted Stevens said when he was in the committee, he said, I don't care if he raped her, got up and shot her dead. You're not going to get the vote.


BROADDRICK: So that was in the shipper's book sell out.

MACCALLUM: Incredible. You know, you talk about how long ago your allegation was. It's only about four years different I think than the allegation against Brett Kavanaugh right now.


MACCALLUM: And you tweeted out "If the want FBI to go back that far--


MACCALLUM: -- basically let's investigate my situation as well." Right?

BROADDRICK: Exactly. Why not? You know, everybody says it was litigated and adjudicated. My case was never litigated. It was never adjudicated. It never went to court. I was never discredited at all.

MACCALLUM: So let me ask you this. When you hear the parameters that are being set, they really want to the vote next week. What do you think about this woman, this accuser? Does she deserve more than she is getting right now from the senators in terms of speaking her mind or what they have offered her appropriate in your mind?

BROADDRICK: I feel like it's very appropriate. I feel like she could come Monday or let them come to her and let her tell her story. If they feel like there is more investigation that needs to be done, do it. But I think she should come and tell her story.

MACCALLUM: You think about on your case and the Bill Clinton case, obviously, you know, so much have changed. Now we are in the Me Too movement. It's almost like it's completely opposite. Because back then, no one, you know, so many people refused to believe you. Now--



MACCALLUM: -- it feels like you can make an accusation and everyone is supposed to believe you. What do you think about that?

BROADDRICK: I think the Me Too organization is for liberal women or liberal men that have been sexual assaulted. I don't think it includes the Clinton victims at all. I don't think they want us in that. Me Too may help some people. But it certainly has no advantage for me.

MACCALLUM: You know, I think it's a good lesson because we do need to look at the situations--


MACCALLUM: -- with an open mind and we have to understand that lives get destroyed on both sides of the equation in terms of the guilty party and who the innocent party is.

You know, what would be your message for her tonight as she contemplates whether or not she should go to that hearing on Monday?

BROADDRICK: She needs to think exactly what happened. Was it really Brett Kavanaugh that she can remember? She needs to get her story straight and be able to recount. I can't imagine being a 15-year-old girl and not telling anyone about it.

MACCALLUM: So that surprises you, that she didn't share it with anyone? You shared it with several people?

BROADDRICK: Yes, yes, yes. I know I was 35 at the time. But it's just a young girl. I can't imagine her not going home, telling her parents, telling someone.

MACCALLUM: Juanita, thank you. Great to see you tonight. That is our Story for this evening on Wednesday night. Send me a tweet at Martha MacCallum using the hash tag TheStory. Back here tomorrow night. We'll see you then.

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.