Conservative encouraged by state of free speech on college campuses after speaking at Dartmouth

close

Video

Conservative encouraged by state of free speech on college campuses after speaking at Dartmouth

Former Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles says the reception to his remarks were a surprise and a glimmer of hope.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ED HENRY, HOST: After two years, dozens of lawyers and FBI agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas and millions of your tax dollars, Robert Mueller emerged today to speak.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: It is important that the office's written works speak for itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: So, the report speaks for itself. But then, he kept on speaking. Seemingly setting up an impeachment bandwagon for Democrats to hop on. While in the same breath, saying this about the Russia investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: We are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Good evening, everybody. I'm Ed Henry, in for Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story.”

But Mueller said every defendant is presumed innocent, he was referring to the Russians accused of hacking. When it comes to the president being presumed innocent, well, not so much.

Special counsel officially announced his resignation today. His parting words seem to be directed at Democrats. Essentially giving them the green light to go after the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUELLER: The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: See what happened there? Mueller was once hailed as a hero by the resist movement. St. Robert, perhaps, was certain to deliver the goods. Now, Mueller didn't seem to deliver. So, he's trying to pass that baton to Congress.

As conservative Matt Lewis tweeted today, "I respect Mueller, but I feel like we hired him to settle things, to provide clarity and closure. After two years, I can't say he accomplished either goal. This feels deeply unsatisfying."

Where have we seen this before? A one-time FBI chief with a saintly image, how to get the goods? Didn't quite deliver on expectations, then makes a hash of an investigation, maybe Mueller's predecessors FBI chief James Comey.

He had a big press conference of his own, you may remember it. He laid out all of the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton may have violated with her server. But then, decided on his own, no reasonable prosecutor would have charged Clinton and her top aides. Remember St. James?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.

MUELLER: If we had, had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

COMEY: We are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

MUELLER: It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

COMEY: This investigation was done honestly, competently, and independently.

MUELLER: I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HENRY: Honest, fair, independent, both men assured all of us of that point, even though, it was not exactly fair to Hillary Clinton to say she's not being charged, but basically, she may have broken the law.

So, think of it this way, after Comey's mishandling of the Clinton probe, he moved onto investigating President Trump. Comey and other senior officials oversaw surveillance of Trump advisors. Spying as some have called it. That's now under investigation too.

Comey continues to insist no wrongdoing there, but he's already admitted to leaking memos about his conversations with the president in order to trigger the naming of a special counsel.

Now, that special counsel he teed up is all but urging Democrats to impeach the president. By saying the president was not charged, but maybe he broke the law. Well, the president's personal attorney has something to say about that. Rudy Giuliani is standing by to react to Mueller, Comey, and the investigation of the investigators. But first, 2020 presidential candidate, Congressman Eric Swalwell.

What new information did we learn today?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we learned that any other American would have been charged with the crime, but the president was shielded by a Department of Justice policy that said, a citizen -- a sitting president cannot be charged with the crime.

HENRY: Well, but hang on, Robert Mueller never used the word, shielded. That's your interpretation.

SWALWELL: Well, he said he couldn't -- well, he said, if he didn't commit a crime, I would say that, and then, he went on to say that the Department of Justice policy prohibits him from bringing charges. (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: That he said in -- which he said in his report which came out in mid-April. My question was, what's new? We knew that from Robert Mueller in April.

SWALWELL: Well, actually, the attorney general said that, that wasn't the case. He said -- the attorney general said that, that did not factor into Special Counsel Mueller's decision to not charge the president with the crime.

I think it's pretty clear now from the special counsel that, that is probably, the only reason he wasn't charged with --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Well, I'll let the attorney general defend himself because I'm sure Congress is going to have him back. But what he -- his office insist he said, and we have the quote, that's on tape. That he didn't say that the DOJ policy was not a factor, the attorney general was just saying in his private conversations with Mueller. Mueller never said, "But for that policy, I would have indicted the president." So, are you misconstruing what Mueller said?

SWALWELL: No. So, my take away today is anyone other than the president would have been charged. The Russians attacked us and that should concern as Mueller said, "every American," I think that's including the president who it has not concerned, and who has not really acknowledged what the Russians did.

And then, as you pointed out, he tossed it to Congress. You know, we now have a duty -- I think to take this to the next step, get the full Mueller report, have Don McGahn and others come in and testify. Have special counsel raise his right hand and layout for the American people.

HENRY: So, what is that next step then? Is the next step impeachment or something short of that?

SWALWELL: I think we're on the road to impeachment. You know, there's no one who's going to question my vigor and holding the president accountable. But I'm one of the only -- I am the only presidential candidate who would actually have to try the case on the Judiciary Committee.

I want to make sure we get it right. To get the full Mueller report, have the special counsel come in, have the witnesses testify, prepare for impeachment. But recognize that this is an extreme remedy. We only get one shot at it, and we don't want to do Donald Trump justice. We want to uphold the rule of law.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Well, Congressman, well, OK, you say you want to get it right. So, let's look at one of your tweets today and see if you got it right. You said, "You were not exonerated," you were saying to the president. "It seems the only reason you were not charged is because you're the president. And if you're so innocent, why hide the unredacted report and prevent testimony? #RunningScared."

So, I want to ask you, first of all, when you say hide the unredacted report. That report, as you know, the unredacted report is at the Justice Department. It's not being hidden, sir. And you and any member of Congress can go there and most of you have not seen it.

SWALWELL: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, I cannot go there. No. It's there, yes, but I am not allowed to go and see it. That, that is the concern right now is that I and others can't go see it. I would love to see it, Ed. That we should be able to see it, but there could maybe a chairs.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: As a member of the Congress -- the ranking members, the key people who represent you in both parties, they can go there and see it.

SWALWELL: But -- so imagine that the issue that, that sets up. If only Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes and Jerry Nadler and Doug Collins can go see it, four people on the House of Representatives. What would happen if Adam Schiff, said, "I'm very concerned by what I saw, but I can't tell you anything about. You should trust me, we should move on impeachment."

People would say that's crazy. How could you trust any member of Congress without others (INAUDIBLE) it? That's why -- that's why it's a real problem. If the president was so innocent, so cleared, he would say, "I have nothing to hide, look at the report."

HENRY: Well, he says he has nothing to hide and I want to go to the other party this week where you say, the president is preventing testimony.

(CROSSTALK)

SWALWELL: And he says that. Yes.

HENRY: I assume you're referring to Don McGahn, his former White House counsel.

SWALWELL: Yes.

HENRY: He testified for what was it? 29 hours before Robert Mueller. What number do you need before its good enough? He didn't shield him. In fact, the president said, go cooperate.

SWALWELL: Well, have you read his testimony to Robert Mueller?

HENRY: Sure. Well, we read excerpts and it's in the report.

SWALWELL: I haven't. The mayor could be ready to pay for this investigation. Excerpts, rights. But that's not how it works. I mean that we have a separate branch of government, Congress, who is --

HENRY: Are you saying -- are you saying we will see grand jury information which the attorney general says would be against the law?

SWALWELL: I'm saying just like Watergate, Congress should see grand jury information. That happened after Watergate. This seems to be a larger issue than Watergate. This is a foreign adversary who attacked our democracy. I think you want to make sure checks and balances are preserved.

HENRY: But on that point, he allowed Don McGahn. I still want the substance of it to testify for something like 29 hours. So, how can you credibly say, the president doesn't want Don McGahn -- he's already testified for 29 hours?

SWALWELL: He hasn't testified to Congress. I mean, that that's not how it works. I mean, Congress is the separate -- why wouldn't the president want him to come forward if he is so cleared?

Again, this isn't how innocent people act. Innocent people say -- you know what, I didn't do anything wrong, you could spend all the time you want investigating me and you going to find nothing. But that's not the case.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Well, if you're going to do it that way, wouldn't guilty people -- wouldn't say, Don McGahn, don't go cooperate with Robert Mueller, we're going to invoke executive privilege. Instead, he said, turn over all the e-mails, they turned over, was it? A million pages of e-mails and go talk to him for 29 hours.

SWALWELL: Well, he told Don McGahn to fire Bob Mueller. I mean, that's in the report. That's something a guilty person would do too.

HENRY: Last thing here, Robert Mueller went on to say, "it's also unfair," he said, "to accuse someone of a crime if he or she can't go to a court and get some sort of verdict." That in this case, the president can't go to go to trial.

But is it he -- and you -- and other Democrats continuing that because if the president can't go to trial and clear his name, you're just continuing what might be false charges against an innocent man?

SWALWELL: Here is how I think we can fix that. Because Mueller is saying, because he can't charge him at the crime, he's prohibited from doing that. That applies to no other American, only to the president, he can't talk and smear the president because he can't defend himself. Mueller is actually being honorable here.

If the president is so innocent, he would order today the Department of Justice to lift that policy that says a president can't be indicted. And then, if Mueller has a case, he would bring it. But the president is not innocent, so he's not going to do that.

I've promised, as president, day one, I would order the attorney general to lift up protection, so no future president is immunized that way.

HENRY: All right. Congressman, appreciate you coming in.

SWALWELL: Of course, thanks, Ed.

HENRY: Thanks, Eric.

Also here exclusively tonight, President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Mayor, good to see you. You were laughing throughout parts of his answer.

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That can't be a serious candidate for president.

HENRY: Why?

GIULIANI: He's pathetic.

HENRY: Well, which part?

GIULIANI: The whole -- the whole thing. First of all, he's obviously going through a serious identity crisis. So, I excused him.

HENRY: He tweeted about how he feels guilty that he's a white male.

GIULIANI: Well, he's even more confused about the case. I mean, the idea that the charge on the United States can turn over information to them, and not be in violation of the law, it's just a fiction that they're all presenting to the American people. Because they're lying to the American people. The attorney general has turned over 98 percent of the obstruction report, if not 99 percent.

Even Mueller said today that the report has been largely or very largely seen, he knows there's nothing. I've read the report, you've read the report. The redaction are like this. Maybe a third of them, a footnotes.

HENRY: But they say there's underlying evidence that might give us a bigger window into --

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: First, he's talking about reading the whole report. He's read - - he's -- if he's read the report, he's read the whole report. The redacted versions are one percent of the report. Maybe half a percent because half of that percent are footnotes.

Second, Mueller today just said what the report said. To make this into, oh my God, now we have that not a single new fact, no smoking gun. Not even a single new nuance. I mean, it's the same old story. End result for a prosecutor which obviously, he was not very good at is number one, no collusion.

Well, that immediately that what that says to you is we just had 2-1/2 years of two investigations of entirely unfair, a waste of taxpayer money, and certainly justifies a man in defending himself.

HENRY: Well, let me get to that, and then, we'll get to obstruction on collusion conspiracy. Mueller said today, he could not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't that leave open, if not a conspiracy that there was contact collusion.

GIULIANI: No, he actually said something stronger than he said. There's not -- there's insignificant evidence, they're not significant evidence.

HENRY: Insufficient.

GIULIANI: Insufficient evidence. Insufficient evident means you can't meet the burden for an indictment. The burden for an indictment is probable cause. If nothing, it's not reasonable doubt. So, he can't get to the level of even making a charge.

You know what that means every place else in America, under American law unless you want to change it? It means you're not guilty.

All prosecutors ever do is determined is there enough evidence to charge something? I never heard of exonerating someone. I never heard of it. Never heard that word for a prosecutor --

HENRY: Because now it's been flipped around that he's not guilty.

GIULIANI: Well, that's 2,000 years -- that's 2,000 years of fairness. We go back to the Romans, the English, the Americans, this guy who wants to be president of the United States wants to flip all that.

And what he wants to do is presumed the president guilty. He does want to presume the president guilty. He -- he's been saying the president is guilty for two or three years, what a phony. So, what do they want him there for? They want him there for a show. They want him there for being on -- you know, daytime television, trying to become a stars. He -- he's hoping that he'll be the -- I'm the only Democrat that's going to get a chance to but maybe, maybe I can win the primary. She, that mean --

HENRY: Well, he said --

GIULIANI: I don't know -- I don't know -- I don't know how to say to him, you ain't winning no primary. You just not -- you just don't have enough - - you know.

HENRY: He says Democrats are on the road to impeachment. You've been in politics for a long time. Does this boomerang on the Democrats?

GIULIANI: Well, tell me what new fact was revealed today that --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: I asked him, he didn't name it.

GIULIANI: Of course, he didn't name it. Couldn't even make one up, usually he makes things up but he must be still swooning from that identity crisis. So, the reality is, there was no new fact, there was no tape, there was no piece of evidence, there was no witness, every witnesses walked out on them.

Their whole collusion investigation is probably going to come -- is can become an investigation against them. Because that collusion thing was manufactured. I know that. I spent the last six months investigating that. I think it's going to boomerang on them.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: So, we'll see what you get on that, but let's get to obstruction. Because what Democrats are saying is that Bob Mueller -- and he went on camera. This is not -- you know, a speculating. He went on camera and suggested, at least, as you know that but for this Department of Justice policy, he might have indicted the president.

GIULIANI: He said two things including in the report separately. And they are trying to use that. He said number one, "I cannot reach a conclusion that the president committed obstruction of justice, but I can't exonerate him."

Minute he says I cannot reach a conclusion that he obstructed the justice, it means there's no case. End of case, case over, you don't get to say the second one, "but I can't exonerate him."

We don't want you to -- you're not supposed to exonerate. That shouldn't even be in your head. Mr. Weissmann put that in your head because they'd like to distort the American Constitutions. And this guy was not smart enough to understand the difference or doesn't care.

HENRY: So --

GIULIANI: Second, second, so we said on an analysis of the evidence, he gave us his opinion which is all I can give us. The second thing he said was there's a Justice Department policy. Well, there was a Justice Department policy about collusion also.

HENRY: So was this a waste of two years? If he knew upfront, you could indict him.

GIULIANI: If you -- if you take -- if you take that analysis that he can't indict and he can't give an opinion, then the reality is we just wasted two years.

HENRY: All right, Mr. Mayor --

GIULIANI: But he did give an opinion and his opinion is no collusion, no obstruction, pal. You can twist it all the way you want and they're going to keep doing it but it's going to backfire on you. But now we should be paying more attention to how much corruption was involved in the original charge is going to go pretty darn hot.

HENRY: We appreciate you coming in. Thanks, Rudy Giuliani who just turned 75. Happy birthday! Still ahead, breaking news out of Louisiana where a new abortion measure has just been passed. We're going to get to that. Plus, exactly one week after a meeting between the President and Speaker Pelosi crumbled, then Robert Mueller just pours even more gasoline on the fire. Exclusive reaction from what top White House official. That is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Crazy Nancy, I tell you what. I've been watching her and I have been watching her for a long period of time. She's not the same person. She's lost it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: One week after a bitter war of words between President Trump and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker confirming today nothing is off the table including impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Everybody wants justice, everybody wants the president to be held accountable in the most serious way, and everybody believes -- I mean, I'm talking on the Democratic side, that no one is above the law especially the President of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Well, there's the Speaker. Here now, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley. Hogan, thanks for coming in.

HOGAN GIDLEY, DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE: Thanks for having me on.

HENRY: So he left -- she left impeachment on the table as we said, but in her written statement, she really you know, kind of ran from impeachment and said we're going to keep investigating while Eric Swalwell said on this program at the top said we're on the road to impeachment, all kinds of other 2020 contenders say start the proceedings now. What's really going on in the Democratic caucus?

GIDLEY: This is a three-ring circus and Nancy Pelosi is the ringmaster. What we saw today was the Special Counsel Robert Mueller walked to that microphone and say I completed the investigation. I closed down my office and I closed this case. We are over and done with it. 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, 500 warrants, 40 FBI agents, 19 attorneys and a partridge in a pear tree, and we're right where we started.

And there is no collusion, no conspiracy, and the Department of Justice confirmed there is no obstruction. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to continue down this road -- and it doesn't hurt Donald Trump because he's free and clear. It hurts the American people. They are the ones who need infrastructure. They are the ones who need a secure southern border.

HENRY: Right.

GIDLEY: They are the ones who need health care. But Pelosi and the Democrats are focused on their own political agenda and not focus on making this country going.

HENRY: Hogan, I get that, but then when Nancy Pelosi made that comment about investigating the president and a cover-up and all of the like last week, the president basically walked out of a meeting on infrastructure.

So now that you have Democrats throwing more gasoline on the fire and saying they're not just to cover up but they're alleging at least, they might not be able to back it up, that they want to try to remove them from office. How does he work with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats? How do you do those things like immigration?

GIDLEY: Well, listen. First of all, this is the Russian collusion witch- hunt 2.0. First, they accused him without proof or evidence of colluding with a foreign power, now Nancy Pelosi is saying that he literally is involved in a cover-up without proof and without evidence, not to mention the fact the very thing she's talking about being covered up is open for everyone to see, it is a public document.

So I have no idea what she's talking about. But when given the choice, she had to I-words in that meeting. She could focus on infrastructure or impeachment and it is very clear they are going down the road of impeachment, most Americans don't want that.

The President just wants to get about the business of making this country better and protecting the American people along the southern border along so many other lines. Democrats just don't want any part of it. We want to move forward they don't and that's a problem.

HENRY: Hogan, you call it a three-ring circus on the Democratic side. But on your side, you've had a shift in how you're talking about this investigation. Look at what the president tweeted just last Friday. It wasn't ancient history. I don't know why the radical left Democrats want Bob Mueller to testify when he just issued a $40 million report that states loud and clear and for all to hear no collusion, no obstruction. How do you obstruct a no crime? Dems are just looking for trouble and a do-over.

So he said there, Mueller said no obstruction, but then today, your colleague, your boss Sarah Sanders said something different. The report was clear. There was no collusion, no conspiracy, and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. The point being that you may be shifting the goalposts. The President just Friday was saying, Bob Mueller said no obstruction. Now that it's a little more gray you're now saying the Attorney General said no obstruction.

GIDLEY: No, no, not at all. There's not an ounce of daylight between them. And look, Rudy touched on this before. Prosecutors prosecute. But they only prosecute if they have the evidence to do so. Bob Mueller, he could have recommended that there be indictments. He didn't.

That means he didn't have a case against this president. So we are clear. There is no collusion. There is no obstruction. It's a complete and total exoneration. That's where we were then when this report was released and that's where we are today.

HENRY: Hogan Gidley, we've had this conversation before. I suspect in the months ahead we're going to be having it again. We appreciate you coming in tonight.

GIDLEY: Thank you very much.

HENRY: All right, next, the latest bombshell buried in Bernie Sanders single-payer health care plan that could have employers footing the bill and maybe passing the tab on to you. Karl Rove, Leslie Marshall join me live next.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Under Medicare for all, we couple all basic health care so they're not going to be there to do that. I suppose if you want to make yourself look a little bit more beautiful, you want to work on that nose, you're years, they can do that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: This just in out of Louisiana, breaking news. The state legislature has passed a bill banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks. The state's pro-life Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards is expected to sign off saying in a statement just moments ago, "As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana. That cares for the least among us, an issue that will be in 2020."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: In 2014, the Democratic governor abandoned it because he had to raise income taxes, had to raise payroll taxes. And the people of Vermont didn't want their taxes to go up.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: No, that's not quite true.

MACCALLUM: And they abandoned --

SANDERS: Well, getting into in total Vermont politics of which I know a little bit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Well, that was our very own Martha MacCallum, of course pressing 2020 Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders on how he plans to pay for his Medicare for all plan and whether it would include tax increases for employers. Something the Vermont Senator finally seems to be fessing up to. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Well, it cost you and ordinary Americans a lot less than you are currently spending on average. OK. What will probably end up looking like is a payroll tax on employers, an increase in income tax in a progressive way for ordinary people with a significant deductible for low income people who pay nothing for it. Upper income people will pay more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: So it gets he was kind of telling Martha no new taxes. Then he says, well, yes, no taxes.

Joining me now, Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, and Leslie Marshall, a Democratic strategist. Both, of course, Fox News contributors. Good to see you.

KARL ROVE, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here.

HENRY: Karl, he says, don't worry about it at all. Is this going to be on the employer's back? They never pass that onto the consumers, right?

ROVE: No. They never pass it on to consumers and they never take it out of the pockets of their employees. Two myths that he's perpetuated there. Look, this is going to be an expensive program if it were ever to pass.

The committee for responsible federal budget estimates the cost is between 28 and 32 billion. Very smart guy, I know Chuck (Inaudible) says it will cost 32 billion -- 32 trillion -- excuse me, and but save $2 trillion in medical costs by cutting reimbursements to healthcare providers by 40 percent.

But $32 trillion over a decade is a lot of money. And it's going to require significant increases. If you look at one of the bills -- the bill that has the support of a large number of House Democrats sponsored by a member from Washington State, it points towards very significant increases across the board in payroll tax and in income taxes and in corporate taxes.

HENRY: Leslie, let's give you crack on it. Because when its polled on the idea of Medicare for all. We're going to improve the system; it's going to be great for everyone. It polls very well. But when you start getting into the details it's a lot of money.

LESLIE MARSHALL, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, because at the end of the day I don't think people really want Medicare for all. I wrote a piece for Foxnews.com about how a government program, I think, or what most people want.

But if you really look at Medicare and the way it is right now. And the government making medical decisions, my husband is a physician. You don't want Medicare for all. And then you have to look at the money.

I think I agree with Karl on some of this and many voters do left and right. A lot of people like the idea of not paying but somebody is going to pay and if employers are going to be paying that does trickle down to the employees.

Of course, it's popular left or right. Tax the rich. Have the government give me free healthcare. And Senator Sanders has been very great with details on the plan but not how to pay for it. This isn't going to pay for it. And this is not going to pass --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: The Trump camp has been itching at the idea of running socialism versus free market.

ROVE: Yes. And look, this is at the beginning of the conversation sounds great. But first of all, it's not Medicare. In fact, it wipes out Medicare. All the savings that people have put in Medicare payments over the years towards it and Medicare tax towards their -- towards their time when they get to 65 and pick up. It gets wiped out.

They get dumped into a new single payer healthcare plan. We have lines, we have rationing. We cut -- we cut payments to healthcare providers. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals by 40 percent in order to bring it in to line with Medicare.

Who thinks that a lot of these struggling rural hospitals? How many doctors are going to say you know what? I'm out of here. How many nurses are going to say I'm going to enter the field because I think I deserve to be paid 40 percent less.

HENRY: Leslie, this is an issue, everything Karl is talking about the Democrats did pretty darn well within the midterms as we saw. And yet, they are not talking about it because they are on the road to impeachment. Bad idea for Democrats?

MARSHALL: Yes. Very bad idea for the Democrats. Which is one of the reasons that House speaker is like let's take our time. Let's take a breath. Let's have a thorough investigation because as speaker of the house, Congress, the house specifically, is tasked constitutionally with oversight of the executive branch. They have to do that. They have to do their job.

But Democrats, even though 72 percent favor impeachment, when you pick up 40 plus seats in the House Democrats did and I like to call that a tsunami, but when the Democrats did that in the midterm, people, you know, yes, people were hoping for an impeachment, but those swings voters, the people that aren't happy with the president right now and some Republicans that say what's happened to my party?

HENRY: They want to get something done.

MARSHALL: They want healthcare addressed. They want immigration addressed.

HENRY: Yes.

MARSHALL: Some people want crime addressed. Some people want climate change addressed. There is a list.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Quick 30 seconds from Karl on that. Because Pelosi is trying to walk this line.

ROVE: She can't walk this line. I mean, the new Harvard/Harris poll 65 percent of Americans do not want impeachment. Majority of Democrats do. But a significant majority of Republicans and independents oppose impeachment.

And, look, this is why -- they are going to have a disaster on their hands if they pursue impeachment. But they will also have a disaster on their hands if they go for Medicare for all.

I've been looking at the polling. You tell people that what's going to happen that they lose all their private coverage. That there will be lines, that their taxes are going to go up, that healthcare professionals are going to be paid less. And this entirely flips.

They won in 2018 by saying they are going to take away your pre-existing conditions and they are going to be get -- the Republicans are going to be irresponsible with big changes in healthcare. The Democrats now are the people talking about taking away things and irresponsible big changes. Everybody seems to be -- they think the healthcare system is broken but they like what they have got.

HENRY: Karl, Leslie, I appreciate you both coming in.

ROVE: Thanks for having us.

MARSHALL: Thanks, Ed.

HENRY: Still ahead on “The Story,” Geraldo Rivera tells Democrats talking impeachment? Get over it.

Plus, breaking news on the Chinese national who breached security at Mar-a- Lago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: New security concerns that the president's home away from the White House. After a college freshman admitted to sneaking into the president's Mar-a-Lago resort while he was there. The teen is now apologizing but some are calling his punishment a slap on the wrist.

Trace Gallagher has the scoop tonight. Trace, good to see you.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Ed. The incident happened the day after Thanksgiving which is four months before a Chinese woman carrying all kinds of electronic equipment was arrested for lying to get into Mar-a-Lago.

This time around, 18-year-old University of Wisconsin freshman Mark Lindblom was visiting his grandparents in Palm Beach. The grandparents belong to a tennis club that shares a beach with Mar-a-Lago. Lindblom He says he walked down the beach. Spotted the president's resort and went into a tunnel that leads to the resort.

Lindblom then joined some members who were waiting in line to go through a metal detector. The 18-year-old says the Secret Service scanned him and waived him in. He spent the next 20 minutes wandering the grounds, taking pictures on his cell phone before he was finally confronted.

This week, a very apologetic Lindblom told the judge that he just wanted to see how far he could get and had no evil intentions. But again, it brings into question the Secret Service's ability to protect the president when he is staying at Mar-a-Lago.

Government officials have already acknowledged the Secret Service does not decide who comes in to the resort. Although agents do conduct surveillance and physical screenings.

In March, 33-year-old Yujing Zhang was arrested at Mar-a-Lago for claiming that she was attending a non-existent event. She was carrying computer malware along with an electronic device that detects hidden cameras. She also had electronics in her hotel room and she is still being held in jail.

Today, Mark Lindblom was given probation after a judge ruled his stunt was a youthful indiscretion.

And breaking right now, federal prosecutors have sent subpoenas to Mar-a- Lago seeking information about Cindy Yang. She is a South Florida massage parlor owner who promoted events at Mar-a-Lago as a way to meet the president. The question is now whether she broke campaign finance laws by funneling money from China to the president's re-election campaign. The president and his campaign are not target of this investigation. Ed?

HENRY: Trace, thanks. Liberal colleges meanwhile are offering a breeding ground on -- of hostility when it comes to conservative voices on campus. You've seen some of these near riots, basically. But my next guest says he is actually encouraged by the appetite for free speech among America's youth.

After a recent speaking engagement at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Here now live is Robert Charles, he is former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush. He also served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses. Good to see you.

ROBERT CHARLES, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Sure.

HENRY: Tell me what happened because you went to Dartmouth thinking you were going to face hostility. Instead, you now think it might be a glimmer of hope.

CHARLES: Yes, I really do. What I encountered there were really two surprises. One was as a conservative I rolled out the Reagan agenda. I rolled out some of my own views, pro-life and whatnot. And I found there was an appetite for real conversation. Instead of a default to emotion which is sort of standard way that people are reacting these days.

So that was very encouraging. And the second piece was conversations that occurred after, you know, the on-stage moments were actually very productive and suggested that there is really maybe a chilled conservative undercurrent in a lot of these places.

One of the things I reminded people and I think it's easy to forget, is that people like Ronald Reagan who I worked for as well as Colin Powell and others they didn't take, they don't take conversations. I mean, Powell doesn't and Reagan didn't, take conversations personally. The rejection of an argument doesn't mean it's the rejection of the person.

HENRY: Yes.

CHARLES: And that's important. And the other part of it is they always began and ended with respect in conversations. And when you do that, what I found is there is a willingness in a lot of these campuses, certainly on Dartmouth's campus.

HENRY: Yes. Last thing on this, because you say their self-centrist sometimes.

CHARLES: Yes.

HENRY: Where conservatives are afraid to even go on these campuses. You say there were good conversations. Where these some liberals who said, hey, I like to hear different voices or was it mostly conservatives saying hey, I don't get out a lot because I'm worried but I want to get my voice heard? What did you hear from students?

CHARLES: You know, I think it was a mix. I mean, what I found was that I have come to the probably wrong view, day-to-day reading headlines that people are impatient and won't listen.

And what I found on the Dartmouth campus was quite reassuring because it suggests to me that that critical element that preserves democracy, the respect for free speech for people to disagree with you actually can be found.

HENRY: Yes.

CHARLES: And I'd like to hope that it will spread. You know, it reminds me a lot that Madison back in the constitutional convention when they were framing the First Amendment, one of the things he noted was that no member ever criticizes another member for changing their mind.

And if we can keep that in the front of our mind, maybe we have a chance to preserve this democracy.

HENRY: Well, a reason for hope. I'm about to send my son off to college in a short amount of time. You would hope these campuses are homes to free speech as they should be. Robert, we appreciate you coming.

CHARLES: Yes, sir.

HENRY: All right. Geraldo Rivera says Robert Mueller put a fork in it. It's done. And Democrats should, too. He is live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, SPECIAL COUNSEL: After that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department's policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: So, is this the end or just the beginning? Clearly it depends on who you ask but a growing course of Democrats and one lone Republican, they are pushing impeachment as the next step.

Congressman Justin Amash tweeting quote, "The ball is in our court, Congress."

Here now, Geraldo Rivera, Fox News correspondent-at-large. Good to see you, sir.

GERALDO RIVERA, CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: Hi, Ed.

HENRY: Part of it when you hear Robert Mueller say I couldn't indict him anyway, was this a waste of two years if he knew at the beginning, I can't do anything about it.

RIVERA: He should have told the president months and months ago that they weren't going to, you know, that they did not find any collusion. That's the key.

See, I like Robert Mueller, I mean I certainly have always respected him. He had dignity and gravitas. And I respected the fact that his office didn't leak during this long and tortured course.

But what he just described as a lawyer it is so offensive to me, what he has done is lower the burden of proof. When you suspect a person has committed a crime and you take them to the grand jury. What the grand jury finds is probable cause that a crime was committed.

That's not what Mueller just said. What Mueller just said in the sound bite you played was that there was a possible crime committed.

HENRY: Right.

RIVERA: I mean, so instead of probable cause you have possible cause. Maybe the president did something. I mean, for him to go on about that and to insert it in his prepared remarks as he did, I think was a cheap shot. I think it was very, very unfortunate.

And I think that Democrats that take encouragement from this that now let's proceed with impeachment, they overlook the central problem with that thesis. Bill Clinton lied under oath. He was caught --

HENRY: Yes.

RIVERA: -- perjury, he lost his law license. Nixon lied covering up a burglary that was committed. What did Trump do other than lose his temper about an unjust investigation. He wasn't obstructing justice. He was obstructing injustice. There was no collusion.

HENRY: So, has this been flipped on its head where it's not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent?

RIVERA: That's exactly right. But when you see the tone and everything, how is Trump supposed to defend against that allegation that he possibly tried to obstruct? You know what happens? You know, I have known him for decades.

What happened was he was fuming about this unfair investigation as a, damn it, I want you to fire that SOB, go get it. I mean, and now in the cool of the aftermath expose facto they look back and said, that was possibly obstruction of justice when he went to the White House counsel and said to fire the special counsel. I mean, it is really --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: And didn't fire. He did not --

RIVERA: He didn't fire him. He didn't. There was no there there. He never fired him. He fumed. The guy listened the way, you know, I vent at times with a contractor or somebody. I'm going to -- and then nothing happens the next day.

HENRY: You sleep on it.

RIVERA: The next day you still where you were.

HENRY: Hillary Clinton, though, is not satisfied. She gave the commencement in her own college here in New York City. She was at Madison Square Garden. Here is what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: But what we've seen from the administration is the complete refusal to condemn a foreign power who attacked our democracy or to take even the most basic steps to protect our voting systems for the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: A lot of people forget that's where this all started about Russia coming after us.

RIVERA: And that point is not a bad point. I mean, I would prefer enormously for the president of the United States to say to President Putin, you know, I like you, we can get along. We have a world to mend.

HENRY: Syria and other places.

RIVERA: But you did something to my country that I cannot abide. My intelligence people tell me that you did this, you did this, you tried and here's the proof, and here it is, Vlad, let me show you. See, here's what the -- but he didn't do that.

And the reason he didn't do it, I mean, I'm guessing, I haven't psychoanalyzed the president of the United States. But I think that he -- because he is think skinned, because he is tempestuous, he gets so angry at the Democrats for accusing him that his first instinctive move is to say, there was no interference with our elections. Vladimir Putin told me man to man, eye to eye, so I -- you know --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: But he did sanction Russia.

RIVERA: He did. And thankfully he went along with the intelligence community ultimately. But I think that sometimes he causes some of his own grief. You know, he made it -- he made it enormously more complicated than it should have. He should have condemned that I think more strongly. Not that I'm giving advice to the president of the United States. I just think that this is a case where clearly, he is the injured party.

And I want -- and the Democrat activists who are reveling in this now --

HENRY: Right.

RIVERA: -- they have to understand that when the things cool down, an in the cool of, you know, of introspection and retrospection, he's -- the Democrat who is moving to get him out of office for what? What did he do?

HENRY: So, you are around for that. You mentioned Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and other Republicans went headlong into impeachment. And they now say they regret it. He pulled rank on them. So, what happens for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats?

RIVERA: Clinton was in a way the same track that the -- for the Republicans as the Democrats are now facing. The Republicans then had Clinton by the short hairs but nobody cared. Why? Because what was he lying about? He was lying about having an affair.

HENRY: Right.

RIVERA: And they all had affairs in those days and that was the original sin. He was lying to cover up an affair and they all recognized that they lied about their own affairs.

HENRY: So, for Trump?

RIVERA: For Trump there is no crime. What did Trump do? He got angry over an unjust probe that unsettled the first two years of his presidency. Damaged his reputation. You know, really, in many ways, weakened the presidency. Gave him something that he thought about every single day. Regardless of whether he is with Kim or with Putin.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: So, you say put a fork in it.

RIVERA: I think that this thing is all over but the shouting and screaming and it will inure to the benefit of Republicans come next election.

HENRY: All right. Geraldo, thank you.

RIVERA: Thank you.

HENRY: More of “The Story” next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: That's “The Story” on this Wednesday night. “The Story” continues. We'll see you back here tomorrow night at 7:00 when Martha will be back. In the meantime, Tucker is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.