Published September 19, 2017
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," September 18, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: A judge's decision to acquit a former police officer who shot and killed a man is what set all of this off. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum. And "The Story" begins with a live look tonight at St. Louis, now about an hour from sunset there.
Last night, the peaceful protests did turn violent, when some of the protesters began assaulting police officers. Now, they arrested more than 80 people in St. Louis last night, all of this, of course, goes back to 2011 and the shooting death of Anthony Lamar-Smith by Officer Jason Stockley. Officer Stockley and his partner said that they saw Smith orchestrate a drug deal at a fast food parking lot.
Dashcam footage shows Stockley trying to corner Smith. Smith drives away, nearly hitting the officers. Stockley fires several shots to the car before a high-speed chase. You can you see all of it as it plays out here. So, Smith's car then finally slowed down. Stockley tells his partner to hit Smith and the SUV slams into Smith's car. Stockley then drew his gun and fired five shots into the car, killing Smith.
Officer Stockley says he only fired when Smith reached along the seat where a gun was later found. The prosecutors argued that Stockley had planted the gun, which was found to have Stockley's DNA, but not Smith's. In 2012, a U.S. attorney ruled there was not enough evidence to prosecute Stockley. Four years later, the St. Louis circuit attorney said she had new evidence and she charged Stockley with first-degree murder.
After a bench trial, a judge found Stockley not guilty, and that is where we are now. Fox's Mike Tobin, live on the streets of St. Louis, where this has been percolating over the last several days, and now we are on night four. Hi, Mike.
MIKE TOBIN, FOX NEW CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. And the work that's going on behind me right now is the preemptive boarding up of windows because another demonstration is coming and it is Del Mar Loop neighborhood. If you can look at the salt and smoke restaurant, they're over in the corner, you can see they've got most of the windows boarded up in advance of the demonstrations. Some of those were boarded up because on Saturday night, they were broken out by these demonstrators.
Demonstrators are supposed to be here in the next half-hour, and the trend thus far has been that you have a largely lawful demonstration, given the fact that they block traffic. It's largely lawful. Then, the people who organized the demonstration will declare that the march is over. Some young people will hang around. Now, these are the young people that law enforcement says are determined to either have a conflict with police or vandalize things. They went off and march in direction; tensions built for a period of time.
And eventually, what we saw last night, we saw them start blocking the roads, and they knocked over planters, they broke up concrete in the planters and took smaller pieces and threw them through the window to the restaurants downtown St. Louis. They ran down the street, 120 businesses now that sustained some kind of destruction. We've got an updated number from police as far as the number of arrests that they made when the police came in force and swarmed in on these particular demonstrators. 123 people were picked up last night.
So, as we go into the evening's demonstration, there is some optimism. Now, police were able to arrest so many of these vandals, that there won't be enough to come out on the street and start trouble. The other factor we're looking at tonight is thunderstorms are expected and when it rains, for these kids that want to just smoke pots and break things, it's just not as much fun. Martha.
MACCALLUM: All right. Let's hope there's rain. Mike, thank you very much. Here now with more tonight, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst on a couple of points here. First of all, just the case itself. What do you think, judge?
ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, as you requested, I read the judge's opinion, and I think the prosecutor made some mistakes. But on the basis of the evidence that was presented to him, he found that there was a defense of self-defense. Meaning the officer's perception that the guy in the car, Smith, was -- did have a gun and was going to use it, was a reasonable perception. There is a lot of countervailing evidence.
But I can tell you from having tried cases, I can't second-guess this judge because I wasn't in the courtroom. In the courtroom, you have the feel for the evidence. You have as an experienced judge, as this judge is, a sixth sense as to whether or not you should believe a particular witness. This judge believed that the defendant, and the defense witnesses, and rejected the government's witnesses. This is the cop's own bosses, who are prosecuting him and the judge rejected their testimony.
MACCALLUM: You know, going back to Michael Brown. You know, you look at all of these cases and one of the things that are concerning is that there's, in some ways, a proclivity to look at them all the same. I mean, and when you're dealing with the law, you have to take each case individually. We have seen officers acquitted. We have seen officers convicted. We have seen officers go away, you know, for the rest of their lives.
NAPOLITANO: Well, it's funny, you should say that because this was a judge sitting as judge and jury. Instead of having a simple guilty or not guilty with no rationale or to write -- we have a 30-page opinion from this judge. We rarely get this in criminal cases. This 30-page opinion is an extremely detailed analysis of all the evidence that came before him. What he accepted, what he rejected, whom he believed and whom he didn't believe.
MACCALLUM: And obviously, these people do not agree with that decision. Quickly, if you can, the difference between the Trump administration and the Obama administration when it comes to the way they are treating police officers and departments across this country.
NAPOLITANO: It's a significant difference, and it began today. I don't believe there has anything to do with St. Louis. The Obama administration, under the beliefs and the guise of we will help you output monitors on police all over the country, and those monitors became controlling agents. Today, the Justice Department removed those monitors. So, as Donald Trump promised he would, whether he agrees with us or not, he's doing what he said he would do -- it's hands off local police.
It's the federal government not telling local police how to maintain safety in the streets. It's police not being afraid of a monkey on their back from Washington, D.C., and being unleashed to do what they were charged to do, which is maintain safety. It's police not being afraid to go into the most dangerous neighborhoods for fear of what Washington, D.C. will say to criticize them.
MACCALLUM: We know. In places like Chicago, there's been a chilling effect on police officers, because they're very afraid they're going to find themselves in a difficult situation.
NAPOLITANO: Mike Tobin, we'll see that tonight in St. Louis.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, judge. Good to see you.
NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: So, here to debate: Vincent Hill, former National Police Officer who is now a Law Enforcement Analyst, he hosts the podcast, "Beyond the Badge"; and Michelle Juwando, she is Vice President of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, she also hosts their podcast, "Think Cap". Michelle, let me start with you. You know, from what you're hearing here tonight, what's your reaction?
MICHELLE JUWANDO, VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL PROGRESS AT THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: So, you know, I have to say, I'm quite disappointed. When I think about what was happening over the Obama administration, I think the key component was: how do we build trust between communities, usually communities of color and law enforcement officials? You know, I think it is so important for us to break down the kind of silos that say: somehow, law enforcement isn't a part of the community. Obviously, they are. And the way you build trust so that you can have effective policing and get rid of bias and do things to eliminate excessive force is you work together. The program that the judge mentioned was completely voluntary. It was a just collaborative program.
MACCALLUM: But unfortunately, one of the outcomes that we saw from that, and Vincent, I want to weigh in on this is that some officers around the country felt afraid to go do their job. They're afraid that they're going to get in trouble. And what we're hearing from people who live in some of these inner cities is that they want the police to be able to -- to be there. They want them to be in their corner and they don't want them to feel like they're going to be unjustly targeted. Vincent Hill, what do you think about that?
VINCENT HILL, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FORMER NATIONAL POLICE OFFICER: Yes, Martha, you're absolutely right. And I couldn't agree more with the decision that was handed down by the A.G. I mean, at the end of the day, the initiative itself, I think, in theory had good points that it wanted to get across, but people began to use it as a witch hunt, finger pointing issue against police. I mean, it's easy to say, oh, we need less use of force in the community. But what we should be teaching is how citizens deal with police, because everyone is saying police should de-escalate, right? But no one's teaching people things like compliance.
It's easy to say that police are just swarming the Black communities. But when you look at a city like Baltimore that has 96 square miles but there are 504 crimes per square mile, is it really racial profiling, or is it a crime? When I was in the Black communities, patrolling the Black communities, the projects of East Nashville, it definitely wasn't because I wanted to have issues with my fellow Black man, it's because that's where the crime was occurring, that's where police were getting called. And I've said this time and time again and I'll say it again on your program: crime brings police, not color. And until we start having these conversations, the real conversations, like crime reform, instead of everyone saying that police are the bad guy, we're going to always be in this situation we're in right now.
JUWANDO: Well, I reject the idea and the notion that saying, listen, there are individuals who aren't as focused, as perhaps your other guest, at bringing communities together. What we have found and the Department of Justice, working with local law enforcement, identified particularly in the community of St. Louis that there were excessive tactics that were happening that did not merit those behaviors, and additionally, did nothing but erode trust in those communities. The way you move forward together can't be let me isolate people based on what they look like or where they live. What you do is you focus on what are message that is going to make people more comfortable with law enforcement officials --
MACCALLUM: I've got to leave it there.
JUWANDO: -- so that you can find more information.
MACCALLUM: Thank you both. Great to have both of you with us tonight. Thanks for being here.
HILL: Martha, always a pleasure. Thank you.
MACCALLUM: You bet. Thank you. So, still ahead tonight, growing concerns over another hurricane that is now a category four -- this is Maria. It is being called extremely dangerous, and it has set its path, unfortunately, towards places that have just been ripped apart over the last few weeks. So, we hope this thing is going to calm down and spin down, but that's not the case tonight. We'll show you what the track looks like in a moment.
And new details learned about the Russia probe after the president's lawyers were overheard at a D.C. restaurant. Governor Chris Christie weighs in on that. Plus, some shocking comments from Hillary Clinton about, potentially, reopening the investigation into the election.
And President Trump makes his debut at the United Nations and has a stern message for that world body.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We encourage the secretary general to fully use his authority to cut through the bureaucracy, reform outdated systems and make firm decision to advance the U.N.'s core mission.
MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, President Trump is currently in New York meeting with Latin American leaders at this moment on the sidelines of the U.N. general assembly, follows a really jam-packed day. He met with a number of key allies, such as Emmanuel Macron of France, on the left; and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, on the right. Those are some of the meetings that happened today.
The big show is expected tomorrow morning. He will address the U.N. for the very first time as president in a speech that is expected to focus on a number of things, but including and most importantly, perhaps, North Korea and Iran. President Trump has long criticized the United Nations and earlier today, he and Ambassador Nikki Haley reiterated that the U.N. needs reforming. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: The fact that so many are committed to seeing the United Nations succeed is gratifying. It is a sign not only that change is desperately needed, but that it will be achieved.
TRUMP: We commend the secretary general, and his call for the United Nations to focus more on people and less on bureaucracy. We must ensure that no one and no member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the burden, and that's military or financially.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Joining us now, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Fox News Contributor; and Matt Bennett, Co-Founder of Third Way and a former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton. Let's start with you, Governor Huckabee. What do you expect tomorrow?
MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS: I think the president's going to be as honest and as blunt as he was before NATO, and that proved to be a smart move -- even though people told him not to be. But it meant that the other countries started stepping up in putting more than they should've been putting in. And I hope that he will have that kind of honesty because the U.N. needs it.
They need to be shaken out of what has become almost a worthless organization. So, let him go and make that kind of Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall speech. Because we remember that Reagan's people around him said, don't say that Mr. President and they kept taping it out of the speech, he kept putting it back in -- one of the most important things ever said. Donald Trump needs a moment like that tomorrow.
MATT BENNETT, CO-FOUNDER OF THIRD WAY & FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I don't agree with the governor that the NATO speech is all that successful. As you recall, he left out the idea that Article Five of NATO still exists -- and we would come with a mutual defense of our NATO allies. And the problem --
MACCALLUM: Which he did say in Poland just a week or so later.
BENNETT: Yes, later. But he had to kind of correct himself. The problem with President Trump is that he seems to have attention for punching our allies in the face and cozying up to some of our adversaries, and he does that both in a kind of bilateral way, like with Australia, and he does it in a multilateral with NATO and the U.N. Right at the moment, when as you pointed out, Martha, North Korea, and Iran at the front burner, and we've never needed our allies in the world community more than we need them now to contain these two very serious threats.
MACCALLUM: Well, many would say that we've done has pacified them for the past many years through the last administration, and certainly beyond that to some extent. Because during that period, they both have spent a lot of time and money building up a nuclear program that North Korea likes to show off on a regular basis now. So, pacifying them, Governor Huckabee, has not really been that productive, has it?
HUCKABEE: No, it hasn't been productive. And in fact, I think the Iranian deal, a disastrous deal, we never should have been made. It was done in order to enrich to a lot of business and countries that didn't want that money frozen. The U.N. has not been bold in speaking out against human rights violations, whether it's China or Saudis when it comes to women's rights. And this is an organization that, instead, has condemned Israel -- which is about the only bright spot of freedom and democracy between the African and Asian continents. And it's that inconsistency and that irrational kind of picking and choosing that needs to change at the U.N., and it hasn't in a long time.
MACCALLUM: I mean, that's the question: what's wrong with shaking things up a little bit? You know, it's an atrophied institution, in many ways, it's done an abysmal job of sticking up for human rights around the world - - which is supposed to be one its main intent. So, what's wrong with sort of putting it in their face a little bit and saying don't you think you can do a lot better?
BENNETT: Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And I thought his speech today was perfectly fine. And as he noted the secretary general call for reform and it's an institution that is in need of reform, and it's really tough to run an institution with several hundred countries all contributing. But the bigger question is whether he's going to be saying to the U.N., I respect this institution, I want it reformed or I want to tear it down, and we don't know yet exactly which direction he's going to take. If he goes the latter route, that's a real problem, because we need those countries to be at the table, because we need their help in dealing with these very serious threats.
MACCALLUM: I mean, it seemed today like he'd laid the groundwork for the sort of, you know, being in that middle ground. Everybody has a certain language of campaigning, we've seen it presidential term after presidential term. But then, you know, you come to a place like the U.N. and it seems to me, Governor Huckabee that he's basically going to speak forcefully. Is he going to going to give them credit where they deserve credit? Maybe even where they don't, a little bit, to sort of carrot and stick?
HUCKABEE: Well, to Matt's point, I think, quite frankly, he needs to say to them. If you don't reform, we don't need this institution -- just so people can get free parking in Manhattan. I mean, God's sake, there needs to be a whole lot more --
MACCALLUM: We'd like free spots for the rest of us.
HUCKABEE: -- coming out of the U.N. than a bunch of diplomats congratulating themselves on how much they care about the world when the world is going to hell. It needs to be a forceful organization that has some substance. And frankly, I hope the president lays it out there and says, if you want for us to continue to put most of the money in this institution, then this institution better produces something. And I think that's his goal, produce something.
MACCALLUM: Well, President Trump back in his hometown tonight, and he's got a very big day tomorrow. So, we'll see. Matt and Governor Huckabee, great to see you both tonight. Thank you.
HUCKABEE: Thank you.
BENNETT: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So, coming up on "The Story." This is a live look -- I feel like, you know, we're hitting the rewind button here, but this is a new one. This is Maria, it is now a category four, they just upgraded it to an extremely dangerous storm. It's the way they determine this. So, those folks in the British Virgin Islands and the Caribbean, we've got to feel for them tonight, because they are about to get a double whammy, it looks like. So, we're going to keep a close eye on that.
Also, breaking news on the July raid on Paul Manafort's home. The shocking details that we just learned moments ago when we come back.
Also, Senator Graham, leading the charge on the GOP's last chance to repeal Obamacare. This is picking up some traction, folks. This Tea Party is now on board, but Senator Rand Paul is not. He will tell us why on the story when we come back.
MACCALLUM: 12 days, that is all the GOP has to come through on a 7-year- old promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. The final option that they're considering is a bill spearheaded by Lindsey Graham. He spoke to us about it a couple of days ago on he says are the dire consequences, he believes, if they don't get it done. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Who do you have on board, because, you know, Rand Paul doesn't seem to be on board.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: I think we'll get 50 votes for a block grant. What we do is we will repeal the individual mandate, the employer mandate. We take all the money we would have spent on Obamacare and block grant it back to the states by 2026. Here are the questions for the Republican Party: do we have the same determination to repeal Obamacare as Democrats had to pass it? I'll say this to the Republican Party, if you walk away and give up, we'll never get over this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: But Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul is walking away from this current proposal, at least, and he could be the one vote standing in the way of Obamacare repeal if it goes down that way. He joins me now. Senator, good to see you.
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: Welcome to "The Story." So why -- you know, it looks like McCain is thinking about it. Collins and Murkowski have said that they have concerns, but they're looking at it, which tells me that they are not a no yet, but you're still dug in on this.
PAUL: You know, as a doctor, I don't think there's anybody in America who probably hates Obamacare and thinks it's a disaster for us more than I do. But this isn't repeal. You heard it in a clip from Senator Graham. This keeps the Obamacare spending, keeps well over 90 percent of the spending and the taxes, and then what it does is it reshuffles the money and it takes it from Democrat states and gives it to Republican states.
I think it's going to end up looking, once people look at this bill, like a petty partisan bill that doesn't really fix the problem. Because, really, what we're doing is or what they want to do is reshuffle the money, redistribute it from Republican to Democrats states, but basically keep all of the Obamacare money and taxes in place. That's not repeal in my book.
MACCALLUM: You know, we just had Governor Huckabee on and I've talked to him in the break, he said I think you could get 50 Republican -- you could get all the Republican governors, excuse me, to back this plan, and he said you could probably get some Democrats as well. And he said what they want is to have more control over this funding and this money, and if there are discrepancies between states, he said those can be worked out along the way. But this is better than nothing.
PAUL: It's about two things. It's control of the money, but it's also about money. Those of us who objected to Obamacare, we objected to a trillion dollars in taxes and a trillion dollars in spending.
MACCALLUM: But you're going to be stuck with that -- for this forever if something doesn't get passed.
PAUL: I know. But this bill immortalizes that. I can't be in favor of keeping the Obamacare spending and just redistributing it to different states -- that does not repeal. This is Obamacare lite at its worst, and it doesn't repeal it. It's not going to help the country.
MACCALLUM: You said earlier today that you're concerned because you were happy that the last bill went down, and you didn't really get blamed for it too much. John McCain took all the sort of, heat for voting against it. But --
PAUL: There were two repeal bills and I voted for both repeal bills. I did not vote for the insurance bailout bill. The only thing this bill has is its advantage over the insurance bailout bills. This one doesn't have the insurance bailouts, but it still continues the Obamacare taxes, continues the Obamacare spending, and really, just redistribute it -- takes it from Democrats states and gives it to Republican states. This does not fix the problem. And I cannot be in favor of a trillion dollars spending program.
MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, no one can say that you didn't stand up for that principle. You've said it all along. And I think a lot of people listened to your plan and understand the problems you have with it. I spoke to some doctors last week, though, who said, basically, I'm going to close up shop. If they can't pass something and get us moving in the direction away from this, then, they say they cannot stay in business.
PAUL: I would say there is other good news. I spoke with the president this afternoon, and we talked about something I've been working on for six months. This is called healthcare associations, where individuals could join across state lines to form groups or associations to get leverage on cheaper prices. I'll give you an example: the national restaurant association, there are two million fast food restaurants, 15 million workers, many of them don't have insurance. Under my plan, which costs zero federal dollars, we would allow them to come together as a group and buy insurance altogether in one group, they will get the leverage to lower prices and be protected against preexisting conditions. The president is going to do it next week or the week after. It's coming very soon.
MACCALLUM: Twelve days and ticking.
PAUL: . I think that's part of the fix, and it won't be a trillion dollar federal program like the Grand Cassidy disaster.
MACCALLUM: Understood. We'll keep a close eye on it. Senator Rand Paul, always good to have you here. Thank you very much, sir.
PAUL: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: You bet. So breaking tonight, new details inside the raid at dawn on Paul Manafort's home, a live report coming up from Washington, Ed Henry will join me in a minute with the breaking details on that. And two top lawyers for President Trump overheard talking shop at a D.C. restaurant, we're going to tell you why the White House wants these guys to eat at their desk from now on. Governor Chris Christie weighs in and tells us what he thought -- thinks about all of that right after this. Also, Nancy Pelosi getting some heat in her own hometown.
MACCALLUM: So we have a big development tonight that is sure to send some shockwaves through what we know about the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2017 election. And new report from CNN claims that U.S. investigators wiretap former Trump campaign aide, Paul Manafort, under secret court orders before and after the election. The New York Times reporting the special prosecutor, Robert Muller, told Paul Manafort that he should prepare to be indicted. Chief national correspondent, Ed Henry, live in Washington with the breaking news on this. Ed, what do we know?
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martha, good to see you. This is something that is surprising, I can tell you. Some people close to the president that I've spoken to who were not expecting these two leaks this evening. The first one that you mentioned about Paul Manafort in the New York Times suggesting that he and his legal team were tipped off by Robert Mueller's investigators, that he's likely to be indicted. In and of itself, that's not shocking to President Trump's legal team because they have believed for a long time that Paul Manafort was facing trouble. But when it's connected to this CNN report breaking tonight, as you mentioned, that Paul Manafort was wire tapped by the government before the election, and then after the election as well, this is catching some people close to the president off-guard. They're telling me they're still trying to get a handle on what all of these means for Robert Mueller's investigation.
One thing we know for sure tonight is that it's putting more pressure on Paul Manafort because this is pretty aggressive in terms of how Mueller's team is going after him. The other point, though, that I should mention is that someone close to the president just mentioned to me that they believe the second wiretap of Manafort that came after the election may be connected to the dossier that targeted President Trump that has been discredited, and that may be raising alarm bells inside the government in terms of how the court order was obtained to continue the wiretapping base on -- potentially a dossier that has been discredited. Very quickly, this is coming amid, you know, a very interesting leak today in the New York Times as well, before all of this about Manafort, about some tensions in the president's legal team.
Specifically, the New York Times is reporting that one of their reporters basically sat a few days ago right near two members of legal team. You see him right there. John Dowd and Ty Cobb, when they were having lunch in Washington at a steak house, and this reporter, basically, overheard them talking about concerns that Ty Cobb, specifically, had about the president's counsel inside the White House, Don McGahn. You see John Dowd there on the left. He's the outside attorney for the president legal team in this Russia probe. Ty Cobb on the right is also helping the president's legal team, but from inside the White House. And what was overheard allegedly by this New York Times reporter was Ty Cobb there on the right raising questions about the chief White House counsel, Don McGahn, and whether or not he was turning over enough documents to Robert Mueller. You see Don McGahn there on the left, Robert Mueller on the right.
McGahn's position, basically, Martha, is that they have to be careful about turning over too much information to Mueller because that could have an impact on the institution of the presidency, of the executive branch, long- term, in terms of executive power. But what Ty Cobb and others are privately saying is they want to turn over as much e-mails and other documents to Robert Mueller as possible because they simply do not believe an obstruction of justice charge can be brought against this president. And so, Ty Cobb and others in the president's legal team, I'm told, believe that the sooner they can get this information to Robert Mueller, Paul Manafort, General Flynn, others may be facing legal jeopardy, but they simply don't think the president will face anything like that, so they want to turn over as much as possible, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Yeah. We spoke with Trey Gowdy not too long ago, about whether or not the dossier was used as a way to legitimize part of this investigation. And if it was used for those wiretaps, that's going to bring that into question.
MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. That's the breaking news tonight. Good to see you, too. Earlier, just a little while ago, I spoke with Governor Chris Christie. Here's that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So here now in an exclusive interview tonight, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Governor, good to see you, thanks for coming to the show tonight.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, R-N.J.: Good to be here, Martha.
MACCALLUM: What do you think about the lunch thing?
CHRISTIE: They should stay inside -- in the White House. They shouldn't be talking about cases outside the White House. You just shouldn't. And, you know, we were saying before, you know, for those of us who ride the Acela, between New York and Washington, we all learn the lesson from watching others make that mistake, to have those conversations because you'll never know who's sitting near you and who's listening.
MACCALLUM: Yeah. I think that's someone providing the Trump legal team with flash cards. These are the reporters that you want to know the face of, right?
CHRISTIE: Yeah. Either that or just be smart and don't talk about your client's case unless you're in a place that you know is secure.
MACCALLUM: What about the underlying issue that they were debating, in terms of whether or not it's wiser for the Trump team to put everything out there, any documents that are asked for, so that you're not up against a subpoena, or whether they should hold some things closer to the vest.
CHRISTIE: Well, it's a complicated issue. You know, I was a U.S. attorney for seven years, and so I've had these conversations with defense lawyers many times, but not one like this, where the defense lawyer is representing the president of the United States, and have to be concerned about what precedent they set for future White Houses. So I think, listen, I've always that this Russia collusion allegation was very, very dubious. And so I understand Ty's position, which is let everything go, because there's nothing there. But I think Don McGahn, remember, he's not the president's lawyer. He's the White House counsel. He represents the institution. Now, he wants to make sure that they're not doing anything that will hurt presidents in the future. So that's the balance. And there should be a good, vigorous debate, and ultimately they'll make the recommendation to the president.
MACCALLUM: I know you said recently, don't care too much of what Steve Bannon thinks, but he said that he thought is the biggest mistake that the White House could have made, to let it go through the point where they have a special prosecutor now. The likelihood that this is going to hang over the administration throughout the course of the entire first term is very large, right?
CHRISTIE: Sure. Sure. I mean, listen, I said at the time, you know, I was very reluctant to see a special prosecutor appointed, because it becomes like a cottage industry. And they have to go and find something, even if what they initially looked into. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't meet Monica Lewinsky until 19 months after the special prosecutor was appointed, didn't meet her for 19 months afterwards that turned out to be all the works, so I think it's very reluctant. But let me just say this, Steve Bannon was also in the White House at the time that they gave the president all kinds of advice that turned out not to be that good, so I think we shouldn't be wasting too much time listening to Steve Bannon.
MACCALLUM: All right. Here's Hillary Clinton talking about whether or not she thinks that there's a possibility that you could continue to litigate the legitimacy of President Trump's win. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learned that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No, I would not. I would say.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're not going rule it out?
CLINTON: No, I wouldn't rule it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: She went on to say that she doesn't think it's legally feasible. But she made it pretty clear that there are academic and scholars out there who think there might be an avenue to reopening this election.
CHRISTIE: What's really clear is she can't get over the fact that she lost the election. And all these stuff, all her talking, and all the rest that she's doing, quite frankly, it's exactly what she criticized President Trump for during the election when he won't say that he would accept the election regardless of the results. And she acted appalled. Remember, it's un-American what he's saying. But all of a sudden now it's not un- American what she's saying. I think what people have understood about Hillary Clinton is two things, hypocrisy is her specialty. And she's a sore loser. I mean, you know, she's a sore loser. You lost. You clearly lost by a clear number in the Electoral College. Let this investigation do whatever it's going to do, but no one has alleged that it changed the course of the election.
MACCALLUM: Nancy Pelosi got surrounded by dreamers today at an appearance that she made. Let's watch this.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You have the audacity to tell us you have been fighting deportation.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Yes, yes, yes, I am. Yes, I am. Yes, I am. You do not.
PELOSI: You don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: And that's in San Francisco. That was in reaction to the deal that she is making -- working on with President Trump.
CHRISTIE: Listen, you know, this is the problem with the tone of our politics today. Listen, I'm no Nancy Pelosi fan, politically. We don't agree on much of anything. But what I will say is, you know, that kind of conduct at that kind of event is unacceptable. No matter who the person is behind the microphone. To be screaming and yelling over -- and I've had to deal with that at times in New Jersey and other times.
MACCALLUM: Really? We've never seen that.
CHRISTIE: Never seen that, you know. That's where sit down and shut up came from. I mean, the fact of the matter is that that kind of stuff is unacceptable. But I think, you know, folks like Congresswoman Pelosi have stoked this kind conduct, and now the conduct is coming back on to them. And they don't like it too much. They would love it when that stuff is happening to President Trump. But they don't like it when it's happening to them. I don't think it's acceptable for anybody. I think if you're public official, you have the right to go out there and speak your mind. People can protest, but they have to sit and listen. I think the biggest problem in politics right now, Martha, is no one is listening to each other. You know, we're supposed to have a civil society. That's not civility. And the folks are yelling and screaming like that. Putting aside whether you agree with them or you don't, that's not the way we should conduct ourselves in public life.
MACCALLUM: One of the things I know you want to be your legacy in New Jersey is the opioid treatment process, $200 million toward that initiative. Are you going go after the drug companies as well who have made it their business in many ways to prescribe things for people in a way that in some cases allows them to get addicted?
CHRISTIE: Well, there's no question that both the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors who are doing this are engaging in things that, you know, simply shouldn't be done. Now, our attorney general is pursuing on behalf of the state of New Jersey, as many other attorneys general are around the country.
MACCALLUM: A lot of drug companies in New Jersey.
CHRISTIE: We do.
MACCALLUM: Are you concern about that?
CHRISTIE: Listen, I'm always concerned. I'm concern that people do something wrong, they need to be held into account. Just because you operate in our state and you're good corporate citizen, generally, if you did something wrong, then you need to be held to account for it. I've believe it as a prosecutor and I believe it as governor. Right now, our attorney general is handling that. And I've great confidence in him. And I think he'll do a good job and make sure justice is done. But we've also have to look at the physicians, Martha, because the physicians are the ones writing these prescriptions over and over and over again. You know, in 2015, we wrote enough opioid prescriptions in this country for every adult in America to have a 30 day bottle of pills.
CHRISTIE: Absolutely insane. We're becoming addicted, and we're becoming an addicted society. And so, yeah, the people who are causing this, whether it's the illegal drug dealers or the drug dealers who are physicians, who are prescribing these things in excess need to be held to account, but then we've also have to find treatment for the people who suffer from this disease.
MACCALLUM: I've got to ask you before I let you go about the governor's race to take over after you leave. You've enjoyed the highest approval ratings of any governor and the lowest of any governor. What's your legacy if your lieutenant governor, who is way behind in that race right now, cannot hold on to a Republican governorship in New Jersey?
CHRISTIE: Well, first of all, two things. No party, neither, the Democrats or the Republicans have gotten three terms in a row in the governorship in New Jersey in 55 years. So it would be pretty typical that our state does not go for either party.
MACCALLUM: You think she's going to lose?
Christ: I'm not saying that. I'm saying what history tells us. So you're asking what would be my legacy if she didn't win, that was your question. Is she didn't win it would be pretty typical with what history has been in our state. If she does win, it would show just how popular we've been because we're breaking 55 years of history. So I have confidence in lieutenant governor. I've endorsed her. I'm working for her, and I hope she's victorious in November.
It is absolutely wrong to say that if what happens for the last 55 years happens again now, that somehow that's a reflection on us or our administration. In fact, we have a state that's got 850,000 more Democratic than Republicans. We have not elected a Republican to the United State senate since 1972, the longest streak in America. This is a very blue state as you know, Martha. And the fact is -- the fact that we won 61 percent of the vote in 2013 is miraculous. And we're hoping that we're going to be able to repeat with a victory in November. But if we're not, it will be typical New Jersey history for the last 55 years.
MACCALLUM: Will you ever run for office again?
CHRISTIE: I don't think so. I don't think so.
MACCALLUM: Why not?
CHRISTIE: I've had the greatest job I think I could ever have. And the only other job that I was really interested in, I ran for in 2016 and didn't win. And so.
MACCALLUM: Ever wish you ran the last time around?
MACCALLUM: You regret that?
CHRISTIE: No, I don't. I don't because I wasn't ready to be president in 2012. I wasn't ready. And I think the only thing worse than running for president and losing is running for president and winning when you're not ready because that's injurious to your country, and I think it's not patriotic. I knew a had a good chance to win in 2012, but I knew I wasn't ready. And I think the right thing to do for your country is not worry about -- yourself, but doing what you think is right based upon what you know at the time. What I knew at the time, I wasn't ready to be president of the United States.
MACCALLUM: Governor, thank you. Good to see you.
CHRISTIE: Great to be here, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Good to have you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So Hurricane Maria now is the next one in line over the Caribbean, and it is now a cat 4 with Puerto Pico in its sights. Also tonight, do Google and Facebook know way too much about you, and are they telling you what to think?
MACCALLUM: We are watching a couple of breaking news stories. St. Louis is one of them. But Hurricane Maria is the other one, and it is now a massive and extremely dangerous category four storm. And it's on track now to tear through the Caribbean over the next 48 hours. This storm has been strengthening in intensity throughout the course of the day. I mean, you know, you can just hit replay on this with a different name. It's unbelievable what has been coming down the pike for the last three weeks and the untold story about this. We've covered Texas and we've covered Florida, obviously, a great deal. But these islands and the people who live on them have had their lives devastated in many cases. And now this one seems to be heading towards Puerto Rico, which has already been hit, so we're going to be watching that very closely. You've got a state of emergency that has been declared as a result of that. We're going to stay on top of Maria. And we'll watch as it goes through the next 48 hours, very, very important with regard to those islands. So we'll be watching that very closely.
So for years Americans have had a fascination and a growing obsession, we can all admit with our smart phones. Along the way they have taken over our lives in many ways, you know they have. Companies like Google and Facebook and Amazon robbing us of our individuality. Are they telling us what to think politically and are they helping us choose our circle of friends? It is scary. But can you honestly say that you haven't lost some of your independence to these organizations? Here now, Franklin Foer, who came up with all of those ideas in many ways. He's the author of a new book, World without Mind, the existential threat of big tech. Franklin, a lot of us have been reading this and we are fascinated by it. We had a quote of the night from you the other night. So you say we spent too long marveling at new technologies and it's time to consider the consequences.
FRANKLIN FOER, AUTHOR: These technologies are magic. It's just -- it's incredible you can get every book in human history in your phone. It's incredible that you can download every television show that you want, when you want it, and our lives are better because of this. But we need to just get past the magic a little bit. But we need to be skeptical and consider the dark side. These technologies can be amazing, but they can also be problematic. And we should be able in our minds to be able to accommodate both of these thoughts simultaneously. But the dark sides are real. And the consequences are such that our privacy is diminishing, which I think we all kind of grasp, right? They know everything about us. They've amassed these incredibly intimate portraits of our psyches. They know all of our habits and they can predict things as a consequence of that. And so, they've engineered their product to be addictive. The addiction is not an accident. The fact that you spend -- you check your phone 200 times a day, which is not.
MACCALLUM: Is that really?
FOER: You can actually measure these things. There's of course an app that can help you measure it.
FOER: But, look, how many times you've done it, probably, over the course -- I mean I do it.
MACCALLUM: I think about it constantly.
FOER: . just look out on the street. Look at the street in the way people behave. And that's not an accident. These things have been engineered to addict us.
MACCALLUM: So tell me, what is -- as you see it, sort of, the evil under belly of this? What is Facebook trying to do to us? What's Google trying to do to us? Amazon in your opinion?
FOER: Well, the companies are all different. But Facebook and Google want to hold our attention for as long as possible.
MACCALLUM: So do TV, you know, shows, and so do advertisers.
FOER: Right. Well, there are a couple of differences. One is that these guys want to be completely intertwined into our lives. It's not just sitting in front of a TV. Instead, they want to become our personal assistants. They're giving us technologies that we wear on our arms that are extensions of our bodies. We've all become a little bit cyborg. And eventually these things are going to be implanted within us. I mean, that doesn't seem like a stretch to say.
The second thing is this data. And you're tracked all the time. They know what you read. They know where you go. And this is not just something that they -- they take this information and they use it to shape your behavior. We're all in a way guinea pigs in this experiment.
MACCALLUM: And we've trade it off to them. We gave it to them in a way. Because we're saying I want this access. I want my phone to be able -- I want to be able to hit Google maps in a second and I want them to know where I am, so that they can tell me where I'm going. We have sort of done this kind of scary transaction.
FOER: Of course. I mean, some of it is -- that we just -- it's kind of bureaucratic. And so, we see a terms of service agreement and we just click because we want the free goodies on the other side. And that's kind of -- that's a little bit on us and a little bit on them. But I think that the problem really is that we just don't know what we're getting into. And so, as a Society, I think it's important to say, all right, let's just apply some skepticism to these forces and ask really certain questions.
MACCALLUM: How? I mean, how do you push back on this because it's so deeply ingrained. And in terms of politics, I mean, they've definitely have a political bent as well.
FOER: Well, I mean, do they have a political bent? I mean, they're basically giving everybody what they want. I mean, we talk about the filter bubble all the time. And if you look at Facebook, if our politics in this country is extremely polarized, let's say we have two tribes, Facebook has done a lot to nurture that, that they give you what you want. But the difference is, so if I watch Fox News I'm getting -- not me, especially, but there are a lot of people who are getting what they want by watching Fox News, and they're making a choice to do that.
MACCALLUM: They're getting the best journalism on television that's out there.
FOER: But with Facebook, you're not really making a choice because it's done in this invisible sort of way where the information is being organized for you by algorithms that are serving Facebook purpose.
MACCALLUM: Understand what's happening.
FOER: You know there's no law protecting data in this country, and -- which is kind of astonishing.
MACCALLUM: We're going to talk again. This is fascinating. Franklin, thank you very much.
FOER: OK, thank you.
MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us tonight. So just in from our National Hurricane Center moments ago, hurricane hunter aircraft has just updated this one to a category 5 while we were talking. So there are the measurements on it. The Caribbean Islands, again, in the path of this massive storm. It is a story, obviously, we're going to stay on top throughout the evening.
We'll be right back.
Oh, also, a final note tonight, our quote of the night is from writer Noah Rothman in a piece called the great tune out. He looks at the soft ratings for awards shows, the movie business, the impact of political stance taken at ESPN, or during the national anthem, and he rights this, quote, movies, cable and broadcast television, and music, this tune out isn't entirely about cord cutting. This is something broader. Any attempts to divorce politics from the public's waning interest in entertainment cannot compel without addressing the ubiquity of liberal political messaging permeating the products artist produce. Of course, no one can tell them to compel an artist to sacrifice their values for commercial viability. Nor, however, can you force consumers to endure a scolding that they would rather avoid.
I did it. I got it in. I'm almost out of time. Good to have you with us tonight. Food for thought, right? We'll see you back here at 7:00. Tucker Carlson up next.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.