Sen. Rand Paul on North Korea, Gina Haspel, Russia probe

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 17, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST, THE STORY: Thank you very much, Bret, good evening to you and breaking tonight, the Inspector General report on the FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton email case is now imminent.

A leak tonight says that the report finds potential criminal misconduct, so we are going to have a lot more on that in a moment with Jonathan Turley.

But first, tonight, President Trump in deal maker mode trying to smooth over any tensions with North Korea as the world waits for the next move in this fascinating play that is going on that leads to this historic summit.

So, the president today reassuring Kim Jong Un that he will not end up like the deposed Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was killed and dragged through the streets several years after he chose to denuclearize.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Libyan model isn't the model that we have at all while we're thinking of North Korea. In Libya, we decimated that country. That country was decimated. There was no deal to keep Gaddafi. This would be with Kim Jong Un, something where he would there, he would be in his country. He would be running his country.

His country would be very rich. His people are tremendously industrious. We never said to Gaddafi, "Oh, we are going to give you protection. We are going to give military strength. We are going to give all of these things." We went in and decimated him, and we did the same thing with Iraq.


MACCALLUM: Ah, so very clear message being sent there, in moments, we are going to see if Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and American Enterprise Institute scholar, Marc Thiessen, but we begin tonight with Chief White House correspondent John Roberts. Hi, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Martha, good evening to you. You know, North Korea did not like one bit what John Bolton told our Chris Wallace on Fox News, Sunday back on April 29th that North Korea denuclearization would follow along the Libyan model.

North Korea was quickly to pout out what happened to Muammar Gaddafi as you just illuminated. Today, in the Oval Office, the president assuring Kim that the US is willing to give him guarantees, economic, security and political.


TRUMP: So, I am willing to do - we're willing to do a lot and he is willing to, I think do a lot also. And I think we will actually have a good relationship assuming we have the meeting and assuming something comes up, and he'll get protections that would be very strong.


ROBERTS: One protection the North Korea has been demanding for years, removal of U.S. troops from South Korea, North Korea insists that the reason it needs its nuclear program at all. The President mentioned his desire to reduce US troop levels in South Korea down from the current 28,500.

I asked the President today if that was possibly on the table in his talks with Kim. Listen here.


TRUMP: Well, I am not going to talk about that. We are going to say that he will have very adequate protection and we will see how it all turns out. I think this - the best thing he could do is to make a deal.


ROBERTS: The president also indicated that the summit appears to still be on track. I asked if he was potentially considering a personal outreach to Kim to keep him moving towards the table.


TRUMP: We will see what happens. Look, you have to want to do it. With deals, that's what I do is deals, and with deals, you have to have two parties that want to do it. He absolutely wanted to do it, but I will say this, we are continuing to negotiate in terms of location.

The location as to where to meet, how to meet, rooms and everything else, and they have been negotiating like nothing happened. But if you read the newspapers, maybe it won't happen. I can't tell you yet, I will tell you very shortly. We are going to know very soon.


ROBERTS: After being upset at what John Bolton said last month, the North Koreans probably like most of what they heard from President Trump today. Martha, all with the exception of when the President said, "Well, the Libyan model might apply if North Korea chooses not to denuclearize." Not sure how that one is going to play in Pyongyang tonight.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating. Great questions, John, thank you very much for that report tonight, so here now with more, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar and a Fox News contributor. Mark, great to have you hear this evening.


MACCALLUM: You say that Kim Jong-un took the Libya model mentioned by John Bolton all the wrong way.

THIESSEN: Well, there are two different things. What John Bolton was saying which I Donald Trump completely agrees with is we are not going to cut a deal with Kim Jong Un like the Iran nuclear deal that Obama cut which is sanctions relief and billions of dollars in cash up front.

Weak inspection regime, no material handed over to the west, and sun set clauses at the end. President Trump has been pretty clear that we are not cutting deals. He doesn't cut deals like that because he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.

What John Bolton was saying was that when we cut this deal, when we did this deal with Libya, we sent US planes over to Libya and they loaded up the Libyan nuclear program and put it up on planes and took them back to Oakridge, Tennessee, and that's the kind of denuclearization we are talking about. You're not going to get cash, Kim, for just promising to denuclearize and then not doing it the way your father did, you're going to actually have to do something substantive and he said in the interview specifically, it might not be the Libyan model, but he might have some better ideas of how to do it, but it has got to be actual denuclearization. That's what Bolton is saying and Trump agrees with that.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's just fascinating to watch the president working on this and working on preserving this, and it's also interest, there was a tweet today by a reporter who had been in North Korea and he was told by somebody there that they are reading the "Art of the deal." They are reading "Fire and Fury." I don't know if that is going to fill them into well, there's a lot of things that were not truthful in that book.


MACCALLUM: But you know, it is interesting, because they are trying to figure each other out, right? And trying to figure out what this is going to look like, but the president gave in that statement that John Roberts just played, he gave them an out. He said, "We have not heard that this is called off." Our people are talking, they are talking about the rules, the possibilities to set a meeting, but then, there is sort of an implicit threat, maybe, I don't know, I guess, if threat is the right word, he says, if you don't take this deal, the next deal doesn't look so great.

THIESSEN: Yes, no absolutely. I mean, the president - that's exactly the right message that the president needs to send, which is if you don't show up at the summit and we don't have a deal, it's not the status quo. The sanctions are going to get tougher. The military action could be on the table. This is not going to be good for you. And this is why the North Koreans are kind of squealing right now. It is like a cornered animal, it tends to lash out.

He has done a very, very good of boxing the North Koreans in. He accepted the agreement to the surprise of probably Kim Jong Un to meet with him, so put us on track for negotiations very quickly, which no one expected.

He has made clear he is not going to cut a deal by withdrawing from the Iran deal. He sent a signal, I don't cut deals like that, he sent Bolton out to deliver this message that it's going to be real denuclearization and not fake denuclearization and then Mike Pompeo went out and said something very interesting which he promised if North Korea does this, we will help them achieve prosperity on par with South Korea.

Now, if Kim shows up at the summit and turns all of that down, all of a sudden, he can't blame the west for the lack of prosperity in his country. If they don't a really good job.


MACCALLUM: You make a great point. I think the economic prosperity promise is something that is hugely tantalizing to the current leadership in North Korea. How long can you go on this way? We don't have that many countries left in the world where people try to escape by running across the border and get shot doing it. I mean, that's what we grew up with in the Soviet Union, right? I mean, people trying to run across the border and getting shot.

So, I don't know how long you can last with that kind of environment and I think you are so right, Marc, when you say that the status quo is not really an option. So, if he is talking to his advisers in North Korea, keeping things the way they are is just simply not going to last, is it?

THIESSEN: No, it's not. And look, what is happening here is that Bolton is playing the bad cop and Pompeo is playing the good cop, which is the classic negotiating tactic, Bolton is laying out the hard line about the nuclear agreement. Pompeo is laying out the carrots. He is saying, "We are going to provide you with security. We are going to provide with security guarantees. We are going to provide you with prosperity, and that is exactly the way to corner him.

So, they have really done a masterful job of setting up this negotiation in a way that Kim Jong Un is really boxed in, if they actually go through, which means maybe why he may not show up.

MACCALLUM: We will see. The president also suggested that China may be sort of interfering in some ways, although he said he has got a great relationship with President Xi, so we'll see where it goes. Marc, thank you so much. Good to see you tonight.

So, earlier this evening, I spoke with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked him what he thinks about the president saying that the Libya model is not going to be repeated in North Korea and a few other topics as well, watch.


RAND PAUL, US SENATOR, KENTUCKY, REPUBLICAN: It would be disconcerting to the North Koreans to see the Libyan example, and I think it's part of getting a deal. I hope there is a deal in North Korea, but I think we will have to reassure them, that yes, this will be different than Libya and that this will be a deal in which, if you give up your nuclear aspirations as well as your nuclear capabilities, that there and peace and in likelihood, as the President said, prosperity.

MACCALLUM: You're concerned at all about the President saying that we would offer protection for him? What does that mean?

PAUL I think it may be over-stating the case, protection may be from us invading and having regime change, that's what happened in Libya. The West did invade Libya. The West did affect regime change in Libya, and it's been a model that resonates with all up and coming nuclear powers - Iran and North Korea, that they wonder about our sincerity. It's also why some of us have argued it is a bad idea to get out of the Iran agreement because it sends a signal that we are not going to be consistent and following through with our agreements.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to ask you about Gina Haspel. You voted against from the very beginning, you were very adamant that you were going to vote against. What are your concerns now that she will be the CIA director?

PAUL You know, I think the confirmation process at least gets candidates to say things they hadn't said previously. She did finally come out and say that she thought that water boarding did not work. She never got to the point where she said it was immoral, but she got closer to where a lot of us think we ought to be is that that's it's not what we are as a people.

You know, that torture and water boarding is really not we should be doing. But I am still concerned about the reports that Trump was surveilled. I asked her several questions today, and she did deny that the CIA had anything to do with British intelligence, and in the end, she actually said to me and this is supposed to come in writing, but she says that there was no communication between the British intelligence and John Brennan giving them information about the Trump campaign.

If that is true, it contradicts a lot of news reports that is out there. I hope it's true and I hope she will actually put it in writing, but today, she denied to me that there was ever a meeting between British intelligence and John Brennan where information about surveillance of the Trump campaign was transferred. And we asked very specific questions...


MACCALLUM: That was that was a very, very interesting exchange and an interesting question on your part. Are you disturbed by this "New York Times" piece that came out last night that says that the reason that there was a counter terrorism investigation even opened up was because they really didn't have any criminal charge, so they opened the counter terrorism operation sort of in the hopes of finding something?

PAUL I have been troubled from the very beginning that I think people were dishonest in the intelligence community to go after President Trump based on a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and they didn't tell the judge it was paid for by the Clinton campaign. That sounds like lying from the get go. It sounds like an agency run amuck with maybe feelings of hatred towards the president, and so yes, I have been very worried about bias at the CIA and I want to make sure that it never happens again.

MACCALLUM: All right, you had the gumption to come up with a bill that would actually balance the budget and cut the budget by $13 trillion over 10 years, and we have a Republican senate majority but only 21 senators actually voted for anything that looks like a balanced budget deal.

PAUL Herein lies the problem. All of these Republicans go home to the Rotary Club and they say, "I am for the Balanced Budget Amendment," and the Balanced Budget Amendment balances in five years, so I gave them a chance to see whether their promises to the people are correct. Remember, they also promised to repeal ObamaCare, and then six or seven of them changed their mind and refused to vote to repeal ObamaCare, now today, 30 of them or close to 30 of them would not vote for a budget that balances in five years.

Now, I want to correct one thing, it's not a cut of $13 trillion, it was a cut of only $32 billion dollars per year, that's is the 1%. When you say $13 billion, you are saying against proposed increases, so cut $13 trillion of proposed increases from a baseline that starts with what we spent last year, it's only 1 percent a year, $32 billion.

MACCALLUM: Is there anyone in particular that surprised you in that vote? I know Bob Corker did not vote for it, Lindsey Graham has said he thought it would decimate defense spending that's why he didn't vote for it, did they surprise you or anyone else in particular surprise with their vote?

PAU: No, I think Lindsey is typically a dissembler on these things. He said it would affect the defense and it had no cuts in defense. It said, yes, to cut 1 percent of the total, but it said the appropriations committees could decide where to cut it. Now, the appropriations committees could have said it would be the defense appropriations, but that's very unlikely since the Republicans control it and don't want to cut defense.

But the bottom line is, you do have to look at military and non-military and entitlements, the whole ball of wax, and if you cut one penny out of the dollar, it would balance. But I think this shows the hypocrisy of many Republicans who say they are for balanced budgets, but are unwilling really to take the tough vote.

MACCALLUM: All right, so no one in particular that surprised you with their vote?

PAUL No, I think it was kind of the standard. The establishment for the most part voted to keep the established ways of massive spending and trillion dollar deficits, exactly like we had under the Democrats, and that's a disappointing thing.

We promised to be better, and now I gave them a chance to try to be better and yet, the establishment Republicans said, "No, we like the status quo."

MACCALLUM: Very interesting, senator, always good to talk to you. Thank you for being here tonight.

PAUL: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, we have several other big headlines that are breaking this evening including possible criminal charges in the Obama administration's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. We will tell you what's going on with that.

Plus this...


ANDREW MCCARTHY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: They had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.


MACCALLUM: So how many were there? Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley here on that, plus concerns that President Trump could be a drag on Republican candidates. He did not reach some candidates in the primary, it appears.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two things, if you are going to date one of my daughters?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A healthy appreciation for the Second Amendment, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going to get along just fine.


MACCALLUM: Three big headlines breaking tonight. An early peek at the long awaited DOJ Inspector General report from Michael Horowitz, which takes a critical looks at how the Department of Justice under the Obama administration handled the whole Clinton email investigation.

And according to writer, Paul Sperry, it indicates that criminal charges could potentially be coming. Also tonight, a closer look at what was buried in the air time story that we brought to you last night on cross- fire hurricane, which was the FBI's name for their Trump investigation during the election.

The revelation that since there was no criminal evidence that they came across, they began a counter-terrorism investigation to kind of cast a wide net and see what they could find.

And also, that they planted at least one government informant in the Trump campaign. Leading the president to charge the revelations are "bigger" than Watergate he said today. And remember the judge who called out Mueller's team in court in the Manafort case? Saying, "Come on, man, you don't care about Manafort, you are just after Trump."

So, he wanted to see the scope memo to see what the definition of scope of their whole investigation is. And now, we understand that he has that. So, what is in there?

Joining me now is Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law attorney and George Washington law professor, Jonathan, always good to see you. Thanks for joining us...


MACCALUM: ... again tonight. So, your thoughts first on - and this is Paul Sperry's story. Others are working to confirm it including others here, but he is indicating that there could be possible criminal charges brought against FBI and DOJ members in the Hillary Clinton case.

TURLEY: Well, we obviously have to wait to see the report. I think that if it is true that a criminal referral is going to be made, the most likely thing is that it's going to relate to the investigators themselves because Horowitz was not really re-investigating the email controversy, he was looking specifically and how it was investigated.

So, criminal referrals that are most likely to come out of that type of investigation would be for false statements or other types of violations in relation to the Inspector General office itself, those could be serious, obviously.

What has long disturbed many of us is that the Clinton email investigation was anything, but regular. I mean, it was - the level of deference given to the Clinton staff was pretty remarkable. I mean, they had possession of computers and other information that is deemed government material, and yet they went through all of these negotiations and had conditions upon which they would allow that material to be reviewed, even though it could in some cases did contain classified information. That's a level of deference we haven't seen before.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, you think about the immunity that was given to high level Clinton staffers, and some of whom were in the room with her when she was questioned. There is all kinds of very relevant questions that Michael Horowitz has been looking into it, and of course, when that report comes out, we will get a better handle on it, the early word is that they are still a few weeks away, potentially the beginning of June, we are going to get our own look at what is in this.

Now, with regard to this other cross-fire hurricane story, a very dramatic name taken from a Rolling Stones song for what they were doing in the early stages of the Trump campaign in order to look into it, what do you make of the revelation that they opened a counter-terrorism investigation rather than a criminal investigation?

TURLEY: Well, unfortunately that type of change or transition is known to many of us who practice criminal law. It is easier to get surveillance as a counter intelligence matter because you can use powerful tools like the FISA court even though FISA has a probable cause condition, it is not the same probable cause we have in the 14th Amendment.

It's easier to establish. There are also fewer procedures for review or notifications in those times of surveillance orders. This would be disturbing because this has often been a complaint by many people that you see things shift over to counter-intelligence when they don't have the facts on their side.

Now, many of these new allegations would seem to support the President's initial objections that his campaign was under surveillance and that extraordinary steps were made targeting his campaign. He was attacked for that statement, and I have in some columns including one in "The Hill" newspapers that he does seem to be vindicated now in terms of those statements that he made

MACCALLUM: What about the statement that they had at least one informant, at least one government informant in the campaign as part of that investigation?

TURLEY: That's what I find obviously, the most disturbing. If you put those stories together, it's quite troubling. If they didn't have enough evidence to get for example a Title-3 warrant, a conventional warrant or to proceed with a criminal investigation and they had someone in the organization, that's very troubling because it indicates that they took this extraordinary step of violating the confidentiality of a political party or campaign, but they didn't have enough evidence to maintain a criminal investigation.

So, that's what we really have to look at. If those facts are true, there is ample reason for everyone to be concerned.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan Turley, always great to see you. Thanks for being here tonight.

TURLEY: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALUM: So, New York, the state that tried to ban big, huge sodas, remember that? And trans-fat. They want to legalize pot now and they are definitely not alone. There's a lot of states that are getting on the bandwagon. Here, you think that Greg Gutfeld might be a big fan of this because he is a libertarian sort of guy, but there are element of this that he does not like. He will tell you want they are when he joins me in a minute.

And also next week's Republican primary in Georgia looks like a race to see who can be Trumpier than Trump. One of the most controversial candidates, Brian Kemp is up next.


BRIAN KEMP, AMERICAN POLITICIAN AND BUSINESSMAN: I am so conservative, I blow up government spending.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: GOP candidates in competitive districts are expected to keep their distance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some of those candidates will have to distance themselves from Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump is not going to be welcomed in every state where a Republican is trying to hold on because the midterms are going to be a referendum on Trump.

MACCALLUM: Recognize that guy, we are going to see him in a second. For months, many of the media have been predicting that in order to win the 2018 midterms, candidates were going to have to really be at arm's length with President Trump.

But a new analysis from "USA Today" finds that the opposite may be happening, at least by one measure. Four in 10 GOP candidates for Congress so far have actually praised or echoed the President in the course of their political advertising in this cycle and perhaps, as interesting, not a single one of them is criticizing or openly distancing themselves from the President.

My next guest is one of those who has taken a cue from the Trump playbook. Watch.


KEMP: Donald Trump is right. We must secure the border and end sanctuary cities.

And two things if you are going to date one of my daughters.


KEMP: And?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A healthy appreciation for the Second Amendment, sir.

KEMP: We are going to get along just fine.

I've got a big truck. Just in case I need to roundup criminal illegals and take them home myself. Yep, I just said that.


MARTHA MACCALLUM, THE STORY HOST: Here now, Georgia secretary of state, Brian Kemp, a Republican running for Georgia governor. Mr. Kemp, I know you guys have a debate coming up tonight, so we appreciate you taking some time with us. You're kind of were chuckling when we came back on camera, is anything in these ads, you know, sort of tongue in cheek or this is a 100 percent where you are?

BRIAN KEMP, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: Oh, yeah. No, it's tongue-in-cheek, but it's also talking about our great message that we have tracking and deporting criminal illegals, making Georgia number one for small business doing like President Donald Trump is doing, cutting government regulations. The only thing is this is -- I've been running this campaign like this for 14 months now because it's who I am. I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment, and I'm running a campaign to put Georgians first. They want a governor who's going to stand up and fight for them, and I'm going to do that as your next governor of Georgia.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, we know Casey Cagle is leading in the polls right now. And I've said you have a debate up tonight. But when we looked last night across the board, several of the ads that are running in Georgia right now with all these candidates, they sound very similar, to be honest. So, what makes you different? What are you going to be arguing out there tonight for the people of Georgia, differentiate you from the rest?

KEMP: Well, this campaign is about trust. You know, who do you really trust to fight for your conservative values, to implement the policies and plans that I've been talking about? And I've got a great record of doing that in the private sector for over 30 years now. Also, as a state senator, and now as secretary of state. And that's really the difference. I'm the only person in the race that has executive branch experience where I sued the Obama Justice Department twice over our citizenship check and won. Defended our photo I.D. law and stood up to the left. And that's what I will do in this election, because it's just who I am. And, you know, I think you see that in both of our television ads.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this -- we're going to talk about this in another segment coming up, but I'm curious about the issue of pot in Georgia, and whether or not you see that as an area where regulation should be dropped? And, if you think it's a good source of state income in terms of taxing?

KEMP: I don't think it's a good source of state income in Georgia. Our economy is great. I want to make it better by focusing on small business people. Those are the folks out there that are still hurting. Their health insurance, if they can even get it, continuous to be unaffordable because of Obamacare. So, we need to focus on all areas of our state and make sure they're growing just like Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah is, you know, quite honestly, the medical marijuana is definitely an issue in our state, and the state had made some movement on that.

But, as far as cultivation and other things, I don't think you'll see that any time soon in our state. But I certainly understand the families and what they're going through with their kids. And I think there needs to be more clinical research on that. But, you know, I'm sticking to my message, Martha, of conservative values, cutting government, making it more efficient, defending our Second Amendment. We have a whole public safety reform of tracking and deporting criminals and going after street gangs in our state, because as a father of three teenage daughters I'm concerned about their safety, and I'm concerned about other Georgian's safety.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this, you know, in the primaries it's easy to run, you know, sort of, further to the right, but if you do make it to the -- you know, to running against the Democrat in the race in Georgia, do you want President Trump to come stand beside you on the campaign trail?

KEMP: I'd love to have the president to come down to Georgia. I'll tell you, people are appreciative of what he is doing and fighting every day, fighting the liberal media. And I think in some ways that's what I have been fighting here in the last two weeks. But make no mistake, I'm running the campaign for Brian Kemp to be governor, not Donald Trump. And those messages that I have, they're who I am, they're my values, and that's what I've been talking to the people of Georgia about. I think that's starting to resonate because of our television ads. The last 2 polls that come out showed the leader going down and us going up. So, we're going to ride that big truck into the run off.

MACCALLUM: We will be watching. Thank you very much, Mr. Kemp. Good to have you here tonight.

KEMP: Thank you. MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Lisa Boothe, Fox News contributor, Juan Williams, co-host of 'The Five' and a Fox News political analyst. Welcome to both of you. Juan, let me start with you, what goes through your mind when you watch those ads?

JUAN WILLIAMS, THE FIVE CO-HOST: Republican primary in a state that's -- I think, pretty much a red state Georgia. I think that what you're seeing there is an appeal to some of the hot buttons that President Trump has successfully used. I think he's changed American politics in that way. I think if you push the hot button, and right now in a Republican primary, 80 percent of Republicans support President Trump, Martha. So, if you're appealing to that Republican base, yes, you can use that message. But I thought you were quite astute when you said could you use this in a general election? That's another question.

MACCALLUM: I mean, that's the question -- Hillary Clinton thought she could win Georgia. You know, this was a state that looked like it was purplish in the last election. She bailed out of there, you know, before the end of the race. But, you know, raises the question, just how much have politics changed in the country? Is Georgia red or blue right now? And, is this guy gonna win because he's putting himself closer to Trump?

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRINUTOR: Well, I think politics has changed as a result of President Trump. And you have someone that came in, sort of, shook up Washington, D.C., and sort of shook up the establish norms. But, when you look at this Georgia gubernatorial primary rate it's a crowded field. And when you have crowded fields you've got candidates that are trying to do things to break through. Particularly, when there's not a lot of daylight or difference between the candidates on the issues. That's part of the reason why President Trump in the Republican primary in 2016, why he was able to stand out among a crowded field of 17 candidates. And, also, when you look at the primary races where we've had -- or we've seen so far within this contested senate races, particularly, they're all in states that President Trump won.

MACCALLUM: West Virginia and Georgia, they're going to get a certain kind of candidate who's going to resonate there. But I'm very interested, as we all are, to see what happens when you get to these general elections, and whether or not these candidates do embrace Trump. The suburban vote is going to be a very interesting place to watch.

WILLIAMS: I think number one among political strategists in terms of the determination of this fall midterms is white suburban women, who -- in the last election, especially in red and purple states, went to Trump. Remember, Pennsylvania, I don't think anybody.


MACCALLUM: Because their bosses and their husband tell them they have to vote.

WILLIAMS: But guess what, the Democrats.

MACCALLUM: Those dumb women, they didn't know what they were talking about.

WILLIAMS: Well, now, the Democrats are singing a different song, because they realize they've got to appeal to those voters. But Republicans do, too. One of the interesting things, just to get back to your primary point, which is, yes, you have about 4 out of every 10 Republicans in the primaries mentioning Donald Trump in their advertising, and for the most part saying positive things about Donald Trump. But, remember, the Democrats are also having primaries, and they're running and mentioning Trump in about 24-25 percent of their ads and it's almost all negative.

MACCALLUM: Yes. They're talking impeachment. They're talking, Russia, Russia, Russia.

BOOTHE: But I also think -- well, I don't necessarily know if that's a strong strategy of looking at those things, because if you go back to 2010, 2014 midterm elections, Republicans had policy concerns with Obamacare that helped drive the electorate that helped drive the base. And I think that's stronger than things like Stormy Daniels and Russia. You even look at the recent poll about Mueller, and the majority of Americans believing it was political in nature to some -- to one point earlier, you can even look at states like Montana where Jon Tester is isn't going after President Trump. You look at least of these five -- hotly contested senate races in the general election, you're not going to see Democrats like Joe Manchin go after President Trump. You're not going to see people like Claire McCaskill going after him as well. You're going to see them try to positions themselves as, look, we're reasonable. We're going to work with President Trump if we can. You know, I think each state is going to be different.


MACCALLUM: Thanks, you guys. Great to see you.

BOOTHE: Thank you, Martha.

WILLIAMS: Good night.

MACCALLUM: So, first they banned trans-fat, and you couldn't have a big gulp soda. But now, New York says, you know what, legalize pot. How is that be? Even Greg Gutfeld says, in some ways, it's not the right move. He joins me on 'The Story' coming up, next.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Is that a joint, man?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like a quarter pounder, man.




UNINDENTIFIED MALE: George Washington, man, he was in a coke, and the coke was in the aliens, man. You didn't know that?


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man, they were weighing in that type of stuff.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: George took weed.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely, George took weed. Are you kidding me, man? You can feel in that stuff, man.


MACCALLUM: So, this is what on their minds, is weed a way for a struggling to get a quick buck, to make government money. Here in New York, there's a report that suggests that legalizing pot in the Empire State could translate to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue, and that's what they need, right? But, wait, isn't New York City the one that bans trans-fat and extra-large sodas because they could be bad for you. Greg Gutfeld, co-host of 'The Five.' So good to have you hear tonight, Greg.

GREG GUTFELD, THE FIVE CO-HOST: It's a pleasure to be here.

MACCALLUM: You believe that pot should be illegal?

GUTFELD: Legal, right.


GUTFELD: If you have the right to bear arms, the right of freedom of speech, you should have the right to relief. Meaning, the world is a very difficult place.

MACCALLUM: What if heroin is your relief?

GUTFELD: So be it.

MACCALLUM: So, you're OK with that too?


GUTFELD: Human beings have a right to their own oblivion. And as you can tell, any war on any of these drugs never worked. You could outlaw heroin and there are more addicts than there is on the streets of New York. You're trying to control the opioid crisis, that's not a pharmaceutical problem, that's a street drug problem. So, when you start hitting the patient, the patient that has a pain disorder or a cancer, when you start going after them, they become the victim, not the actual street customer.

MACCALLUM: But what bothers me is this reminds me of gambling in the '80s, every state wanted to pass gambling laws.


MACCALLUM: Because they were sure that it's their way to refill their coffers, they're going to make so much money of gambling, but they ended up with was, in many cases, a lot of empty casinos.


MACCALLUM: . a lot of people addicted to gambling. That's why they have billboards, you know, if you're -- call us up. So, I don't think this is a way to economic security. I think it's a cheap shot.

GUTFELD: Well, I don't think it's a good reason to legalize anything so the government can tax it. The government will tax anything. At your funeral they don't send flowers. They send the IRS. I mean, they tax you on the way out. So, I think -- I coined the phrase everyone has the right to relief. This isn't about taxation. It's about the human right to feel better in a very difficult world.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's talk about commencement. Tim Scott at Duke, let's play it. I mean, Tim Cook, sorry, Tim Cook.


TIM COOK, APPLE CEO: Our planet is warming with devastating consequences. Fearless, like the students of Parkland, Florida, who refused to be silent about the epidemic of gun violence. Fearless, like those who fight for the rights of immigrants, who understands that our only hopeful future the one that embraces all who want to contribute.


MACCALLUM: So surprising.

GUTFELD: This is exactly what you expect in a commencement address. You get all of the liberal assumptions because, the fact is, the perfect commencement speaker is like a human version of my pillow. Soft, round, no sharp edges. I don't think -- if you're not asked to be a commencement speaker, that's a badge of honor, because they actually see you as a risk, they see you as dangerous.

And, by the way, most of the stuff they give you is cliche path. They always tell you to follow your dreams. That's a bad idea. What if they're terrible, terrible dreams? You don't want to follow bad dreams. And they always say never give up. You know who never gives up? Stalkers. Sometimes you have to give up, Martha. You know what, if something is not working for 5 years, maybe try something else.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Then only thing I made myself memorize one line from my commencement speaker, I don't remember who it was, but he said something very cool. He said, remember this, the eccentric and bello.


GUTFELD: But that's gas, you know. This stupid stuff -- by the way, the audience doesn't even listen to you. They don't care. Ninety five percent of them are hung over.

MACCALLUM: This is true. This is true. Do we have time?

GUTFELD: You want to ask me about Laurel and Yanny?

MACCALLUM: Yes, let's play this. This just came out of the White House. Watch this.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It's Laurel. Definitely, Laurel.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's Laurel. But I could divert to Yanny if you need me to.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It's clearly Yanny.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yanny. Definitely, Yanny.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yanny is a winner. Laurel is the loser.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah, it's been reported that you hear Laurel, how do you respond?

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Clearly, you're getting your information from CNN, because that's fake news. All I hear is Yanny.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man, that's Laurel.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Laurel. It's Laurel, America. Can't believe #laurel.




GUTFELD: You know it's a perfect metaphor for media bias. In fact, when Trump makes a joke, America hears a joke, but the media hears racism. It's an interesting metaphor for a confirmation bias.

MACCALLUM: Because you heard Yanny?

GUTFELD: I heard Laurel, obviously.

MACCALLUM: I heard Yanny in the morning, and Laurel in the evening. Is that a problem?

GUTFELD: No, it actually means you're open to changing your mind. That's a positive thing. Everybody should realize that there's a percentage chance that you could be wrong about everything. Everything. Including legalization. I could be wrong.

MACCALLUM: You could be wrong.


MACCALLUM: Thank you, Greg. Good to see you.

GUTFELD: It's always a pleasure -- I will.

MACCALLUM: All right. Coming up, the countdown to the royal wedding, which Greg loves. He's all over this stuff. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will be exchanging vows in less than 48 hours. Greg can barely stand the excitement. But the British ambassador though is a fine man, and he joins me in a moment to talk about what this means for his country when we come back.


MACCALLUM: So we're seeing the most beautiful shots of Windsor, England, today. It's less than 48 hours from the royal wedding. Today, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were spotted at Windsor Castle, while British troops took to the streets. They're practicing for Saturday's big event. Also, today, Meghan Markle confirmed that her father will not be walking her down the aisle, and we're not sure exactly who will be doing the honors. Here now, Sir Kim Darroch, he served as British ambassador to the United States. Mr. Ambassador, it's great to have you with us today.


MACCALLUM: Thank you very much for being here. Obviously, a lot of excitement over the wedding. And also, and I want to get to that in a moment, but also, the hope for meeting in July between President Trump and Theresa May, the prime minister in your neck of the woods in England. How did they get along?

DARROCH: They get along really well. They would talk, I would say, every couple of weeks, on a whole range of subjects. They talked just a few days ago. So, it's a really open, friendly, and substance-filled exchange between them. And she will be hosting him in Britain on 12-13th July. Really looking forward to it.

MACCALLUM: What do you think is the biggest conflict between the two of them? What's the biggest pun of contention?

DARROCH: Look, it's a very open, honest relationship in which you can discuss differences as well as vast areas of subjects where we agree on. There is disagreement on the Iran nuclear deal. But I shouldn't exaggerate, we shouldn't exaggerate. We agree on the objectives, an Iran without nuclear weapons, an Iran that behaves better in the region, rather isn't developing ballistic missiles. The difference is, we want to keep the current deal and work on ballistic missiles and regional behavior, and this U.S. administration wants to re-negotiate the current deal. So, you know, objectives are the same. Means of getting there, there some differences.

MACCALLUM: I've been covering the royal family, and weddings, and all of the big events over the years here for Fox News. When you look at this wedding and you go back to time of, you know, when Diana died, and there was no much negative focus on the royal family. And now, you really come full circle to this moment where they're embracing this American woman who is marrying Prince Harry, he's one of the most beloved members of the royal family. It's a very different time for the royal family, isn't it?

DARROCH: It is. I mean, it's a very strong popular time for the royal family. Starts with the queen who's been the monarch for more than 60 years now. Longest reigning monarch in British history. But, you're right. The younger rolls, Prince William and Prince Harry are charismatic, hugely popular, have connected with the British public, particularly among the younger generation. And this wedding is a -- the interest in it and the enthusiasm is a demonstration of that. Also, I say as ambassador to the United States, it's wonderful that Prince Harry is marrying an American. It's a symbol of the strength and depth of our relationship.

MACCALLUM: Just like the old days. When they use to marry someone of for diplomatic reasons. You're going to marriage the young princess from Spain, because we need to improve our relations. But I think these two are not arranged.

DARROCH: I think it's not arranged. It's very clearly.

MACCALLUM: How about the family, her family? Is -- giving him to a harder time with all that?

DARROCH: I would just say it's obviously very sad that health reasons are preventing Meghan Markle's father from coming. We wish him a rapid and complete recovery. And we look to see what will happen on Saturday.

MACCALLUM: Ambassador Kim Darroch, very good to have you with us today. Thank you so much for coming.

DARROCH: Thank you for inviting me.

MACCALLUM: So, quick break and we will be right back.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Hip, hip, hooray. Hip, hip, hooray. God bless Harry and Meghan. God Save the Queen.


MACCALLUM: Well, if that let your appetite to get up early, Saturday morning, and watch, I don't know what does. Starting at 6 AM, Shepard Smith and Sandra Smith will be cohosting our live coverage from Windsor, England, which is a beautiful place to visit and to watch. Every royal moment of the day will be brought to you live here on Fox News. We look forward to it. We'll see you back here tomorrow night at 7. My good friend, Tucker Carlson, coming up in D.C., right about now.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.