Sen. Kennedy discusses the power of Facebook's influence

close

Video

Sen. Kennedy discusses the power of Facebook's influence

FTC slaps Facebook with a record $5 billion fine; reaction from Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," July 24, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: So, is the Russia probe over? It may have landed with a bit of a thud today on Capitol Hill. The president said recently after the impeachment vote failed in the House that he was glad to have that cloud lifted. So, did today marked the beginning of the end of the Trump-Russia probe? The president, of course, certainly hope so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The performance was obviously not very good. He had a lot of problems, but what he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country.

And you know what, the Democrats thought they could win an election like this. I think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Or was it just a very bad day for Robert Mueller, who clearly ran out of steam and seemed to have real command or ownership of the contents of the investigation? Adam Schiff, today suggested that a torch has now passed to Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Joining me tonight, Congressman David Cicilline who questioned Robert Mueller today. And Trey Gowdy and Andy McCarthy who've been with us throughout the day with their analysis tonight as well.

But first, which side moved the ball forward today? Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction. And that, it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: So it's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele?

REP. TED DEUTCH, D-FLA.: The president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TX: What he is doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice. And the fact that you ran it out two years --

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: The gentleman's time --

GOHMERT: means you perpetuating injustice.

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: Gentleman's time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: A lot of emotion out there today. Democratic Congressman David Cicilline sits on the House Judiciary Committee and he questioned Robert Mueller today. Congressman, thank you very much for joining this evening.

(CROSSTALK)

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I.: Good to be with you. My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: It's great to have you with us. So, your thoughts on today, and where do -- where do you -- where does your party take this next?

CICILLINE: Well, I think today the special counsel made it very clear that this investigation was not a hoax, was not a witch-hunt, and in fact, the president was not exonerated as he's claimed.

He walked through the contents of his report during the questioning that provided evidence that the president the United States directed the Office of Legal Counsel to fire the special counsel. Don McGahn was then asked to lie about that and even generate a fake document saying it didn't happen.

He was also asked questions about his effort that Corey Lewandowski was asked by the president of the United States to direct the attorney general to tell the special counsel to limit his investigation to future elections.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

CICILLINE: Effectively cutting off this investigation in its entirety.

MACCALLUM: But let me just jump in on that.

CICILLINE: Sure.

MACCALLUM: Let me -- I want to play actually your comment today about that moment with Corey Lewandowski. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CICILLINE: Two days after the White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the president's order to fire you, the president directed a private citizen to tell the attorney general of the United States who was recused at the time to limit your investigation to future elections, effectively ending your investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign. Is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Well, I'm not going to adopt your characterization but say that a facts that's laid out in the report are accurate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you that -- this, about Robert Mueller today. Was it frustrating for you as a questioner to lay out those questions and to try to sort of build -- you know, that what you were going for there and to have him not -- you know, sort of be as sharp as I think a lot of people expected he would be.

CICILLINE: No, I mean, look, I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms, and Mr. Mueller was a prosecutor's prosecutor, a man of few words who acknowledged what he had written in the report, with respect to the 10 counts of obstruction of justice. It's -- I think he provided the American people with very specific details about the evidence he collected the investigation of serious wrongdoing by this president.

And basically acknowledged but for the office of legal counsel memo that says a sitting president can't be indicted. That this individual would have faced criminal charges for obstruction of justice. So, you know, I wasn't surprised --

(CROSSTALK)

But he didn't say that, Congressman. He, in fact, corrected that when he came back for the second round this afternoon. He said, "That is actually not the case," he said, "The case is that we did not find the president obstructed justice."

You know, in other words, we went down the road as far as we could. We were not able to make a conclusion on that.

CICILLINE: Right.

MACCALLUM: In fact, you know, I think what we learned today is that both things are false. The president can't say he was exonerated, and Mr. Mueller can say that he exonerated the president because that is not how it works in terms of prosecution which I know you well know.

CICILLINE: Well, what Mr. Mueller said, Martha, was he went through the elements of the offense -- the three elements of obstruction of justice. And in five episodes, all three elements were satisfied. What he did say was he didn't make a charging decision, a traditional charging decision because of the OLC memorandum. But there is overwhelming evidence that was presented.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I'm sorry, I have to -- I have to dispute that because of what Mr. Mueller himself said. He said that -- you know, that, that was -- it was part of the decision, but that it was not -- that there were other factors that didn't allow him to find obstruction. Because the truth of the matter is that if he did find obstruction, he still knew that down the road, it would not probably come to an indictment because of the OLC, but that was not what he said.

He said, you know, that we were -- we found evidence. However, we were not able to actually reach the conclusion that there was obstruction.

CICILLINE: Martha, that's actually not what the special counsel said. What the special counsel said, he said out the evidence, it satisfied each of the three elements of obstruction of justice.

He said he did not make a traditional charging decision, a president could face indictment when he left office, but the OLC memorandum prevented him from making a charging decision.

But what the American people saw is the president engaging in serious misconduct and effort to obstruct justice, impede this investigation after a very pervasive and systematic attack on our democracy by the Russians.

I think we can all agree that we have a responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign interference. The special counsel found a very systematic and broad sweeping attack on our democracy, we have a responsibility to protect that. And then, we heard evidence about the president's effort to impede, undermine, stop the investigation into the -- into the president's campaign and the obstruction of justice.

And look, I think we all know, no one in this country is above the law including the president of the United States. He must be held accountable and that's Congress's responsibility to do so.

MACCALLUM: But certainly not. And let me let -- you know, let me ask you about another moment then with the Congressman Radcliffe when he said that it appears that -- you know, of course, everyone accepts the fact that no one is above the law. But he also said the president or anyone else can't be under the law.

So, you can't make this claim that you, you know, you found all this evidence but you're not able to exonerate, that is not part of the task that was given to Robert Mueller. And so, it leaves this burden on the person who has found -- been found not guilty of a crime or not a -- not ability to prosecute.

And yet, it still hangs this weight around their neck out there in the public, which is absolutely not the way that the process is done in the United States of America.

CICILLINE: Well, Martha, look, I was a criminal defense lawyer. You're right, but we're not dealing with a criminal defendant, we're dealing with the President of the United States, we have a higher standard. It doesn't require that he commit a crime.

What we know for sure is that the president engaged in very specific acts of obstruction of justice. And we have the responsibility -- Mr. Mueller said this in his report, he cannot charge him because of the OLC memorandum. That responsively false to Congress, to hold him accountable - -

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: All right. You know, we're going to -- we're going to agree to disagree just based on the facts.

CICILLINE: All right.

MACCALLUM: I'm only going on what Robert Mueller said today. I am not a criminal defense attorney, and you are. However, I know what he said today and that's what he said.

CICILLINE: (INAUDIBLE) understand thing, I (INAUDIBLE).

MACCALLUM: You may believe that there is -- you know, that there's obstruction. And the president may be held to a higher standard, but he certainly shouldn't be subjected to a lower standard than the rest of American citizens.

(CROSSTALK)

CICILLINE: He should -- look, nobody in this country is above the law.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely, not. I am 100 percent agree with you.

CICILLINE: We are country of laws, the president must be held accountable for his misconduct. It is incumbent on the Congress to hold him accountable.

MACCALLUM: Total agreement.

CICILLINE: And that's what we intend to do.

MACCALLUM: All right, David Cicilline. Always good to see you, sir. Thank you for coming in tonight.

CICILLINE: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: Appreciate it.

So, here now, Trey Gowdy, a former, former member of the House Intelligence Committee and former House Oversight Committee chair. And Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor both are Fox News contributors.

Gentlemen, you know, your reaction, first of all, Trey, to that conversation and those comments from the congressman?

TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: That they're having a hard time getting their standard, right? In the criminal justice realm, you are cloaked with a presumption of innocence, and that remains with you unless and until the United States government proves each essential element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's what whether you're the president or whether you're Andy McCarthy that is the standard. Cicilline and others are applying a political standard. They did is somehow the president is responsibility to exonerate himself or prove that he did not do something. You can't do it, which is why we don't make people do it in the court.

MACCALLUM: However, the inverse is also true, right? The president can't say, I was completely exonerated for the same reason.

GOWDY: I think when the president says that, he is speaking in a political from a -- keep in mind, before Bob Mueller had uttered a single syllable of his report, 60 House Democrats had moved to impeach him. Adam Schiff had him in jail, and then, he had him in prison. He's the chair warden of --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, in fact, you know, since you brought that up, I just want to play this little montage because this -- you know, when you hear the language that we heard today in there, I just want to remind people of the stakes and the bar, the way that it was placed as we went through this whole process. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHIFF: He may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president. In fact, he may not even be a free person.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HARDBALL HOST: Do you believe the president right now has been an agent of the Russians?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF: Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: So, Andrew, let me bring you in here. You know, your reaction to the bar that was set in comparison to where we are now.

ANDREW MCCARTHY, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I agree with Trey on the narrow matter of the president. Whoever we're talking about, if you're going to bring the president into a criminal investigation, he has the same rights as everyone else.

I agree with the congressman before who said that we hold them to a higher standard, but that's political. If you're going to deal with them in the context of a criminal investigation, then he has the same rights of anyone who's in a criminal investigation.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

MCCARTHY: And when the congressman says that -- you know, Mueller laid out these three elements of the offense, and there was evidence on each one of them. Lawyers throw words like evidence around all the time. There may have been evidence on each element. That's common in every single case.

The question as Trey said is with respect to each element, does the evidence amount to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If it doesn't, then you have not satisfied the standard. And Mueller never said that he satisfied the standard.

MACCALLUM: I mean, well, in fairness to Representative Cicilline, now it does become the political question. And also, in many ways, that is what today was about. It was about the House trying to figure out, you know, do we have the circumstances under which we should keep moving forward with this issue of whether or not we want impeachment proceedings, which if that is what happens, you know that's in their court to decide what high crimes and misdemeanors are.

GOWDY: Martha, I would -- I would say it's always been political. I mean, I was on the Intelligence Committee when Adam Schiff dragged his feet for three months and didn't even want to start interviewing witnesses because he wanted to stretch this out as long as he could.

And here we are a couple of months before people began to vote in 2020, they've been successful. What they wanted was Mueller to come in and do their job for them. To issue this were public -- through this report this roadmap that could lead them to impeachment.

The report was one thing. Today was an unmitigated train wreck and a disaster. And they are farther away from impeachment than they were this time yesterday.

MACCALLUM: Let's play this sound bite from Louie Gohmert -- Congressman Louie Gohmert from today with regard to the relationship between Comey and Strzok. Because this goes to the issue of the origins of the investigation, and what kind of shape that side of “The Story” is in. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GOHMERT: You and James Comey had been good friends or were good friends for many years, correct?

MUELLER: No, we were business associates. We both started off in the Justice Department about --

GOHMERT: You were good friends. You can work together and not be friends, but you and Comey were friends.

MUELLER: We were friends. We were friends.

GOHMERT: Peter Strzok hated Trump.

MUELLER: OK.

GOHMERT: You didn't know that before he was made part of your team? Is that what you're saying?

MUELLER: No, I did not know that.

GOHMERT: All right. When did you first learn?

(CROSSTALK)

MUELLER: And actually, when we -- when I did find out, I acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI.

GOHMERT: Well, there's some discussion about how swift that was.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Quick thought on that Andy before we go.

MCCARTHY: I think that they are not anymore entitled to the benefit of every doubt than what the Democrats are willing to Accord to the president. This has to be investigated. It's part of the fact-finding process to determine how it was that they acquired the evidence and what we're to make of it, how we're to weigh it.

This is where this investigation goes now, it's the investigation on the investigators.

MACCALLUM: Final thoughts, Trey?

GOWDY: I agree with Andy. We needed a Department of Justice that everyone has respect and confidence in, regards to your political ideation, and there's nothing wrong with looking into the origins of the Russia probe, and whether or not the Department of Justice acted with integrity and followed policy.

MACCALLUM: Gentleman, thank you. Great working with you today. Great to have you here on the panel, and staying through this evening. We appreciate it.

Coming up, if you are Carter Page, who was suspected of being co-opted by the Russians and was interviewed several times by the FBI. Then, he went in front of the grand jury, of the special counsel, what are you thinking tonight about everything that he went through the past two years?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: With Carter Page, they went to the FISA Court. They used the now-famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of the year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He's here exclusively next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Republican lawmakers got really no answers today from Robert Mueller as they tried to push for answers on the origins of the counterintelligence probe including the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page who was interviewed five times by the FBI and then by the grand jury in the special counsel's investigation, but ultimately he was never charged with any crime at all.

He joins me now exclusively in moments, but first a look at how he came into play today. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES, D-CALIF.: The FBI claims the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began on July 31st, 2016, but in fact, it began before that. In June 2016, before the investigation officially opened, Trump campaign associates Carter Page and Stephen Miller a current Trump adviser, were invited to attend a symposium at Cambridge University in July 2016.

JORDAN: In 2016, the FBI did something they probably have it done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK, R-N.Y.: It's apparent that the Steele Dossier formed part of the basis to justify the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election as we know it was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The special counsel did not charge Carter Page with anything, correct?

MUELLER: The Special Counsel did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So here now the aforementioned Carter Page, former Trump campaign advisor. Carter, thank you for coming in tonight. You know, what do you make of what they were saying about the timeline start of all of this? Who invited you to a symposium in Cambridge and why is there anything possibly nefarious about that?

CARTER PAGE, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Look, I'm keeping an open mind. And I think if you listen to a lot of the testimony or even the questions from the Republicans, they were asking -- you know, they just want the facts and it was complete stonewalling today. So there is so much that's about to come out. It's really an incredible moment in history. Today, it was a real turning point, you know, exactly along the line --

MACCALLUM: What do you mean so much is about to come out? What do you mean?

PAGE: Well, I think you know, as the fact that Mr. Mueller wouldn't answer any of their questions and they said well there's this ongoing Inspector General report coming out, so I think that's just first step one in a long process.

And you know, Chairman Graham had said that you know, since the Republicans still control the Senate, they are also going to do a deep dive into this real tremendous attack on our democracy led by the Democrats.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So who -- as I said, who invited you to Cambridge? We heard a lot of names tossed around today, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, who reached out to you for that particular event that makes those gentlemen think that that might have been when it started?

PAGE: Look, I'm always very open but I'd like not to point the finger at people. And so you know, I'm -- however today they did mention directly that Steven Schrage who was a student at Cambridge University you know, they have evidence that he was the person who invited me.

So it's now in congressional testimony so I guess it's out there so -- but again, I keep an open mind on it.

MACCALLUM: I understand, but you know, what did you -- what -- did any alarm bells go off in your head when you dealt with that student Steven Schrage -- and you know, I just think it raised a lot of questions today so I'm just curious what you can fill in for us.

PAGE: Look, there are so many alarm bells that started later that same month. Late July of 2016 is when I started first getting the calls based on these false Steele allegations, (INAUDIBLE) and the chairman of Rosneft Mr. Sechin, people who I've never met in my life, you know. And they were trying to get some basic facts on that and unfortunately it was a complete roadblock. But I think we're right getting closer to starting to unravel these questions.

MACCALLUM: All right, I just want to play one more sound bite for you. This is from Devin Nunes with regard to Joseph Mifsud, and I just want to get your reaction to this. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NUNES: The entire investigation was open based not on Five Eyes intelligence but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving Joseph Mifsud. He's a Maltese diplomat who's widely portrayed as a Russian agent but seems to have far more connections with Western governments including our own FBI and our own State Department than with Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What's your reaction to that moment, Carter?

PAGE: Well, it's another one of those situations I was just alluding to where I want to be careful. Mr. Schrage, I had met with. I spent several days with him. I don't think I've ever met Mifsud in my life. So I'm careful to not you know say much about that.

However, I think it was a great point and I think if you listen to the whole -- you know, which I know you had great coverage all day and you heard the whole testimony, but there was a lot of open questions related to this which were totally misrepresented throughout that Mueller report.

All the pages about me are just complete Democrats spin, totally out of control, and you know, I mean, it's exactly as we're -- I think you know, the exculpatory elements.

MACCALLUM: And are you going to take any action with regard to that?

PAGE: Well, it's interesting. I have a -- I've had a case in Western District of Oklahoma and unfortunately, there's been a lot of stonewalling. Director Wray who I asked for some evidence from, he's been totally stonewalling with the FBI. But I'm hoping that now that things are starting to come out, I definitely have some big steps planned there and elsewhere with the DNC and their cronies who are at the center of this whole scandal.

MACCALLUM: All right, Carter Page, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

PAGE: Thanks, Martha. You too.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here. You too. Coming up next --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Democrats had nothing and now they have less than nothing. And I think they're going to lose the 2020 election very big including congressional seats because of the path that they chose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That was the president earlier this evening. DNC Chairman Tom Perez joins me exclusively next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It'll come as no surprise to you that a whole lot of Democrats were on social media during this just calling it an out and out disaster, a televised disaster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So tonight, police are confirming that they have three men in custody in connection with these appalling videos that were shared to social media showing NYPD officers being doused and slammed with water and buckets in Harlem in Brooklyn.

Police say that one of the men in custody is a 28-year-old member of the notorious Crips gang, according to their records on him.

They previously released these images of individuals that were wanted for assault and criminal mischief related to those incidents. So that's the latest there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND, SOUTH BEND: There's more than enough in that report to interpret it as an impeachment referral. I believe that an impeachment inquiry would bring more facts to life. I also believe that the Republican Senate will not act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Twenty-twenty candidate Pete Buttigieg today insisting that there are grounds to impeach President Trump despite waning support among the American public.

Earlier this month, a poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not want to launch -- or do not want the House to launch, rather, impeachment proceedings.

And here's Joe Biden today on how Speaker Pelosi has approached this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I think what the speaker is doing now is setting up the circumstances where under the law, the administration is required to respond to inquiries along the lines that they're asking for.

To the extent, and I've said this for the last three months, to the extent that they are stonewalled on that, it builds the case the only route they have is to go the impeachment route.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now exclusively, the chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez. Tom, thanks for being here.

TOM PEREZ, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Martha, it's great to be with you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. What's your reaction to that and do you think that, you know, that it will be validated to go the impeachment route if there is this stonewalling that Joe Biden talks about?

PEREZ: Well, I was a career prosecutor at the Justice Department under Republican and Democratic administrations. And I learned early on you gather the facts and that's exactly what they're doing in the House.

We need to hear from Don McGahn. We need to hear from Corey Lewandowski. We heard some very powerful testimony here about allegations of obstruction of justice.

I prosecuted obstruction of justice cases and I oftentimes had difficulty gathering evidence and what they have to do here today and continue to do in the weeks and months ahead is follow-through on all of the investigative leads. I'm a big believer ready, aim, fire. If you don't act hastily, and I think --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So what do you say to those who say, you know, that this investigation has been going on for a couple of years now and there's a report today, the Washington Post put out a story saying that Democrats are frustrated with the ongoing effort to investigate President Trump and they complain about a lack of urgency and a lack of results.

And then you've got 53 percent in the CBS poll who say they want -- they want to move on from this issue. Are you concerned about what it does politically at all?

PEREZ: Well, I mean, you've asked a number of really important questions there, Martha. When Watergate first came to light it took two years for the American public to appreciate the gravity of Watergate and very few people -- and I understand why -- haven't had the time to read the report.

What we heard today, the most important witness wasn't Bob Mueller, it was the report. And the report laid out some very serious allegations and I think one of the allegations that is -- one of the -- it's not an allegation, I think it's a reality that's not getting the attention it deserves, is that director Mueller said today, he said previously the Russians interfered with our 2016 election, the interference is continuing today. They did it before, they're going to do it again.

And what troubles me as much as anything in addition to all the allegations of potential obstruction is the fact that we know that our fiercest adversary is poised to do it again and this president has been abjectly ineffective at combating that. That is a serious thing.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, it's an interesting point.

PEREZ: It's not --

MACCALLUM: And it seemed to be the thing that Mueller was the most animated about, in fact, it was just the overall concerns about the election process. He was clearly, you know, very passionate about that, you know. And I think it's a legitimate question.

PEREZ: Martha, this isn't right versus left. This is right versus wrong. These are attacks on our democracy. Our commander in chief is supposed to protect our security, protect our democracy --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Interesting tonight, this is something --

PEREZ: -- and the Russians have interfered with our elections.

MACCALLUM: I understand what you're saying. Do you think if Hillary Clinton had won, which everybody expected was going to happen up until the day of the election that we would be going down -- that we'd be having all these investigations about the Russian interference? Do you think that we would be where we are today with this process if she was in the White House?

PEREZ: The simple answer to that is Donald Trump wouldn't have the protections from being indicted that director Mueller --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: No, what I'm saying if you're saying the most important thing is what the Russians did, none of that changes, that's static, so would Hillary Clinton, would you be pursuing all of these measures because, you know, all of those things would still exist?

PEREZ: If you try to rob a bank and you're unsuccessful, doesn't make it less of a bank robbery. No, it doesn't.

MACCALLUM: Right.

PEREZ: And again, we had interference in the 2016 election. We are at war right now, Martha, it's a cyber war and it's going to continue. The commander in chief has been abjectly ineffective at fighting this cyber war.

What the Congress is doing is incredibly important and they can walk and chew gum. They are simultaneously continuing to follow all of the investigative leads and I appreciate the frustration that people believe about the amount of time it's taking. Part of the reason it's taking so much time as we are getting stonewalled. We have to go to court to enforce subpoena.

MACCALLUM: Well, you now, both sides have stonewalled in the past and you know, we are seeing that again at this point. I know you are frustrated by that.

I want to ask you a couple quick questions before I run out of time. In terms of the president's back-and-forth with the women who call themselves the squad, is that distracting from the candidates that you want people to be focused on right now?

PEREZ: Well, the number one issue that voters want to hear about is what you're going to do about their health care? I have a pre-existing condition, who has my back? And the reason the president doesn't talk about that is he went into court a week and a half ago or two weeks ago to try to undo the Affordable Care Act. They are trying to accomplish in court what they couldn't do in Congress.

And so, when you don't have the facts on your side, you distract. I'm very proud of the work that all the Democrats in the U.S. House have done to make sure we pass the minimum wage increase, protect people with pre- existing conditions, bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PEREZ: All the work that the House Democrats have done.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I hear what you're saying. What I'm asking you is, are you -- do you feel like the stories getting hijacked by these four women because there's so much focus on them and then you have the BDS movement and you've got a movement against that now that's forming in the House.

Are they -- you know, when you watch all that and you see that story getting so much attention all the time, I mean, I can't imagine that you're not thinking, you know, be quiet, we need to focus on our candidates right now.

PEREZ: Martha, I'm proud of all the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because they have focused on the promises they made in 2018 to address prescription drug costs, to protect access to healthcare, to raise the minimum wage. To make sure we address common sense gun violence reduction measures. They have delivered on those.

Donald Trump hasn't delivered on anything. He has a trail of broken promises a mile-long and so when you don't have the facts, when you have broken those promises, you distract people. And that's what --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, you know what he would say. He'd say, you know, the exact opposite that the economy is going great. But that's a debate that obviously the people are going to have.

PEREZ: The economy is doing so great. Why does he always tweet about all these other things? That's the thing. And the reason is --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, I don't know. I'm just saying that what you're talking about will clearly be the subject of the next presidential election and we will hear debate on both sides on that.

One last question for you, what did you make of this story about Al Franken and him saying that he never should have stepped down? At the time back in December of 2017 you said Al Franken should step down. Everyone must share the responsibility of building a culture of respect for women. Are you concerned that due process didn't get its full due in that situation?

PEREZ: Martha, I haven't read the story about Al Franken. I am focused on the future. I'm focused on making sure we win elections next year. I have respect for Al Franken. I don't have respect for the conduct he was engaged in and I respect what he did at the end of the day and stepping down.

My focus is on making sure that we are going to win this selection by, again, delivering on our promises, like Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have done. When we focus on the future and when we don't allow these divisive distractions of the president to get in our way, that's how we do well. We did very well in 2018 and I think we're going to do the same thing in 2020.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Lots more things I could ask you but I got to go. I hope you come back.

PEREZ: It's always great to be with you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you too, Tom. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

All right. So, you are looking live at Puerto Rico tonight. People are flooding into the streets in anticipation of a news conference from the embattled governor there. He's expected to announce his resignation. We will take you there live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Fox News confirming that Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello will step down tonight. So much tension on the streets in Puerto Rico this week. Protests over corruption allegations and an obscenity-laced leaked message scandal that has dogged the governor there.

Protesters swarm the streets both demanding his ousting and celebrating news of a possible resignation tonight.

Jeff Paul is there, he's live in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this evening with the latest. Hi, Jeff.

JEFF PAUL, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. Yes, for the first time in nearly two weeks, this protest has sort of changed in mood. We are not hearing as much anger out here. We are not seeing as much violence and now this has sort of turned into a celebration, as I said -- take a step out of here you can kind of see what the folks are doing.

They are singing, they are dancing, they are waving the Puerto Rican flag knowing that they might be just minutes away possibly according to some reports from Ricardo Rossello resigning.

You can see the people out here feel like they are close to that happening.

Now a little while ago there was a spokesperson for the governor while we were outside of his mansion, came out and basically said that in a short time the governor is going to address the situation.

One of the local radio stations saying here it could happen as early as 8 p.m., so that's about 15 minutes away. And one of the other things we want to mention is earlier this morning, one of the sources that we have here on the island told us that (Technical difficulty) that it is over.

And that is a statement that tens of thousands of protesters here in Puerto Rico have been marching for. They have been standing outside the governor's mansion days on end in the hot sun. Sometimes it's raining and they feel like they are very close to finally accomplishing that mission. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Jeff, thank you very much. We will be watching and of course the question then is going to become what comes next for Puerto Rico. Jeff Paul live there this evening. Thanks to him. So, remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: The future is private. This is the next chapter for our services.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Well, now Facebook is about to shell out a record $5 billion for playing fast and loose with your privacy. Senator John Kennedy is here on that and Mueller's testimony today when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Facebook hit with a record-setting $5 billion fine from the FTC for violating the privacy of its users and mishandling their data, surprise, surprise.

The social media giant has since agreed to implement new oversight measures but there are some questions about whether federal regulators should have done more to protect consumers like fine Mike -- Mark Zuckerberg -- excuse me, personally, and limited his authority potentially.

Fox Business correspondent Kristina Partsinevelos has THE STORY tonight. Kristina?

KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, CORRESPONDENT: Well, unfortunately, that's not the case. Mark Zuckerberg is not being held personally liable but Facebook does have to do a few things now that they are binded to this 20-year settlement with the FTC. They are going to have to create an oversight committee.

They are going, Zuckerberg himself, that you are seeing on your screen, he will have to personally create this quarterly report showing that they are complying with privacy rules.

They will have to be very specific, like they can't use your phone number to advertise. They have to explain what they are doing with facial recognition, but most importantly, though, he is not personally liable.

And all this, stems back to last year. Maybe you remember that Cambridge Analytica scandal that happened where they got millions of people's users' information without consent. That is why the Federal Trade Commission went after Facebook for this issue.

But you have a lot of Democratic policymakers that are angry with this $5 billion fine. That's peanuts for Facebook, it's like a slap on the wrist and these guys are not held -- guys, I mean, these executives are not held accountable.

And since we're talk about regulation, Facebook is still being scrutinized because also you have the Department of Justice that announced that they're going to be launching an antitrust review of big technology.

They weren't specific on the company names but some that you're seeing on your screen, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, could be scrutinized in terms of whether they engaged in monopolistic practices and if they hurt consumers from entering the market.

So, overall, what we know from these two stories is that Washington is scrutinizing big technology. Back to you.

MACCALLUM: Yes, here they come. Kristina, thank you very much. Here now, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Senate judiciary committee. Senator, always good to have you here. Thank you for coming in tonight.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: This is a tweet I want to put a from Elizabeth Warren and you guys see eye to eye on this. She says "We already knew the FTC's $5 billion settlement with Facebook was a drop in the bucket penalty and the fine print proves that it is a joke." Do you agree?

KENNEDY: Yes, but I don't think you're going to solve this problem with the FTC. Congress is going to have to weigh in on this. I mean, Facebook is no longer a company, it's a country. Two billion users. It can influence what we think, what we believe, how we vote, what we buy. Even how we feel.

Their business model is we give up all of our personal information, very valuable. In return, for us being able to see what our high school friends had for dinner on Saturday --

MACCALLUM: That's right.

KENNEDY: Yes. I'm OK with that as long as people understand what they're giving up and what I think we need to do is pass a bill that says, number one, you own your data. Number two, you can license it to Facebook, but the licensing has to be knowing, it has to be willful, you have to know what -- they have to tell you what they're doing with it.

Right now, their terms and conditions are about eight pages, single-spaced, nobody reads it. You could hide a dead body in there, nobody would ever find it.

My bill would say look, you've got to write it in plain English. If you change your mind, you can opt out.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KENNEDY: Your data is portable. You are entitled to see a copy of your data. And if people are willing to do that, this is America, I say fine, but the consent, Martha, has got to be knowing and it's got to be willful.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, everybody thought social media was the greatest thing since sliced bread until they realize that that is the trade-off. Exactly what you said.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: Well, the other --

MACCALLUM: You don't get anything for nothing.

KENNEDY: The other problem is that we need a better understanding of social medias algorithms.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

KENNEDY: Now they say they are not shading the truth in terms of what we see, but 60 percent of their users use Facebook as a primary new source.

MACCALLUM: And that's one of the reasons the DOJ is looking into it as well.

KENNEDY: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Before I let you go, I do want to get your thoughts on today.

KENNEDY: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I know that you said that you thought that it was sad --

KENNEDY: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- to see Robert Mueller, you know, not a sharp, perhaps, on some of the facts as everybody --

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: Well, even before today, most Americans had moved on from this issue. This issue, even before today, was as dead as 4 o'clock to them. Now what my Democratic friends tried to do today was groom a corpse, and they couldn't do it. They just couldn't do it. Now a corpse is not only dead, it's buried.

I do feel bad about Bob Mueller and I don't think they should have put him through this. Bob Mueller, in my judgment -- I know some of our viewers disagree, but he's an honorable man and he served this country well and I hope the American people will remember him from his days when he was in his prime.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KENNEDY: He shouldn't have had to go through that.

MACCALLUM: Well, and it's notable, I think, that he didn't throw Bill Barr or President Trump really, you know, under the bus. He stuck to what he was there to talk about and he didn't sort of let himself be pulled in those directions.

Just very quickly before I let you go, the budget, are you going to vote for this deal?

KENNEDY: No, not likely.

MACCALLUM: Because?

KENNEDY: Look, because you don't have to be Euclid to understand the math here.

MACCALLUM: That's good.

KENNEDY: We are Thelma and Louise headed towards the cliff. And this budget just makes it worse. I understand divided Congress. If people want to vote for it that's their opinion, I get that.

MACCALLUM: But you can't in good conscience.

KENNEDY: I just can't. I mean, if we're not going to get -- reducing spending on Capitol Hill, everybody is far as they saw it.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KENNEDY: But it's like going to heaven. Everybody wants to go to heaven. Nobody's quite ready to make the trip. That's the way it is with reducing spending.

MACCALLUM: Senator, thank you for being here. I hope you can get in a couple episodes of breaking bad tonight.

KENNEDY: I'm going to go -- I'm going to try episode 12.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight in Puerto Rico, we expect that any minute, the embattled governor will address the people. He is expected to resign. We'll follow that throughout the night. That's “The Story” of Wednesday, July 24, 2019. But “The Story” goes on. We'll see you tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.