West Virginia Senate candidate on high-stakes primary

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 7, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Hello there, Bret. Good evening. Thanks so much. Tonight, breaking right here: the race is heating up with just 24 hours to go now until the big primary day of 2018 as the president tries to block ex-con Don Blankenship in West Virginia, telling voters he cannot win. Blankenship responded to that.


DON BLANKENSHIP, WEST VIRGINIA REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE: I think everybody knows that I'm more in agreement with Trump's policies than anyone else. So, obviously, they've told you some stories just like they've been telling West Virginians for years.


MACCALLUM: So, we will speak with one of his opponents -- Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey -- about his warning today to Blankenship's parole officer who is in Nevada. Also, tomorrow night the primary for Ohio governor. It will be Cordray versus Kucinich for Democrat. And then, on the Republican side, you got DeWine versus Mary Taylor for the GOP as John Kasich exits. And the battle to unseat Senator Sherrod Brown, the Democrat in Ohio, being waged by five Republicans, so we'll be watching that closely.

Also, this maybe the most vulnerable seat that we will watch tomorrow night. This is Indiana. Senator Joe Donnelly and those are the gentlemen who are trying to run against him in November. And as we said, of course, West Virginia, Congressman Evan Jenkins, and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey hope to beat the ex-con Coal Baron Don Blankenship, who's gotten quite a bit of attention in this race. And as a result, he is gaining some traction. Joining me now, Attorney General Mr. Morrisey. Good to see you this evening. Good to have you with us tonight.

PATRICK MORRISEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, WEST VIRGINIA: It's good to be with you tonight. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: You bet. We're glad to have you. So, explain to me what you said today about what you see as campaign violations from the Blankenship camp and why you reached out to his parole officer in Nevada?

MORRISEY: Yes, a couple of things; very big issue, Don Blankenship has a history of ignoring the rule of law. And everyone knows about his criminal conviction relating to the conspiracy to violate mining standards. But when you file as a U.S. senate candidate, you're supposed to actually submit your personal financial disclosures -- your wealth, your income, your assets and liabilities, and Don Blankenship ignoring that. And that comes with potential civil and criminal penalties. And he is just brushing it off like it's no one's business. But this is important information for voters, so they can actually know a little bit more about you. Your finances and your conflict of interest. So, we wanted to make sure the people will know about it.

MACCALLUM: His parole officer, I guess, said he doesn't see this as a violation. He's not concerned about this. And we know that Don Blankenship has said that he doesn't think it's right that candidates have to disclose all that personal information, and he's making sort of a stand about that. Do you think voters care that much in West Virginia, whether or not he does this?

MORRISEY: I think voters care if he just ignored the rule of law. And that's what you're seeing from Don Blankenship. I think that he's been weaving this tail during his campaign. But as the election draws close, I think people are beginning to know, and especially President Trump, that nominating Don Blankenship would be an electoral disaster for West Virginia, because I think he'll be defeated by Joe Manchin. And we're seeing more and more people talk about that from the president of the United States on down.

MACCALLUM: This is your other opponent: Evan Jenkins, talking about why you are now turning your ire against Don Blankenship, but when we had you all on the debate stage, it was mostly Jenkins versus Morrisey, and Mr. Blankenship out on the side. But that dynamic has changed as he's risen in the polls. Watch this.


REP. EVAN JENKINS, R-WEST VIRGINIA: Patrick Morrisey is desperate. He is taking shots now at Don Blankenship. He's been all over the board. It's a clear indication that his campaign is on life support. The polls suggest that he's in a distant third. Patrick Morrisey is desperate. So, he's trying to attack anybody, create any news he can.


MACCALLUM: You want to respond to that?

MORRISEY: Sure, I think it's pretty straightforward. Voters know about Evan Jenkins' very liberal record. He's act shows -- and all of the polls -- faded to third. And so, right now, Blankenship and I are in a close race. And I think it's important to educate people. But the most critical thing I think with 24 hours to go, people should know, I have the strong conservative record endorsed by conservatives, West Virginians for life, second amendment groups. And I think people are very motivated to get out to the poll and ensure that a proven conservative win against a liberal and convicted criminal.

MACCALLUM: We will see. You've got 24 hours left. And just to be fair, there's polls all over the place that show you guys very close in some and flip-flopped in the first, second and third spot. So, it's going to be very interesting to watch tomorrow night. Thank you so much for being here.

MORRISEY: I wanted to wear the hat. I want to thank President Trump for what he did coming out and having my back today.

MACCALLUM: Well, we know it's been a contest so see who's Trumpier in West Virginia.

MORRISEY: This is the best hat.

MACCALLUM: A lot of hats in this campaign. Thank you very much, attorney general. Good to see you tonight. So, here now, Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor; ad Juan Williams, Fox News political analyst and co-host of "The Five". Everybody wants to wear the red hat in West Virginia. Juan, your thoughts.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST AND HOST: I love that. You know, the funny part about this to me is when you and Bret Baier went down there for the debate last week, Martha. Blankenship was clearly third in the polls. Now, from what I'm reading, is their internal numbers, especially from the RNC and D.C., hey, wait a second, Blankenship is in this thing, and close to the top. And I thought it came as a surprise to me especially after the ad in which you saw Blankenship going after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, "Cocaine Mitch, China family", and all this. I found it unattractive. But again, I'm not a voter in West Virginia. Nonetheless somehow, it seems to me Blankenship has out-Trumped, Trump. Because he is the Trump guy here -- the populist energized candidate. And that's what Trump brought to the political scene in America and to West Virginia, which he won handily.

MACCALLUM: Karl, what do you expect tomorrow night?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think it's going to be a complicated nigh because in the Fox poll, the most recent credible poll, 38 percent of the voters were undecided. So, we don't know what's happening here in the last week. Sure, some of them can attracted by the annex of Mr. Blankenship. But I give the people of West Virginia a little bit more credit. I don't think a bigoted approach to politics, something that's tearing down somebody, who's not even in the race coming from mouth of man who is convicted and jail who can't even vote for himself because he's register. And whose company had the worst record of mines safety of any company, coal company in West Virginia for decades, and who oversaw mine-safety violations and resulting to the death of 29 miners. I'm not certain that's a winning record -- even in a Republican primary in West Virginia.

MACCALLUM: You know what, you're right; it's going to be fascinating to see which way those undecided voters go. As we know, from looking at this race, it might be only 120, maybe a little bit north of that thousand people who actually turn out to vote. So, a very small percentage of West Virginians will decide who's going to run against Joe Manchin. And that's going to be race to watch, for sure. Juan turn your attention to Ohio for me, for a second. Kucinich versus Cordray, in the primary for -- to run for governor in Ohio.

WILLIAMS: Again, you know, so much about what we're discussing tonight, Martha is about populist politics. And so, you have Cordray who's being endorsed by Elizabeth Warren. And on the other-hand, you have Dennis Kucinich who's being backed by all the populists on his of the fence, it's like a divide among Democratic populists here. We just talked about West Virginia. At the moment, I'd say that the energy is with Kucinich who was mayor of Cleveland, had terms -- several terms in the house, and has political contacts and networks that are working for him.

MACCALLUM: All right. What about Ohio, Karl?

ROVE: Well, on the Republican side, I think it's DeWine's victory tomorrow night. If Cordray does win, that's going to be interesting, because the last time that Cordray was on the ballot in Ohio, he was running for attorney general against Mike DeWine. So, we'd see rematch if that happens. But it should, Cordray should win, but I think Juan is right. There's a populist energy behind Kucinich. He has lot of very strange allies, including money from group that have associations with Assad in Syria of all things. But nonetheless, I think it's going to be a very interesting race to watch because the Democratic Party is disrupted just like the Republican Party is in some parts of the country.

MACCALLUM: We will be on it all night tomorrow night, as late as it takes for those decisions to come down. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Good to see you both tonight.

ROVE: You bet.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, as President Trump looms large over tomorrow night's primary -- is pretty much documented by the red hat that you just saw. A new book is asking some really interesting questions about the 2016 win: was it just a fluke as some pundits have indicated or does it represent a fundamental electoral shift in our nation's politics that could impact tomorrow night's elections, and perhaps all of American politics for many years to come. The book is called "The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics" and its authors Salena Zito and Brad Todd, joining me now. Great to have both of you with us. You documented 2016 in-depth; picking up on some of these trends before they really surfaced on election night. You surprised who lot of people. So, let me ask you first just, you know, as you listen to that discussion about these primaries tonight, this is what's brewing out in the country, what is your handle on what might happen based on what you've been seeing, Salena?

SALENA ZITO, REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I think it's really interesting. Brad and I were talking about this before we went on, is that everyone is trying to sort of grab the mantle of the Donald Trump candidate. They're trying to pick up portions that they think that they reflect the most about his candidacy. And I think that tells you a lot about the electorate, that it's still sort of unsettled, and that it is still against the status quo, and it is interested in disrupting what's going on in elections. And that it's not willing to listen to what Washington is telling them.

MACCALLUM: I mean, if you listen to the folks on the Democrat, or liberal side of the fence, Brad, they think this presidency is a disaster. And they think that there's going to be a huge blue wave coming. So, is what you guys document in this book, something that is going to continue to impact these politics? Are they right or you guys right?

BRAD TODD, FORMER CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADVERTISING'S PROFESSIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AND AUTHOR: Well, you see in the call -- in the Ohio governor's race, the two Democrats, you know, might be described nuttier. You know, so, I think the Democrats have been radicalized in this process. But if the reason our book, I think if you didn't see the Trump wave coming, if you didn't see this coalition, this fusion of populist and conservatives, which changed the Republican Party and change the kind of coalitions that Republicans put together. If you didn't see that coming, this book is for you. And it's continued on in commercial -- the NFL, dick's sporting goods. You can see commerce is being disrupted by the same coalition, and the books helps you to see a window on that as well.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, if that's true, you would think that West Virginia is going to be become red, but it may not. I mean, Manchin is very popular in his home state. It's very tough to read.

ZITO: It is incredibly difficult to sort out at this point. I would say, look, maybe in August and September, and see what kind of campaigns that they're running and what they are saying that is appealing to voters. They want to talk about the economy. They still always want to talk about the economy and how they're treated with respect. A big part of this is that they -- this is a culture that feels as though it is not been respected. And not just by politics, but by big business and by sport, and by sort of everything that we do in the world. And their impact is well beyond the ballot box, and that's why I think it's so important that people read the book, because I think they need to understand there's a movement going on. And we're still not listening to what it is telling us.

MACCALLUM: You know what I'm curious about is what happened -- you know, we talk so much about the divisiveness in the country, but what you see is the left going further left, for sure; and you see the right, you know, this Trump phenomenon where you see all these guys, you know, want to be the Trump be as if they can. Then you've got a lot of people in the middle who sort of want to go back to where things were. I think most of more Republican candidates who maybe like that middle zone. How do you see that? We're going to have three parties potentially?

TODD: Well, you know, we did a survey for this book of Trump voters in the five states in the Rust Belt that have flipped from Obama to Trump. And by far, 89 percent of them blamed both parties for the dysfunction in Washington. 73 percent of them say big businesses can't be trusted to make good decisions for workers. And so, there is a populous fusion that says big government, big business, it's both bad, and we're waiting to see. And a huge number of Trump voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Iowa, and Wisconsin, and Michigan where we worked, those voters had voted for Obama twice and they didn't get what they wanted from President Obama, and they were willing to break decades of family party traditions to switch. We have those stories in the book. And I think if you want to understand sort of the motivation and the thought process of how people can switch from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, this the book for but you

MACCALLUM: What about November? Because if you have your finger on the polls of what's happening, and you're hearing that there's going to be this big blue wave coming. And the polls have shown to be unreliable. Do you believe the polls?

ZITO: Well, yes, I think pollsters have a hard time now with talking to people. It's part of that distrust, right? People don't trust to give their information to pollsters. That's part of it. But also, I think sometimes people aren't honest either when they're polled. But I think November, when I'm going to be watching these senate races, because there are ten seats that were held by Democrats that Trump won, and not in the small way. I mean, take Missouri, right?

TODD: Five states Democrats incumbents hold right now that are up for re- election in November. Donald Trump won by more than 18 points.

MACCALLUM: Yes. West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri --

TODD: Montana, Indiana.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and we're going to see a lot of those in action tomorrow night, which makes this a really interesting election night to follow. Thanks, you guys. Good luck. I'm going to wish you good luck, but it's going to take off, there's no doubt about it. It's very interesting. I got some of it today and look forward to reading the rest of it.

ZITO: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Salena and Brad, thank you very much.

TODD: Thank you very much.

ZITO: Thank you so much.

MACCALLUM: Great to have you guys here. Coming up next, is the Mueller probe hitting some head winds? Rebuked in court. And now, questions about why they accepted the Flynn guilty plea in the first place. Judge Andrew Napolitano, up next.

And we only have one secretary of state at a time, right? So, what is John Kerry doing meeting with the Iran's foreign minister at this pivotal moment in the nuclear deal? Is he breaking federal law to preserve his own legacy? Marc Thiessen fired up on this. He's up next.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW: He is negotiating, though, he is not in the administration. And there are real problems with doing that.



MACCALLUM: Some new cracks emerging potentially in the Mueller probe as the federal judge slam the special counsel's camp, saying that they are out to get the president and are demonstrating what he called unfettered power in doing so. Then, you've got editorial today in the Wall Street Journal that blasts the FBI case against Michael Flynn, since their own people said that he showed "no signs that he was lying". Here now, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Napolitano. Good to see you as always, judge.


MACCALLUM: I want to move forward to this Wall Street Journal piece, because there's some very sensitive language at play in all of this, right? So, what has been made clear is that the agents who interviewed Michael Flynn, said that he showed no signs of deception. Now, that's being taken to be understood as that they believe he didn't lie.

NAPOLITANO: Agents well-trained and looking for signs of deception.


NAPOLITANO: It turned out he did lie, and we know that. And it pains me to say this, because a lot of affection and respect for the career of General Flynn. And I'm not so sure that I would've indicted him if I were Mueller. But we know he lied, because there's a recording of the conversation and it may have been an elicit recording but it's a recording. And so, we know it occurred. Even though he said it didn't, and we know we talked about --

MACCALLUM: The unmasked conversation?

NAPOLITANO: Correct. It was unmasked by Obama administration. It was put in the Washington Post, it was intended to embarrass then President-elect Trump. The question is, why did they indict him for such a minor insignificant lie? I'm not down playing --

MACCALLUM: Because underlying conversation; there's a very good argument that there was no problem with him having that conversation.

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: The problem was that he discussed the potential future -- according to this -- of whether or not the Trump administration will be open to lifting sanctions as far as we know, which is a normal conversation to have.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. The underlying conversation was not only lawful, it was wholesome and to be anticipated. So, they wanted to get a hook in General Flynn, just like they wanted to get a hook in the Papadopoulos and a hook in the Swedish lawyer whose name van der Zwaan. These are very, very minor insignificant charges because they think they can get information from these folks. So, in return for not going after General Flynn for everything under the sun, failing to register as a foreign agent, all those things they have threatened him with, they cut a deal, you help us out, plead guilty to lying, maximum six months -- which basically means no time in jail at all. But what did he help them out? Did he help them out with anything? We don't know. It depends on who's indicted and whether General Flynn is a witness against that.

MACCALLUM: The other thing that I found really interesting in this editorial today is this section from Andrew McCabe, talking about the case. Now, what's significant here is that this is from the House Intel report. Initially, they redacted all of this stuff.


MACCALLUM: Then, they released a new version and you would assume, oh, well, they redacted things that are classified information. But it turns out what they had blacked out so that the Intel Committee couldn't see it was basically stuff that made McCabe look bad.

NAPOLITANO: This is what Devin Nunes has been complaining about loud and long. That these redactions are purportedly for national security purposes? Forget about them; most of them are too save the embarrassment of the people whose behavior is being --

MACCALLUM: I mean, that's what -- we just put it up, it says, although Deputy Director McCabe acknowledged that the two people who interviewed Flynn didn't think he was lying, which was not a great beginning of a false statement case that they were trying to put together. What -- why would that be redacted from congress?

NAPOLITANO: So, the power to redact is a corrupt power. It shouldn't be in the hands of the people who created the document. It should be in the hands of some neutral entity to decide what is so sensitive that Congress can't see it? What would cause the death of a source? What would cause a witness to flee, a defendant to get out of the way, rather than, oh, we're going to redact what makes us look bad which is basically what they did.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and that makes them look bad.

NAPOLITANO: Meantime, General Flynn is still stuck with this, and we don't know where it's going to go.

MACCALLUM: We will see.

NAPOLITANO: He pleaded guilty under oath. So, he can't take that back without another charge of perjury.

MACCALLUM: Judge, we'll leave it there hanging with the next thought.


MACCALLUM: Good to see you. Thank you so much.


MACCALLUM: So, four decades after the murder of 15-year-old Martha Moxley, the man convicted for that crime -- a cousin of the Kennedys -- gets that conviction overturned. How does her brother feel about that? We're going to speak exclusively with John Moxley in a moment. And why is John Kerry meeting with the Iranians just weeks before President Trump decides what he will do -- day, actually, it's tomorrow now -- about the Iran deal. Marc Thiessen on whether or not the former secretary of state broke the law.


RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is another tangent, like, you know, chasing the Flynn tangent when it turns out that John Kerry is now violating the Logan Act, and nobody seems to care.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry is a shadow diplomacy; how does that impact deliberations?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't think it impacts it at all. I think the president spoke out about that pretty clearly, and I don't that we would take advice from somebody who created what the president sees to be one of the worst deals ever made. I'm not sure why we would start listening to him now.


MACCALLUM: So, the administration slamming John Kerry for engaging in what they called "shadow diplomacy" after the former secretary of state is -- no longer the secretary of state -- is holding meetings privately with Iranian officials, trying to save the nuclear deal with Iran that he helped broker. But that deal could come to a halt potentially tomorrow, because we know now that the president will make his feelings known. His decision known on this. He said, I'll announce my decision on the tomorrow from the White House at 2:00 p.m. And so now, the countdown is on, so what will happen and will world leaders buy into this? Here now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute Scholar and Fox News Contributor. Marc, good to have you with us.


MACCALLUM: You know, when you look at the definition of the Logan Act, it essentially says that private, you know, individuals are not allowed to make any kind of deal or negotiation with any foreign leader or were attempting. It seems pretty clear even though it's never used.

THIESSEN: Yes, it's never used. And it's -- if you talk to most conservative legal scholars, they would tell you it's unconstitutional, but I don't know whether what John Kerry did was illegal, but it is certainly outrageous, and it's certainly hypocritical. I mean, if you recall in 2015 when John Kerry was negotiating this horrible Iran deal, Tom Cotton and 46 Republican senators wrote a letter to Iran's leaders in which they simply explained the senate's role in the advised and consent in the approval of international agreement. And John Kerry was outraged. He expressed his utter disbelief at their irresponsible actions. He said, this is a quote, to write the leaders in the middle of a negotiation is quite stunning and ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy. Now, Tom Cotton was, and is, a sitting United States senator. The senate has a constitutional role in American foreign policy. John Kerry has a constitutional role in nothing. He's a former official. He has no status whatsoever.


MACCALLUM: People move off the stage. And I think you pointed out in some thoughts that you sent to me earlier, you know, it would be one thing if he was trying to rally with some of our allies and encourage them to stand firm, you know, against any attempt to pull out of the deal, but instead he's rallying with the enemy.

THIESSEN: Yes, he's working with -- he's working with -- collaborating with a terrorist state, a regime that has rallies where people chant death to America in order to undermine the foreign policy of the United States of America. I hate to say, but that could be collusion with a foreign power. It gets to undermine our democracy. I thought we were against collusion.


MACCALLUM: Sally Yates, you know, wanted to charge Mike Flynn with the Logan Act, in violation of the Logan Act. She was outraged that he was discussing things as a transition official with a foreign ambassador. I mean, he was on the way into government at that point. So, you know, you just have to deal with both things as apples and apples. So, if he was outraged about that, she should absolutely be outraged about this as well, right?

THIESSEN: Absolutely. And, look, John Kerry has transitioned out of government, he is a private citizen. Now, his defenders what they say is, well, all former secretaries of state keep in touch with their colleagues around the world. And Henry Kissinger did this. He was a globe-trotting diplomat for years after leaving government. But there's a big difference. Henry Kissinger, especially at a time -- sensitive moment like this, he would actually ask the permission of the White House whether it was a Republican or Democrat president to go out and talk. He would probably -- carry a message from the president.


MACCALLUM: Exactly. How about a request, do you mind if I sit down and have a conversation or not? Let me know. I don't want to be, you know, unhelpful here.

THIESSEN: Exactly.

MACCALLUM: Let's take a look. Ben Rhodes, obviously, who was very involved as a member of the Obama administration with this whole Iran deal as well, is outraged because he has the understanding that there was an Israeli-U.S. attempt to dig up dirt on the people who developed this deal in order to discredit them. Like, you know, a sort of dossier against the people who built this deal. He says this is not behavior that should be acceptable in a democracy. It's thuggish, mean-spirited, and cast a chilling and threatening cloud over public service that risks extending far beyond me, and Colin Kahl, who was also named in that. What do you think you, Marc?

THIESSEN: Do know what's unacceptable in our democracy? Ben Rhodes. Ben Rhodes is unacceptable in our democracy. Ben Rhodes is the least qualified person to ever sit in a position of authority in foreign policy. I doubt that the story is true. I doubt that Donald Trump's White House was doing this. Maybe they say the Trump team may have been involved in this. That could be anybody. I think Mike Pompeo and John Bolton have better things to do cleaning up Ben Rhodes' messes than to dig up dirt on Ben Rhodes.

MACCALLUM: Well, worth remembering that Ben Rhodes brag about the echo chamber and the young journalists in their 20's who didn't know anything about foreign policy that he was able to create this echo chamber to support this Iran deal, so just worth pointing out. Marc, thank you, good to see you as always. Thank you.


MACCALLUM: So, Should Rosie O'Donnell thrown in jail. A lot of questions about people violating federal law tonight, over over-donating to Democrats, you know, more than the $2,700 allowable limit. And will the Democrats who took her money, like Adam Schiff, give it back? Also tonight, a cousin of the Kennedy's convicted for murder suddenly sees his conviction overturned. The family of the 15-year-old girl who was beaten to death in her neighborhood now reacts when we come back.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: He said I feel your pain, but you've got the wrong guy. And we've just said we'll find out in court.



MACCALLUM: On a bombshell new story just posted by the New Yorker claiming that four different women have now come forward tonight to accuse New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of physical assault and abuse. Schneiderman has been an outspoken advocate for the Me Too Movement and a longtime critic of President Trump. The new accusations outlined in the New Yorker involve heavy use of alcohol, unwanted advances, hitting, slapping, even death threats. One of the women even claimed that Schneiderman threatened to tap her phone so that he could track her down and kill her if she broke up with him. Moments ago, the attorney general released a statement that said this, in the privacy of intimate relationships I have engaged in role-play and other consensual sexual activities. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross. More on that as it develops.

Also developing tonight, in 1975, in the wealthy enclave of Belhaven in Greenwich, Connecticut, a 15-year-old girl's body was found under a pine tree. She had been hit so hard with a golf club that it broke the club in half. The blunt end was used to stab her in the neck. Earlier that night, she had been at the Skakel house. The Kennedy cousins were known for running wild and having little adult supervision after the passing of their young mother. Martha had been in the garage according to this story with some kids listening to music like typical teenagers, and what happened next, only those who were there really know. Was she killed by the tutor, Ken Littleton, or one of the Skakel boys, Michael or Tommy? Michael spent ten years in prison before his guilty verdict was overturned, and then reinstated and then turned over again this past Friday. Joining me now with the family's reaction is Martha's brother John Moxley. John, thank you very much for being here.


MACCALLUM: It's good to have you with us. You and your mother have stood up for your sister and what happened to her all these years and sat through all these trials. What went through your mind when this got overturned again against Michael Skakel on Friday?

MOXLEY: Well, it's frustrating at best, because, as you've said, we sat through, I can't even tell you how many trials. And we've been in front of the Connecticut State Supreme Court a few times. And every time they've ruled in our favor, or they didn't buy into the arguments. And, you know, I was at the trial every day and this is the weakest argument, the ineffective counsel that they had. The court -- the members of the court changed the judge that wrote the majority opinion retired, the judge, Palmer, that wrote the dissent I think, you know, waited, you know, they were asked to reconsider. They just made a decision why they need to reconsider. But the reconstitution of the court changed everything.

MACCALLUM: Who do believe killed Martha?

MOXLEY: Michael. I'm absolutely convinced of that. I sat through the trial every day. I heard all the evidence. The only thing that I don't know that I suspect is that his brother Tommy and, perhaps, his cousin Jimmy Terrien know what happened. I don't think his younger brothers know what happened. I think they were innocent. And that's why they're standing by him today, but you never see any of his older siblings in the courts.

MACCALLUM: You know, as you look back on this whole thing and you think about the involvement of the families. Obviously, this is a family that has a reputation for circling the wagons and protecting each other. How much of that came into play here to you?

MOXLEY: Well, you know, a lot of the family wasn't there. There were some staunch supporters. And, you know, we deserve -- their brother, their cousin. If you're not going to stand up for your family, who are you going to stand up for? But they certainly have a lot of practice.

MACCALLUM: So, you believe that Tommy may have been involved?


MACCALLUM: What are you going to do now? What's your next step now that this is been overturned? And nobody is supposed to be responsible for this.

MOXLEY: Well, as I understand it, now that the court has reversed their decision and has made a decision, the state has the opportunity to look at the decision and see if there's room to maneuver, and I don't know what that is. I'm not an attorney. But, it's the state's turn to look at that decision and decide whether or not to appeal or not.

MACCALLUM: How hard is it for you to put this to rest?

MOXLEY: It will never be to rest. You know, it will never be. It's just part of our life and we go on with it on a day-to-day basis. We try to have a positive outlook. There's no hate in our hearts, that's just too heavy of a burden to bear. But, you know, it's just the life we know. It's, you know, the roller coaster of all of these decisions. And, you know, it's amazing that since 2002 -- before 2002, all of the one-man grand jury, all of the preliminary trials, all of the investigation, all of the false leads, all of -- everything led back to Michael. And then through his own deeds, in his own words, he puts himself at the place at the time and explains why there would be physical evidence there. We know there were lying from day one just because there was no report due according to Tommy on Abraham Lincoln.

MACCALLUM: John, thank you very much.

MOXLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Give my best to your mom.

MOXLEY: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Here now is Geraldo Rivera who covered the story, Fox News roaming correspondent at large and author of the Geraldo Show. Geraldo, we've watched this case come in and out of the courtroom so many times over the years. Vicki Sherman, the attorney for the family has basically had this overturned twice and, you know, hung on mistakes that he made.

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You know, first of all, I have, Martha, tremendous sympathy for the Moxley family. I've listened to the brother, you know, with a broken heart. Where you see pictures of his sister back at the age of 15, so fresh and, you know, ready for life, and then to be cut down in this brutal, brutal way. But I totally disagree with John and, you know, the people who believe that Michael Skakel was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. People have to remember that he wasn't even tried for this 1975 crime, this 1975 murder until 2002, for goodness sake, 27 years after. And I heard John, the brother, he's done such a wonderful job along with his parents in keeping this story alive. I heard him say that Michael Skakel convicted himself from his own mouth with his own words. His own words were reported by the state's star witness, a guy named Greg Coleman, who he was with in reform school in Maine. Greg Coleman says that Michael Skakel said those damning statements, that he incriminated himself.

MACCALLUM: That's right.

RIVERA: Greg Coleman subsequently recanted that testimony. He was a heroin addict who now says -- or he's passed away now, he overdosed. He said before he died that he shot himself up with heroin before he gave testimony to the state. I submit that the reason Michael Skakel was convicted, he was a dorky Kennedy cousin. They were in Belhaven. They thought they lived a privileged life. Dominic Dunne wrote a fictional story, a book about it. Mark Furhman wrote 'Murder in Greenwich' about it. The public hatred directed towards Michael Skakel was such that I think the jury overlooked the fact that there was no forensic evidence, no eyewitnesses, and now the state only witness is dead from an overdose having recanted.

MACCALLUM: Geraldo, who did it? If it wasn't Michael, who did it?

RIVERA: Well, you know, people say that it could have been older brother Thomas or the tutor, but why not? Because it was a gated community, doesn't mean some outsider could not have snuck in. I've done shows over the years that indicated that this guy or that guy was in the neighborhood. You know, Michael Skakel, remember this was -- this guy was, you know, the ultimate defendant in the case, the night before he was in a tree looking at Martha Moxley and masturbating. I mean, he was a sicko. You know, his mother had died two years before he's 15-years-old. He was already an alcoholic. He had a troubled person who was easily convicted. He did ten years in prison, remember.

MACCALLUM: Geraldo, thank you very much. We will see the next twist and turn in this case. It just seems to go on forever. And as you say, you look at the pictures of that young -- I remember when it all happened and she had her life snuffed out, and we still -- still so much mystery surrounding it. Good to see you, Geraldo, thanks for joining us. So, a conservative commentator, Dinesh D'Souza, had to serve time for donating too much money to a Republican candidate, will Rosie O'Donnell face the same punishment for doing the same thing?


DINESH D'SOUZA: It seems clear from what we know that Rosie broke the law, and she broke the law five times. So, it's in a sense an egregious violation.



MACCALLUM: Celebrity Trump nemesis, Rosie O'Donnell, under fire tonight for what appears to be an elicit campaign contribution to at least five Democratic candidates exceeding the maximum allowed under campaign finance law. She apparently is unfazed by the repercussions boasting in a tweet today, quote, all my donations, my goal is to support all those opposed to Trump, Rosie.com. Have at it, she goes on with her hash tags. Here now Dr. Gina Laudon, psychology expert and creator of the nonprofit, They All Have Names, and Jessica Tarlov, Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. I love how Rosie says, I make most of them late at night when I'm depressed, and I just go on and keep hitting the donate, donate, donate button. But, you know, Dinesh D'Souza did basically the same thing, over donating. He spent eight months in a halfway house. So, Jessica, does Rosie deserve the same sentence?

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think we need all the facts of the case here. It sounds like she was using multiple aliases to be able to do this to donate to Adam Schiff and Connor Lamb, and a number of others. What Dinesh D'Souza did was to go over the limit himself and also recruit other people to be donating. And then.

MACCALLUM: What's the difference?


MACCALLUM: He's asking people to do it for him. I don't know how that works.

TARLOV: As a lead with, we need to know all the details here, but I certainly understand why Dinesh D'Souza would be wanting to have this conversation, and a halfway house sounds just as that is prison to me.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. It's only halfway is bad, but still pretty bad. Gina?

GINA LAUDON, PSYCHOLOGY EXPERT: Yeah. Well, you know, just as the lawyer here, but I would say that it's important that the law is applied consistently here. I can understand though, the campaign finance laws are very confusing, and if I'm really honest I think it is confusing enough that perhaps the candidates should be, you know, in charge of -- for funding whatever is not used. On the other hand, for the sake of consistency, you just know that if this were Roseanne donating to Trump instead of Rosie donating to Democrats, you know, she'd be making a lot of noise about it and saying maybe we should throw the book at them.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to switch gears and I want to play this sound bite for you from Michelle Obama and get your thoughts. Let's play it.


MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: If we, as women, are still suspicious of one another. If we're still -- if we still have this crazy, crazy bar for each other that we don't have for men, if we're still doing that today, if we're more comfortable with -- if we're not comfortable with the notion that a woman could be our president compared to, what?


MACCALLUM: So, there we have, again, the same sort of assumption that Hillary Clinton made that any woman who voted for Trump basically, you know, rejected her affinity for women, or for women candidates, or she voted like her dad or her husband or her boss told her to like we heard from Hillary, Gina?

LAUDON: Yeah. I always say -- you know, I had a 50/50 chance of coming out being a woman. I don't consider it an accomplishment. Let's say you contrast this with our beautiful first lady now and there's just no comparison. This is all about divisiveness. And to say the words she said that for some reason we should vote for woman simply because she's a woman, and to condescend the American women who voted for Trump is on its face sexist, Martha.

TARLOV: She actually didn't say that. So, I agree with half of your point. I don't particularly like.

MACCALLUM: She did say that before.

TARLOV: No, she didn't say you should vote for her just because she's a woman.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. But she said in her previous sound bite, she said in the last election, I'm concerned about us as women, what we think about ourselves and about each other, what's going on in our heads that we let that happen.

TARLOV: Yeah. Let that happen is electing someone to office who is espousing and promoting policies that don't help women, and also, someone who talks about the women that he does. We all remember, you know, -- Mrs. Piggy, Mrs. Housekeeping, what he said about Rosie before. This is a man who demeans women.


LAUDON: She was talking at all woman who voted for Trump.

TARLOV: What she was talking about is that women -- what she was talking about is she doesn't understand how women, when you look at who this person is, his character, how he treats women, even his own wife.

LAUDON: No, she was saying we should have voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman, that's the only reason.

MACCALLUM: We'll have to agree to disagree. Ladies, I'm getting counted out. Thank you so much.

LAUDON: I'm not a lawyer, by the way.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I get that all the time. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: Tomorrow is a big night, the first big primary of 2018. Watch it play out right here starting at 7 o'clock, we're going to be manning the Fox News decision desk. We'll see some of the races close during the 7 o'clock hour, and then I will be back throughout the evening when those race calls come in and we'll see where the momentum looks like it's going as we head into November. Don't miss it tomorrow night at 7. Tucker up next in D.C.

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.