Judge dismisses Covington student's Washington Post lawsuit

close

Video

Judge dismisses Covington student's Washington Post lawsuit

Judge dismisses Sandmann defamation lawsuit; Trace Gallagher has the details.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," July 26, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Thank you very much, Bret. You too. All right, everybody. The Mueller hearings were not what Democrats were expecting. But Chairman Jerry Nadler says he knows that there is something there. So, he plans to keep on digging.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: There appears to be compelling evidence of the president's misconduct outside of the four corners of the redacted version of the Mueller report, and we will work to uncover that evidence as well.

The information is important and I can't characterize the specific importance because it's specific -- because I don't know the specific contents, obviously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He doesn't know what he doesn't know at this point, right? So, today, he did pick up more Democrats who are dedicated to going down the impeachment path with him nearly now, 100 House Democrats are on board.

Alan Dershowitz, who wrote the case against impeaching Trump, and is the author of the introduction -- the introduction of the Mueller report and he joins me now. Professor Dershowitz, good to have you here tonight. Thank you very much.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, thank you so much, except I want to change the name of the report from the Mueller report, to the staff report. Because apparently, Mueller didn't write it, and apparently, he didn't even read it.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: So, I don't think we should be calling it the Mueller report anymore. They just used his name and his credibility, and his very good background to give an imprimatur to a report that was obviously written by the staff.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that was one of the most stunning revelations, I thought, as well, as we covered this. You know, it was very clear that he did not have a deep grasp of the details of the report. And very clear that he was -- you know, that he didn't know, you know, some of the names of people involved even when he was asked about them.

But you heard what Jerry Nadler said there. He said, you know, he believes that there is some other existence outside of the report that requires them to keep digging here. You wrote the case against impeaching President Trump. What would you say to him if you sent your book along with him on this August recess?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, my grandson's out fishing right now. And this is the perfect definition of a fishing expedition. He doesn't know what he's looking for. Maybe he'll throw some hooks in the water and hope maybe he'll come up with something that's not the way investigations are supposed to be conducted. Either prosecutorial investigations or congressional investigations.

You know, on Fox the other night, the night before the hearing, I was asked by Laura whether I thought this would be a Hail Mary pass by the Democrats, and I said, "No, I thought it would be an intercepted pass that the Republicans would use to their advantage." And it would hurt the Democrats and as a Democrat myself, it was painful for me to see how the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, they're hurting themselves.

Americans don't want to see this path to an impeachment. They want to see the Democrats work together with the Republicans and try to achieve something to make the lives of Americans better every day, not to go down the line to satisfy 100 radicals or led by four radicals leading toward something that will never be impeachment.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you know --

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: You know, you can't start an impeachment without a majority of the Congress.

MACCALLUM: That's right. You know, I mean, it feels like they owe their constituents back home really want them to do this in certain areas, right? So, they're going down that road.

And they believe, you know, that they want to do over essentially, Alan, because Robert Mueller obviously didn't give them what they want, and now they think, you know what, if we want a John Dean moment, we need the president's lawyer, we need John Dean. In other words, we need Don McGahn to sit there.

So, they're going to go back down the road, they're going to try to subpoena him.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, they're not going to get him.

MACCALLUM: And Rachel Maddow believes that they got the wrong lawyer when they brought in Robert Mueller. Here is what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: Because of that performance from Mueller today, I think that lights a fire under the need to speak to the people on his team who actually did the work. I mean, if Congress really does want more substantive and detailed answers from the people who actually did that work, it would seem like they would have to pursue conversations now and testimony now from Zebley, and from the other members of Mueller's team.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He has Zebley sat there, didn't see one word on.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, Rachel Maddow has been wrong 90 percent of the time. CNN has been wrong 80 percent of the time. I've been right, 100 percent of the time, not because I'm any smarter, but because I don't engage in wishful thinking. I do analysis. I try to understand the Constitution and the law. And I apply it equally no matter who is the subject.

You know, the original title of my book, The Case Against Impeaching Trump, was The Case Against Impeaching Hillary Clinton. We even have a cover that shows it, because when I thought and we all thought Hillary Clinton to be elected, and people were saying, lock her up, lock her up, I was writing a book on why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be impeached.

So, I try to make it down the middle. I'm not ideological when it comes to my analysis of the law, that's why I've been right more than CNN and more than CNBC. And that's why I continue to be right, I'm not bragging about this, I'm only making a point that it's important to analyze this from an objective point of view.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I understand what you're saying. But Alan, just last question for you. You basically gave the reason that Democrats in your party should move on because people want them to.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

MACCALLUM: But what about, you know, Jerry Nadler, just based on what he said today would say, "No, no, no, I need to do this because there's wrongdoing here and because it's my responsibility to make sure that we find it and I'm going to beat the Bushes and subpoena Don McGahn and everybody else I can until I figure out what actually happened here. That's what he's -- that's what he says.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, that's exactly what the framers of the Constitution rejected. There was a debate about that, and they said, no wrongdoing, mal-administration isn't the criteria. It needs to be treason, bribery, other high crimes, and misdemeanors. And unless they have a basis for believing one of those categories has been satisfied, you don't engage in a fishing expedition, you don't use the resources of the United States government to search for some possibility that maybe you can find something that will lead to an impeachment. That's just the wrong way to go.

And if the Republicans are doing this to the Democrats, you know, Nadler would be the first one to be yelling, this is a violation of the power of Congress and that shouldn't be done. We need to have the same rule for everybody.

What I call the shoe on the other foot test. If it's good for the Democrats, it's good for the Republicans, and vice versa.

MACCALLUM: Oh, he did exactly that back in the 90s. Alan Dershowitz, good to see you tonight. Thank you very much, sir.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's bring in Guy Benson, host of the "GUY BENSON SHOW" on Fox News radio, and political editor of Townhall.com. And Richard Fowler, senior fellow at the New Leaders Council and a nationally syndicated radio show host, as well. Both are Fox News contributors.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here tonight. You know it strikes me --

(CROSSTALK)

GUY BENSON, CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Hi there. So, Richard let me -- let me start with you.

RICHARD FOWLER, CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, when you look at, you know, treason, bribery, or high crimes, right? So, now you've got a hundred House Democrats who believe that they can -- they can meet the test for that. Do you agree with them?

FOWLER: Listen, I don't think this is a question about. This is not a political question, this is a question of mathematics. As whether or not you have the entire Democratic caucus in the House that say they want to impeach the president.

The problem that you have here is this. In the United States Senate, where an impeachment inquiry would actually taking place or where the trial would take place, you need 67 senators to vote to impeach.

And right now, I don't think we're anywhere near 67. I think we're probably somewhere in the low -- high 30s or low 40s.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, but Richard, let me jump in for one second because that's -- what Jerry Nadler and those 100 people are saying, and some of them said it this specifically, I don't -- they don't care. They're saying, we believe.

(CROSSTALK)

FOWLER: And that's what's problematic.

MACCALLUM: And honestly, I think this is -- no, but that's actually the cleanest line of thinking in terms of, you know, of being truthful, right?

If you're saying I think that all of these horrible things happened and the Mueller reports somehow just couldn't find them, then isn't it incumbent upon you if you really believe that, and we hear that every day from so many of -- so many Democrats, then isn't it incumbent upon them to keep going?

FOWLER: Well, listen, here's the thing. I think the House of Representatives have the goal of oversight, they have the goal to ensure that the administration does it -- doesn't it needs to do. And so, they -- yes, if they want to investigate this president, if they want to have hearings about wrongdoing, they should.

If they want to look into whether or not this president obstructed justice, which is the volume two of the Mueller report points to that, then they can do that. But the mathematics doesn't seem to be on their side, and I think that's where the Speaker is.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FOWLER: I think, Speaker Pelosi is in very clear that let's get the evidence out here, let's look, but at the end of the day, we don't have the numbers to push an impeachment motion forward.

MACCALLUM: Right. Well, I mean, that's a very political -- you know, it's purely political way of looking at what of many of these people claim is something so much deeper. That it's about patriotism. That it's about wrongdoing. Which is, you know, and here's Donny Deutsch this morning, saying that Democrats are now at war. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONNY DEUTSCH, CONTRIBUTOR, MSNBC: We are at war. It is time for the Democrats to wake up. We are playing against cheaters and liars or stealers. We may not have won the battle of impeachment, but we're going to win the war of putting him in jail, whatever we have to do. And we're not going to necessary play fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Guy, what do you think?

BENSON: Put him in jail. Wow, OK, that's a lot.

MACCALLUM: That's what he said.

BENSON: We just had a two-year investigation that was as thorough as it can possibly be and it did not produce proof of an -- any proof of an underlying crime of collusion. And we saw the evidence back and forth one way or the other on obstruction of justice. There are people of good faith who disagree on that question. The person who matters is the attorney general, who said it's not chargeable, I happen to agree as well.

But Martha, the whole notion here, the Democrats maintaining this very strange obsession, it's like they can't give this up, they can't give up the ghost, they can't let it go, they're so invested in this that they're going to keep digging, and digging, and digging into something that in the minds of most Americans has been resolved.

And if they truly believe as Nadler has said and many of these Democrats have said over and over again that the president committed crimes, they said they already have that evidence, they say it's right in front of us in plain sight.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BENSON: Then, have the courage of your convictions and go impeach the guy. Do your job as you see it and impeach the president.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I think that's a very --

BENSON: And if you're not going to do that, then, just try to beat him in 2020. This thing about --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I think that's -- that is the point. You know, that that's the salient point here, Richard. The things that they have accused the president of are so big, and so deep, right? So, at this point, you either have to say, you know what? OK, we fought to have this investigation, we fought to have Robert Mueller run this investigation. We let him hire whoever he wanted to hire, right?

If anybody was going to find him guilty of things, given the resumes of these people, they would have found it. So, what -- Is there -- have we lost the ability in the United States of America for someone to come forward and say, "OK, you know what, it's done. We looked into it, and we're -- and we're going to move on."

FOWLER: Here's the truth. This is really a question. It's not a matter of -- a matter or not if the president committed a crime in a court of law, this is really a question if the president committed a crime, it was it so egregious in the court of public opinion. And I think, that is the battle for Democrats, and that's the battle for my party. Can't -- this is why they're continuing to --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What was the crime? What was the crime that you're talking about?

FOWLER: Well, listen, I mean, I think you -- some would argue that in volume two of the Mueller report, there's seven instances where they feel as though -- the Dems -- some Democrats feel as though, he obstructed justice.

But, once again, their job is to convince the -- they have to convince --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, it doesn't bother them that the attorney general of the United States and even the investigation itself couldn't decide that. They're going to decide that.

FOWLER: Well, Robert Mueller in his --

(CROSSTALK)

BENSON: Do they call it the cover-up, Martha, that's the thing.

FOWLER: Well, Robert Mueller in his testimony was very clear that he thinks the president -- in the conversation way in his questioning with Ted Lieu, yes, he walked that back. But when he walked through the steps of obstruction of justice, he said, "Yes, I would try this person for obstruction of justice.

MACCALLUM: Yes, we got to leave -- we got to leave it there.

FOWLER: Once again, this is about the court of public opinion.

MACCALLUM: Well, apparently.

(CROSSTALK)

BENSON: Jerry Nadler need to take the (INAUDIBLE).

MACCALLUM: OK, and it is not a small addendum there that he walked it back because that -- that's a big -- that's a big deal. And you'd walk back. So, we got to leave it there guys and I will see you soon. Thank you very much. Good to see you both tonight.

FOWLER: Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: So, the Supreme Court has just delivered a huge win to President Trump on the border wall. The details coming up. He's going to be a happy man tonight.

Plus, Democrats adopt a new talking point after their Mueller disappointment. They questioned the patriotism of President Trump and his allies. They say they are the ones who are on the side of patriotism.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, joins me exclusively next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: The facts and the law. That's what matters. Not politics, not partisanship, just patriotism.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So President Trump tonight has scored a major legal win on his border wall. The Supreme Court just moments ago in a 5-4 division said that the administration can tap into Pentagon funds in order to build sections of a wall along the southern border. $2.5 billion that was frozen is now accessible after two groups led by the ACLU sued the Trump administration when he declared an emergency along the border.

The President responded moments ago. "Wow! Big victory on the wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allowing southern border wall to proceed. Big win for border security and rule of law."

Also, this evening, since the Mueller hearing ended with a thud, the talk has turned from crime to the question of patriotism. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANDRE CARSON, D-IND.: I think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Part of what I found so powerful about his testimony today was not just when he was asked about the law but when he was asked about the ethics, the morality, the lack of patriotism of this conduct.

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: A president who engages in crimes, repeated crimes to cover up these unpatriotic and dictatorial actions, and this cannot go on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So on the other side of the aisle, the President and his supporters have said that the lack of patriotism is not on their side, it is with those who sought "insurance policy against him just in case he won the election."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: This was a fake witch-hunt and it should never be allowed to happen to another president again. This was treason, this was high crimes, this was everything as bad a definition as you want to come up with. This should never be allowed to happen to our country again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So now given the new argument that's being made, the question becomes who gets to claim the mantle of patriotism in America in this battle. Here now exclusively tonight Rudy Giuliani. Mayor, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: How are you, Martha?

MACCALLUM: I'm doing well. Thank you so much for coming in. You know, it's interesting when you look at the argument -- because the word patriotism was used over and over and over again ever since Mueller finished talking.

GIULIANI: Yes.

MACCALLUM: It's become a major theme in the Democrats language.

GIULIANI: Yes, it's not going to -- it's not going to work any better than Mueller work for them. Everyone knows what happened to them the other day. Mueller got knocked out marginally because there's no case.

I mean, there's a lot of attacks on Bob and he wasn't smart and he didn't pay attention, maybe -- it may be true. But there's a real problem. You can only go so far in creating a phony case and Bob ultimately does have integrity.

He was asleep at the switch, the inmates took over the asylum like Weissmann and did all kinds of horrible things trampling on people's rights which is the uncharacteristic of Bob Mueller, by the way, which always made me wonder is he in charge of this thing.

And the reality is that the Democrats are now making total clowns out of themselves. It's not about patriotism, it's about do you have any sense of decency. I mean, this is over. They couldn't -- they couldn't find collusion. They couldn't find obstruction in any sensible way.

I mean, he didn't obstruct anything. There was no underlying crime. There isn't a seasoned prosecutor in the country that would bring a case like that except laugh at it. So now they're trying to do -- we must have done something wrong or it wasn't presented correctly or if Andrew Weissmann couldn't get three people to lie about Donald Trump, one of them that he put in solitary confinement and I would say came pretty close to torturing, Manafort, put the guy in solitary confinement bring him back nine times, tell him what to say, if he says it he gets out of solitary confinement. That's what we call suborning perjury.

If he couldn't do it, believe me, these two guys who are trying -- Nadler and Schiff who were not operating really with the same mental power as Weissmann. Weissmann is much brighter than they are and much more than malicious in some ways. If he couldn't do it, they're not going to do it.

MACCALLUM: So one of the interesting things that happened in the hearing in the questioning side was that I think a lot of America started to hear things that they had never heard before. We've covered both sides of this story throughout the case of the entire thing that you know, the president's side feels that there was some kind of potentially a setup, Papadopoulos, we've had him on this show. He's talked about what he believes happened to him.

But listen to Devin Nunez as he went through this line of questioning that you know, I watched some of the other channels coverage and it was like they've never heard of any of these people. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: Can you repeat the question?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, D-CALIF.: Whether or not you interviewed Stephen (INAUDIBLE) who organized the Cambridge --

MUELLER: In those areas, I am going to stay away from.

NUNES: So Downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud. James Comey has publicly called Mifsud a Russian agent yet your report does not refer to Mifsud as a Russian agent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I mean, literally I heard people saying what? Who was he talking about? What is he talking about? So my question for you is as the president's attorney, what is the next step in terms of shedding more light on what you believe is the other side of “The Story” that that should be pursued here?

GIULIANI: Well, first of all, we're going to find out that Mifsud was operating for a so-called friendly intelligence service, not Russia, that he was given --

MACCALLUM: A Western-European British Intelligence.

GIULIANI: Yes, yes. And that he was given the information to feed to Papadopoulos which if you had any common sense or a sense of honesty, you figured out -- I mean, I knew that immediately. I've done a lot of counterintelligence investigation so is Mueller. It has all --

MACCALLUM: But George Papadopoulos said he thought it was --

GIULIANI: The whole scheme with Papadopoulos has all the earmarks of foreign counterintelligence, dirty trick.

MACCALLUM: You've got a young guy who just joins the team --

GIULIANI: Not a genius to figure out.

MACCALLUM: And suddenly people are calling him, reaching out to him and saying you know, we'd like to meet with you in London. We'd like to meet you.

GIULIANI: The guy go down on the campaign and then they bring a beautiful woman in to try to seduce --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GIULIANI: I mean, this is out of a cheap novel. And I can -- I can speculate but can't tell you who I think is doing it but it got to be somebody who's got a real big intelligence background, and somebody who willing to carry on --

MACCALLUM: Like -- any names come to mind?

GIULIANI: Well, a couple come to mind but I don't want to accuse anybody without having the facts. Let's see -- let's see what happens. Comey is right in the middle of it. I mean, Comey is got to be the center of this investigation. He's probably not where it stops, it probably goes higher, but Comey signed an affidavit that is patently false about Steele.

He said on the top of the affidavit verified. Four months later he told the president was unverified. He can't -- it can't be unverified four months later if it's verified four months earlier. So this guy is headed for big trouble. Let's see if he talks and let's see if McCabe talks.

And I don't know, Peter Strzok, you think maybe he's a candidate for giving state's evidence? He doesn't look like the strongest character to me.

MACCALLUM: We will be watching. Mayor Giuliani, always good to see you. Thank you so much for coming in tonight, sir. We'll see you soon. When we come back, breaking news on Nicholas Sandmann's defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post and this is big, folks. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking news tonight on the $250 million defamation lawsuit that was filed by Covington Catholic Student Nicholas Sandmann against the Washington Post to federal judges has just issued a ruling. Chief Breaking News Correspondent Trace Gallagher got THE STORY for us tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And Martha, the breaking news is that lawsuit has been dismissed. In the lawsuit and in court, attorneys for Nick Sandmann argued that The Washington Post ignore journalistic standards and bullied the teen by "publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to smear a young boy who was in its view and acceptable casualty in their war against the President."

But federal judge William Bertelsman appointed by Jimmy Carter dismissed the case saying the accusations were not supported by the plain language of The Washington Post article. The judge went on to say, when it comes to modern libel laws, there are many defenses, even in the case of defamatory statements.

Remember, Nick Sandmann was widely vilified after cell phone video clip showed him staring down Native American Nathan Phillips. But the full video clearly shows that Sandmann and his Covington High School classmates were not the instigators.

But Judge Bertelsman says, it appears Nathan Phillips felt he was being blocked by the students and his opinion, the judge rolled, "he -- meaning Mr. Phillips, pass those conclusions onto the Post. They have been erroneous, but as discussed above, they are an option protected by the First Amendment and the post is not liable for publishing those opinions."

Nick Sandmann's father release this statement about the dismissal. Quoting, "If what was done to Nicholas is not legally actionable, then no one is safe."

Sandmann's lawyers also wrote, quote, "The law must protect innocent minors targeted by journalists publishing click-bait sensationalized news." The attorneys are also planning to appeal the decision, lawsuits against CNN and NBC are still pending, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that one was far from over, I think. Trace, thank you very much.

So, one week after the House passed a bill to mandate $15 per hour minimum wage some members of the squad as they call themselves want to take it a step further.

Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib saying that she is calling for nearly 940 0 percent increase in the federal minimum wage for tipped workers from to $13 an hour to $20, she says, they should get per hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: We can't allow people to be living off tips, you know, relying on tips for wages. It's just not or (Inaudible) they're calling, it's incompetent. It's just not enough to support our families. (Inaudible) $20 an hour.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Charlie Kirk, founder and president of Turning Point USA and a bestselling author, and Rochelle Ritchie, Democratic strategist and former press secretary for the House Democrats. Great to have both of you with us this evening.

ROCHELLE RITCHIE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Let me start with you, Charlie. What's your response to Rashida Tlaib and her squad cohorts?

CHARLIE KIRK, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, TURNING POINT USA: Sure. Well, the numbers when you actually look at raising the minimum wage it might feel good and sound good but really, we've seen what happened in New York City, 75 percent of restaurants have had to cut hours and cut back staff because of a raise in the minimum wage.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 3.7 million jobs would be lost if the federal minimum wage went up $15, let alone $20 an hour. Not to mention prices go up.

It's the consumer that ends up having to pay more and then it's the middle class and lower-class workers, entry-level positions that get cut when you raise the minimum wage and it's a burden on the middle class and the middle -- lower middle-class workers.

MACCALLUM: So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez watch a segment about this on Fox & Friends the other day and then she tweeted this. "I've waited tables and I've interviewed on live TV. Going on TV can be stressful, but restaurant chefs are much, much harder. Most of these Fox News correspondence couldn't last one day in these hard-working jobs they love to mock on television."

First of all, I doubt that she was -- that they were mocking the jobs on television and I should point out that this Fox News correspondents spent eight years waiting tables and it is very, very hard work.

RITCHIE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I think it's harder than being in Congress, perhaps.

RITCHIE: Well, you know, what it's funny that she said that because I actually when I graduated from college, I was a waitress and then I was a reporter for 12 years. So, I know exactly how it feels. And being a reporter, I will tell you is much harder than being a waitress, not to say that it's not a hard job.

But you know, Charlie is absolutely right. You have to look at the numbers. And I feel, you know the saying when they say give a person an edge and then are going to a mile?

I see that that's kind what's happening now that we have this House bill passing for $15. And yes, there is an argument there that making to $13 an hour for some waitresses or servers actually does put them their poverty rate at 19 percent compared to those who have a standard minimum wage. Where it's 11 percent --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, but I thought the rule is if you don't get up to minimum wage with your tips, then they have to get you to minimum wage. That's the way it was when I was a waitress.

RITCHIE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Yes. They're not getting to $13 an hour. They're getting --

(CROSSTALK)

RITCHIE: They're getting more.

MACCALLUM: -- minimum wage an hour. Yes.

RITCHIE: And then also the thing about this.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Not the very least.

RITCHIE: The IRS actually says that 40 percent of tips go unreported, so we really don't know what the numbers are. I think we have to slow down and see how does -- how if $15 actually gets through the Senate or whatever. If the $15 does, how does that impact us and do we have room to do more?

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, I wonder how hard -- you know, I mean, some members of Congress work very hard and like any job in America, you know, but they get an enormous amount of time off, they make $174,000 a year and they work in Washington, 200 days a year. So, she, yes, is definitely in better shape than she was bar tendering --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRK: Not to mention the health benefits.

MACCALLUM: Gets about 26,000.

KIRK: They are having a very nice vacation right now. They say they are visiting constituents but it seems as if they always end up in Aspen, Colorado and other nice parts of the country.

The final thing, those wages are actually finally going up in this country for the first time in 12 years, thanks to the booming economy that President Trump has been able to oversee with tax cuts and regulation cuts. The very same things that they are advocating for with these wage hikes, we're actually seeing in the real economic data.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, that's the question that is raise by this. Do you eliminate jobs, Rochelle, when you force companies to raise the minimum wage, and it seems like the numbers back that up?

And really, the whole idea with minimum wage is that it's just -- it's for a short time. Right?

RITCHIE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I mean, you want to -- that's your first job. And then you want to make more money actually.

RITCHIE: Yes. I mean, you go from making 20, then you want to make 30 then you want to make 40. I mean, it just continuously grows.

But I read an interesting article by a gentleman name Frank Helany (Ph). He talked about how when he went to a Seattle restaurant where they actually have this $15 for every employee that on his bill, it was a 20 percent service charge because the restaurant does not make enough money to pay that much per hour.

So, what's going to end up happening the business, the restaurant is going to go out of business. And I live here in New York City, I'm already paying $15 for a glass of wine when I can go get a botte for --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I hear you. And I don't like the mandatory tip. I think it should be like good service.

RITCHIE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You should get a bigger tip.

KIRK: You should earn it.

MACCALLUM: That's what always motivated me.

RITCHIE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, guys.

RITCHIE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: We got to go. Actress Alyssa Milano attacks Dana Loesch saying that she can't support the death penalty and be pro-life. Dana responds when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, an update to a story that we brought last night about the federal government now reinstating the death penalty for the first time in nearly two decades. The decision has gotten a lot of attention of course from everyone from politicians and activists, even actresses like anti- Kavanagh crusader Alyssa Milano who tweeted this.

"Your administration just reinstated the death penalty and scheduled five executions of actual people. You've lost the right to pull your pro-life -- you can see what's under there -- with me." She says.

That getting the attention of Dana Loesch who responded with this. "One of these actual people, she responded, sexually molested and tortured his 2- year-old daughter to death. Another slit a 9-year-old throat after killing her grandma. Another raped and dismembered a 16-year-old before beating an elderly woman with polio to death. These criminals, she writes, are actual animals."

Dana Loesch joins me now. She's nationally syndicated talk show host. of course, Dana, good to see you tonight. Thanks for coming back. You know, this definitely ignites --

(CROSSTALK)

DANA LOESCH, SYNDICATED TALK SHOW HOST: Good to see you, Martha. Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: -- controversy because a lot of people who are pro-life are against the death penalty. You know, so she brings up what she sees as a discrepancy here in the argument. What do you say?

LOESCH: I would never compare an innocent baby to that of an adult criminal who decides that they are going to, of their own volition, commit something so atrocious that there's no going back from that.

You know, I understand the concerns that people have about the death penalty. But at the same time, people need to realize that there is a reason why this punishment, this penalty, was created. It's not done so out of vengeance. It's actually done so to honor the dignity of life that was lost.

And I just, I can't compare innocent children to adults who willfully commit such heinous criminal actions and I think that's the big -- that's the big difference for me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, obviously everybody has their own feelings about this. This is a very sensitive issue, but clearly, you know, the actions of these five people are the most heinous, horrific crimes that you can imagine.

And if anybody deserves the death penalty, it seems that obviously there is very good reason that they are on the list.

I want to put up on the screen some other people who are on death row. Some of these names I think people will recognize. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for his role in the 2015 Boston marathon bombing, white supremacist Dylann Roof, 2017 in the Charleston Church shooting he killed nine people, and Gary Lee Samson who was sentenced to death the second time in 2017 for carjacking murderers.

But you know, there is an issue that, you know, for some time, Dana, this was not on the table, we weren't doing federal executions in this country. A lot of Americans are against it. Pope Francis has said that he'd like to see, you know, a global end to the death penalty, that he thinks that it's an inhumane.

And it goes back to the question of whether or not is it -- you know, do people human beings have the right to take life, whether it's before birth or at any point during life or is that decision just left up to God?

LOESCH: Well, I actually think God has spoken about it. I mean, I don't want to bible up with all due respect to the pope, and Romans 13 discusses it. It's also discussed it Genesis, as well. And we could stay on that for a bit.

But, biblically, it's been supported. I mean, I looked back at the Eid that that was given to Noah. But in terms of the inhumanity or the lack of humanity for the death penalty, I think it's inhumane what these murderers do to innocent victims.

MACCALLUM: No argument there.

LOESCH: And I think that people tend to forget that sometimes in this whole discussion. A dignity -- dignity of life has been lost in these horrific murders.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

LOESCH: And you know, those examples that you gave, Martha, from the tweet that I had, that wasn't even the full body count. Those were horrifically, those were just some of the victims that these men had -- the lives that these men had taken.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you before I let you go. You know, there is something incongruous about being against -- being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, though. What about that argument?

LOESCH: Yes. In favor of abortion and against the death penalty is odd to be because you're condemning one life to death for doing nothing but simply existing, and yet, you are wanting to exonerate another life. That doesn't -- that to me is not close and pathetic. That doesn't make any sense to me.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

LOESCH: But I hope that people, and one quick note, Martha, I understand that there is corruption in the system. We need to remove the corruption not the justice, and I think we should support checks and balances like the innocence project.

MACCALLUM: Dana Loesch, always good to see you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

LOESCH: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Coming up next, so does Tom Brady deserve to be dad shamed after this. Ladies' night coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So earlier this week, we told you about the New Yorker's Jane Mayer who wrote a hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh last year during the whole Kavanaugh confirmation process.

She really in that piece used hearsay, something somebody remembered someone telling them as evidence in the Judge Kavanaugh piece, but now she wrote a lengthy piece in the New Yorker about Al Franken, saying that he had railroaded in the main woman accusing him was not credible.

Now the ladies at The View were talking about this collision course between people's politics and Me Too.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGHAN MCCAIN, CO-HOST, ABC: It's very tricky. And I want you to go back in time and remember, it would be very uncomfortable for Democrats if Al Franken was sitting there questioning Brett Kavanaugh at the same time. I don't think that Me Too and sexual assault should be about which party are you voting in the general election.

JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, ABC: Well, according to him, those allegations were part of his personality, the way Biden has been able to get out of those accusations in a similar way.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: But I wouldn't compare his allegations to Biden.

BEHAR: Well, they disappeared the minute he resigned.

MCCAIN: Because I also know pictures of Joe Biden putting his hands on a woman's breast that I'm aware of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now for our own ladies' night, Lisa Boothe, Carley Shimkus, and Jessica Tarlov. Ladies, welcome. Good to have you here.

So, you know, that becomes the issue when suddenly Jane Mayer is defending Al Franken after she thrashed Brett Kavanaugh on the thinnest thread of someone telling her something that they remembered happening in the dorm although they weren't there, it just raises the question of whether or not, you know, sort of cheering for one team and not another and not applying the same standard across the board.

JESSICA TARLOV, CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's really complicated. As far as the main accuser against Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, I happen to believe her. I think that she is telling the truth about what happened. I think there are a lot of people who do believe her and might have either decided he should still be confirmed saying it happened when you're 15 years old. It doesn't matter anymore. Or we are past the statute of limitations.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. But just to remind everybody --

TARLOV: Yes.

MACCALLUM: The Jane Mayer piece wasn't even talking about Christine Blasey Ford.

TARLOV: No. I know. That's why I wanted to draw the distinction.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It is about him not like -- because exposing himself and pushing himself --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: Right. When he was psychology --

MACCALLUM: -- in front of --

TARLOV: I just wanted to draw the distinction that that is -- that is the Brett Kavanaugh accuser that I believe in this. And I think Jane Mayer did get herself into a tricky situation.

Kirsten Gillibrand actually came to work where I work at Bustle and spoke to us this week the day THE STORY came out and she defended her decision to push for Al Franken to resign. Where she said, you can talk about Leeann Tweeden (Ph) and I think that's a bit of a tenuous story.

But she said there were seven or eight, I think it was other women who would also say that Al Franken had made them uncomfortable or touch them inappropriately. And you have to take the entire body of work there. So, you can't be partisan and you do have to take the totality of the story.

MACCALLUM: Yes. But, you know, politically Kirsten Gillibrand if she starts backing down on anything Me Too related --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: Of course, yes.

MACCALLUM: -- she's going to be in a very tough spot.

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don't think either of the three accusers of Brett Kavanaugh are credible for my opinion, considering the fact they have zero corroborating evidence and even the witnesses that Christine Ford named said that contradicted what she said.

CARLEY SHIMKUS, REPORTER: Well, yes.

BOOTHE: And even one said that she had felt forced by Christine Ford and her friends to change her story.

But regarding Jane Mayer, she had tweeted out and saying that almost nothing his main accuser, talking about Al Franken, said checks out. Well, guess what. Neither did her story about Deborah Ramirez, the New York Times who said that they try to pursue the story, interviewed several dozen people and couldn't find anyone to establish this event had happened.

That's basically the same story for all three women. NNC has sat on information that would have been beneficial to Brett Kavanaugh and said sat on it until after he was confirmed.

So, if anything, if you look at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, it was an orchestrated smear by the media and that's exactly what the New Yorker piece was for Brett Kavanaugh. It was a smear, and the article about Al Franken is a defense of him.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOOTHE: And so, it's a case study of media bias.

MACCALLUM: I mean, we're talking about people's lives, you've got to be careful and you have to make sure that you have your evidence as down cold as you possibly play, Carley.

SHIMKUS: Yes. And the Franken situation is an example of the frenzy that took place in the immediate aftermath of the Me Too movement where due process completely went out the window. And Democrats put pressure on Franken to resign not because of their moral compass but because it worked for them politically.

They came out as a party that says we are going to believe all the women and they couldn't say that with Franken still in office. So, I know that a lot of people have issues with this Mayer piece, but I'm glad that I know that Democrats now feel bad about what they did to Franken because he didn't have a chance to defend himself.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

TARLOV: It was his choice. We need to remember that. He could have gone before and after --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, he said he regrets it. I mean, I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: After three dozen Democrats came and put pressure on him.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SHIMKUS: It would have been his choice --

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: Mayer had told L Magazine later that it was important to establish in a pattern of behavior. So, if you want to look at the motivating factor behind the Brett Kavanaugh piece, that was it. Not because Deborah Ramirez's story was credible, because clearly, it was not. Even Deborah Ramirez said that she was drunk and she didn't remember most parts of the - -

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: There's a lot that goes on. I know it (Inaudible) her part but a lot goes on and happened when people are intoxicated.

BOOTHE: There's nothing credible to her story.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But you know what, I think that were people who got swept up in the early stages of Me Too who probably did not deserve to be there. Is that a statement that you would agree with?

SHIMKUS: Yes, I would absolutely agree with that.

MACCALLUM: That there are some people who got to that point.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And their careers are ruined, and you know, now I think due process is getting a lot more attention. I hope that's the way defendant -- because every case, no matter what it is, if you rob someone's house, or if you're in a -- everybody deserves due process in America no matter what the charges are. Even Tom Brady deserves it. So, let's give it to him.

SHIMKUS: That's right.

MACCALLUM: Here he is on vacation. I think in Costa Rica with his family. And just watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BRADY, FOOTBALL PLAYER: One, two, three, go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: My gosh. I mean, I watch that three times on my phone when it first came out and every time my heart just kind of stops.

BOOTHE: See you can --

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: Yes, I know.

BOOTHE: You can tell that I'm not a mom yet because I look at that, I'm like, that looks like fun what was there.

MACCALLUM: It's very fun. And you know, I mean, I'm a big Tom Brady fan so I'm thinking there's way he's letting go of Vivian's hand. There's just no way. She's going to be safely carried into that water.

SHIMKUS: Yes. By the way that's quarterback in history.

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: Think all the people -- but all the people that have been shaving him surely there's been a point in time if you a parent that you've been negligent to some degree.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOOTHE: Or something has happened under your watch that potentially put your child in harm, so I just don't -- I find social media so aggravating - -

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOOTHE: -- when people go on and sort of shamed the way that someone's parents.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

BOOTHE: You didn't get that -- it's like dog shaming.

MACCALLUM: My gosh. Everybody is the perfect, right?

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: Yes. Everyone else. All these keyboard warriors who were like treating Tom Brady like he doesn't have great judgment.

BOOTHE: Exactly.

SHIMKUS: Meanwhile, like you said, he's doing fine in the decision-making department.

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: Well, also --

SHIMKUS: And she was OK he wouldn't have posted it on social media if she got hurt.

TARLOV: No, obviously not.

MACCALLUM: That's true.

SHIMKUS: Everything is fine.

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: People do that. I'm sure he didn't find like the only little waterfall --

MACCALLUM: No, no, no.

TARLOV: -- where he certainly got to throw his child off of.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

TARLOV: I don't even have Instagram but I have gone on it just to kind of fun girl over the Brady-Bundchen life, and they do --

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: You got to get you some Instagram.

TARLOV: I don't want. It's scary.

MACCALLUM: All right. We got to leave it there. All right. Thanks, ladies. More with “The Story” after this. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: That is “The Story” of Friday, July 26, 2019. But as always, “The Story” goes on. We'll see you back here on Monday night at 7. Have a great weekend, everybody.

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.