This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Thank you, Bret. Busy day, here we go at a little bit more of folks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'm having a good day too. It was called no collusion, no obstruction. It never was, by the way, and it never will be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And with that, the criminal part of this two-year saga over and done. The president tweeted today as a report came out and his campaign said now, the tables have turned.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is "The Story" tonight. The Trump team ready to go after the roots of this investigation which they believe are rotten. And Democrats tempted by the door cracked open by Mueller and (INAUDIBLE) to prove their case in impeachment proceedings.

No, we haven't been there since 1998 when family rooms were flooded with images of Monica Lewinsky and the President of the United States was deposed on national television. Producing endless fodder for late-night T.V., political pundits, and water coolers across the country.

But the Clinton impeachment saga left a top political legacy as Republicans got burned at the ballot box losing seats in the midterm. So, here we are. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the committee that holds the power to impeach said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.The responsibility now close to Congress to hold the president accountable for his actions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: There we go. 2020 hopefuls jumping on the bandwagon to some extent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: But I don't think we should take impeachment off the table. In the conduct during the campaign, the transition, and even as president with the Russians does not meet the standard of conduct we want from a president of the United States. I would not take it off the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: But Nancy Pelosi and other Trump critics have remained cautious about the I-word.

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER (RET.), FORMER UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Even the process of impeachment would cause even more divisiveness and polarization in this country.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

CLAPPER: And the only way to resolve this probably is at the polling place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: In moments, Democrat Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney on what direction his party will take. Plus, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz on the reason that he says the Mueller team "aggressively wrote this report".

We're going to talk about that. But first, chief national correspondent Ed Henry, on why some are calling the Mueller report a roadmap for impeachment. Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Martha. What a day. New this hour, just spoke to a senior campaign adviser to President Trump and said, if you follow logic of his critics, they used a phony dossier paid for by the Democrats to get the FBI investigating and then use the special counsel probe to try and craft an obstruction of justice case all because the president was mad and lashing out at what he believed to be an unfair investigation.

That is why the president and his aides tonight now want to focus on investigating the investigators. While Democrats are shifting a bit from collusion to obstruction. Trying to use this 400 plus page report to open a range of new investigations. Key part of that centers around May 2017 after the president fired James Comey from the FBI, and Comey at leaked memos to help spark the naming of Robert Mueller special counsel.

The president exploded in an Oval Office meeting as then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions briefed him. The report declares, "The president slumped back in his chair and said, 'Oh my God. This is terrible this is the end of my presidency. I'm f'. Sessions recall that the president said to him, 'you were supposed to protect me,' or words to that effect."

Now, of course, this leaves out the context that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder referred to himself as the president's wingman. And President Trump was not necessarily saying he was guilty, instead, he was venting at the crippling effect. The president saying, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency."

Now, despite Democrats repeatedly hinting Donald Trump Jr. was going to be indicted over that June 2016 Trumped Tower meeting. Bottom line from Mueller report, it was not criminal. But the report adds a lot of embarrassing details, but the president rejecting advice from aid Hope Hicks, to admit the president son was told the Russians were bringing damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

The president suggesting they lie and put out a public statement that it was about Russian adoption. Part of volume two of the report that's far more damaging in the president than volume one. 10 instances where the president acted in a way that, at least, raised questions about obstruction, allegations the president urge the White House Council Don McGahn to fire Mueller, he, of course, refused.

Later, the president tried to tamper with McGahn's testimony according to the report. Though even Mueller knows the president did not take any action to fire him. Barr, today the attorney general suggested the president was just blowing off steam, though Schiff and other Democrats are not giving in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: These efforts similar to the social media campaign were designed to help one party, Donald Trump, and hurt another, Hillary Clinton.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Now, the Mueller report also notes that in his written responses to questions the president stated on more than 30 occasions. He does not recall or remember various bits of information. But remember, the president never invoked the executive privilege and his legal team never requested any redactions for the Mueller report that sounds more like cooperation.

In fact, when you look through this entire report as you and I have been going through today, Martha. There's a lot of bad details for the president. So, they weren't redacting, they weren't obstructing that, they certainly were not invoking executive privilege which they could have done.

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. Ed Henry. So, here now, Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Sir, good to have you here tonight. Thank you for being here.

Well, what's the -- what's the Democrats next move? We talked about -- you know, some members of your party that have suggested that this is a roadmap here if you choose to take it for impeachment.

REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, D-N.Y.: You know, I guess I would just examine the premise of the what we're doing here tonight. I mean, our next move, I'll tell you what. First, I want to read the report, I want to think about it carefully.

None of us says that even seen the fully unredacted report. I sit on the House Intelligence Committee, we also need to see all the classified parts of this report. And then, we should form an opinion about it.

I think this much is clear, the Russians attacked our country. We should care about that. The fact is, is that the president's conduct may not have been criminal, and I'll accept that finding. But I don't think it has been -- I don't think it's been correct. I don't think it's been good.

And I think the fact that an improper and unethical unpatriotic conduct is being treated as some sort of indication is an indication of just how far our politics have sunk. What I want us to understand is what's right and what's wrong. And there's a lot of wrong conduct in this report. It stinks to high heaven what the campaign did, what the president did, the way they attempted to get information, were willing to get information. The way they sought to obstruct the investigation even if in non-criminal ways, none of that is what I want from the president of the United States. It's not what my kids should see in the actions of their -- of their leader.

And I think that all of us should just get clear on what's right and what's wrong. And on, there's a lot to be very concerned about here even if it doesn't rise to the level of being criminal, even if it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

The president has been absolutely appalling in his conduct and that we should expect better.

MACCALLUM: All right. Understood. But I asked you now, what happens now. And I know, you say, you want to read the whole report. It sounds like you've read a lot of it based on everything that you just said. So, what is your -- you know, you all are saying you want Robert Mueller to testify in front of -- in front of the Congress. What would you want to ask him based on what you know so far? Why do you want Robert Mueller there if you do? And what would you want to know?

MALONEY: Here's what I want to do. I want to do constitutional responsible fair oversight. I want the public to know as much as possible. Of course, Bob Mueller should testify. Of course, we should have the full report out in the public domain where people can debate it and form their own opinions.

I don't want to see investigations just for the sake of investigation. And ultimately, it's pretty clear, we're going to have an election in a year and a half, and we're going to decide the course our country should pursue.

I represent a district that voted for President Trump, I respect the people, they wanted to give him a chance. I respect the fact that a lot of people think some of his policies are good. I may disagree with that, but that's a fair disagreement. But we should all agree that there is no doubt anymore.

The Russians attacked our country in a sweeping an unprecedented way. We have not adequately responded to that. We should not excuse conduct that's wrong, lying, covering up, getting in the way of investigations when the public has a right to know.

So our next move it seems to me is to do good oversight to ask fair questions to let the public know the truth and then to let the people decide whether this is the kind of conduct we should get in our president, or whether we can expect more.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And, well --

MALONEY: And, by the way --

MACCALLUM: Go ahead.

MALONEY: We need to stand up to dictators like Vladimir Putin that attacked the United States of America. And I, I think we can expect that the president of the United States should be strong about that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, I think some would argue that he has been. And you know, when you -- it's very interesting to go through all the obvious outreach that was there from different entities in Russia. You know, sort of testing the soft spots, trying to figure out if they could make headway with some of these individuals who are involved in the campaign.

But in every turn as you go through it, it was rebuffed, you know. There's this whole -- I think about Carter Page who just -- you know, whose name became a household word during the course of this whole thing. And so, when I went through it this morning, I was curious to see what they actually found on Carter Page.

Just as one example, and I'm -- and I'm granted, you know, there's a lot here. But this is just one example, right? So, it says, on page 95 in volume one. "The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."

That -- that's a pretty big headline. It's a simple sentence, but it's a pretty big headline given all of the discussion. Then, you go on and there's this back-and-forth. Page was asking if President Trump should go speak at a graduation in Russia, and he also wanted to take a trip to be part of this event in Russia. And he keeps approaching the campaign and Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager responds the same day. Saying, "If you want to do this it would be outside of your role with DJT for president campaign. I am certain Mr. Trump will not be able to attend."

You know, and it's just an example of a very sort of clear-cut moment in all of this that just got so blown out of proportion over the course of two years. What do you -- what do you think about that?

MALONEY: Right. Let's -- I think, we should try to remain focused on what actually matters, and it sure as heck isn't Carter Page.

MACCALLUM: Right.

MALONEY: What matters is that the Russians attacked the United States of America. Just hold that thought for a second that what matters is that the president of the United States directed the White House Counsel to remove the special counsel. And he only didn't get away with it because Don McGahn, said no.

What matters is that he told the national security aide K.T. McFarland, to cook up some story about what happened with ambassador Kislyak, and she said no.

In other words, what is clear from the report is that the president seemed to engage every way he could to obstruct it and will stop by his own aides.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Right. Well, I understand that. But you know, the other finding is that --

MALONEY: Those are -- excuse me -- excuse me. Those are -- excuse me. In the -- excuse me, in that -- in that --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: There's -- no. Excuse me. I have been -- I have let you explain yourself with for -- very -- in great detail. So, I just want to say one thing.

MALONEY: Right.

MACCALLUM: And then, I will let you go on.

(CROSSTALK)

MALONEY: And the point is -- and the point -- excuse me, the point is that --

MACCALLUM: I will let you go on, sir. No, excuse me. I have something to say.

MALONEY: Carter Page is way down to lose on what matters.

MACCALLUM: You are very rude. You're very rude, sir. That was rude.

I was just trying to interject for a moment and I, I don't want to into interrupt, but I wanted to say one thing about the underlying crime here when there's not an underlying crime with regard to collusion. There is -- it's difficult to say that someone is obstructing something.

So, you just laid out your thinking on why you think the president was being obstructive, but if there's no underlying crime, that is one of the reasons that Robert Mueller was unable to make a finding there.

I'm sorry for getting heated, but please go ahead.

MALONEY: Right. Right, well, I'm -- you can call your guests as many names as you want. I guess the point I was trying to make, ma'am, is that -- is that Carter Page is not the main story here. So, I'd encourage you to try to stay focused on what matters.

MACCALLUM: Really?

MALONEY: And what matters is that the president of the United States saw it and was eager to accept help from a foreign adversary. A dictator named Vladimir Putin attacked the United States, we've not adequately responded. Real issues were at stake like control of Eastern Ukraine for goodness sake. The health of the transatlantic alliance, all these things are on the table.

MACCALLUM: Yes, all right.

MALONEY: And what we should care about is that the president and his aides lied about it, and sought to obstruct it. And what the report tells us is that they've done things that are wrong. And I will concede as Robert Mueller has found that it's not prosecutable. But I don't think it's right.

MACCALLUM: That's fine. All right.

MALONEY: And I think we can stay focused on that.

MACCALLUM: OK, (INAUDIBLE) me. I'm glad that you don't think that, that issue with Carter Page mattered. It ruin the guy's life for two years. He was a subject of four FISA investigations. So, at some point, everybody was told that this guy was a Russian spy. And as I said going into that conversation, this is just one example, one slice of what we've been dealing with here for two years. But it is significant for those reasons. Thank you very much, Representative Maloney.

MALONEY: Right. Will you excuse me, excuse me. You didn't hear it from me, and I don't think you can roll that up to the Democrats that the media report state wrong.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thank you, sir. Good to see you again.

MALONEY: All right. Well, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I didn't call your names, by the way. I just said that you were kind of rude -- you know, in that exchange.

So, at any rate, let's bring in Matt Gaetz, Republican congressman who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. Obviously, there is a lot in this report, and there's a lot that Democrats will grab onto. There is Robert Mueller himself, basically said, now, the door is open to Democrats like Representative Maloney and whoever chooses to continue to pursue this investigation with regard to obstruction, that's their right. And they may choose to do that.

They've asked to speak to see Mueller, and they've asked for all of the background information and details on this. And it's their right to try to investigate all of that.

Representative, you know, so, what's your -- what are your thoughts in terms of what happens now?

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: There are three reasons why there is no opportunity for any sort of criminal prosecution against the president. The first is you cannot unwind his actions from legitimate Article two powers. That was Mueller's own problem is that you couldn't figure out where obstruction would have begun, and where Article two would have ended when you look at the legitimate exercise of that activity.

And this was a unique circumstance, Martha, where you had the president of the United States who is the leader of the executive branch who knew that the executive branch was doing something, that was hurting the country by advancing this improper investigation.

And these things didn't happen in a vacuum. I recall my conversations with the president during this time, and what he was most worried about was North Korea. Obama had told him that North Korea was the biggest problem in the world. And you've got this three-dimensional chess game with Russia, China, and North Korea, and the president wasn't able to really use all the tools so we want our president to use because he was under this domestic assault under this flawed investigation.

So, he was doing everything possible to try to wind up the investigation legitimately so that he could go and be the president and the leader of the free world. Nothing wrong or criminal about that. And it's also evident that most of what the president was doing was in public, that's not how people commit crimes.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to put up one section of the report, Congressman Gaetz, which deals with the June 9th meeting which you have highlighted here.

It says On June 9th for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign Chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the e-mail proposed the meeting described as official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary. The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as "part of Russia and it's government support for Mr. Trump.

Now you use that as an example of why you say that this -- that the Mueller report is aggressively written. What do you mean by that?

GAETZ: Well, there's no meeting of the minds, right? Just because two ships are both sailing in the same direction, it doesn't mean they've agreed with one another to chart the same course. So here you got a circumstance where obviously Donald Trump Jr. wanted bad information about Hillary Clinton to be in the public sphere. Russia wanted the same thing. But there was no agreement for them to coordinate or collude or conspire to make that happen. That's why we're unable to charge Donald Trump Jr.

If there was a meeting of the minds, if there was evidence to support those claims, then I think you would have seen a criminal indictment. But obviously, the people who wrote this report are no fans of the president. You had Andrew Weissmann who was a Hillary Clinton booster. You had Jeannie Rhee who represented the Clinton Foundation against FOIA requests.

So this was a group of people who had an ax to grind. And though they couldn't bring charges because they didn't want to be -- they couldn't sustain them, they still wrote that stuff.

MACCALLUM: So one of the things that Mr. Maloney and others are very concerned about is that there was this constant outreach from people from Russia and they were trying to reach out. And the fact that the members of the campaign who were approached did not immediately call on the FBI and alert them that this was going on. That you know a lot of people really feel like that was a big mistake on the part of the Trump campaign.

GAETZ: Well, I think you see most of that inflow into the campaign from Papadopoulos as he's trying to set up a meeting between Putin and then Candidate Trump but it never happened. It never materialized which is an easy thing to understand if you were part of the Trump campaign because it was largely careening from one rally to another. And so there wasn't this like opportunity for everyone to sit around and figure out what they were going to talk to the FBI about.

What is unfortunate is that now international players are trying to influence our elections. Russia is not our friend. I don't think that the Trump campaign viewed Russia as a friend though they did see Russia attempting to achieve some of the same objectives because they had their own ax to grind with Hillary Clinton for their own reasons.

MACCALLUM: All right, Congressman Gaetz, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

GAETZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So how did Robert Mueller's two-year investigation suddenly become a political assault against Attorney General William Barr?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADLER: Significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: The Attorney General did a grave disservice to the country by misrepresenting significant parts of the Mueller report, by attempting to put a positive spin for the President on the special counsel's findings. The Attorney General is not the President's personal lawyer although he may feel he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Democrats quick to pounce on Attorney General William Barr today attacking the head of the Justice Department with claims of partisanship, propaganda, and biased protection of the president, some even going a step further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SWALWELL: I think the Attorney General should resign immediately. He can either be the Attorney General of the United States or the President's lawyer. He can't be both. He should go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: -- Judge Andrew Napolitano Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst. Judge, great to have you here on this very busy day, so what should dig through. But how do you think Bill Barr did?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: This is the 13th hour --

MACCALLUM: I know. How do you think he did?

NAPOLITANO: I think it's absurd to suggest that he should resign particularly this Justice Department which finally has an adult leader. I didn't agree with everything he said and I thought some of it was undermined by the detail in the report, but I think the Democrats are being unfair to him.

I think he may have harmed his own credibility a little bit. If you look back at the four-page letter that he sent three or four Sundays ago, there isn't a hint or a whiff of the full flavor in there of what the Mueller team found with respect to obstruction of justice, and I think he should have tipped his hand a little bit on that.

He quite, quite fairly and accurately in that letter addressed the absence of a conspiracy with the Russians,

MACCALLUM: So -- that's very interesting. So do you think that that reveals that there really is a difference of opinion on the definition of obstruction between Robert Mueller and Bill Barr who are old friends?

NAPOLITANO: Yes, there is. There's a profound difference of agreement. One is that you -- the only way you can be charged with obstruction is if you obstruct the very investigation of you. The other is you can be charged with obstruction if you obstruct anything.

So if I'm going to go into a courthouse to testify against you, god forbid, but in fact with the case, and you tackled me in the street broke my leg and I still made it in there and still testified, you can be charged with obstruction because obstruction rarely succeeds. It's an attempt to interfere with a judicial proceeding.

MACCALLUM: And that would be closer to Mueller's definition you're saying.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, it would.

MACCALLUM: Now, I want to just put up this about an exchange that Don McGahn had that one of our other experts here said to me that they thought this is really the most egregious example potentially of obstruction that the President met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. This was about him telling him that he wanted to fire Mueller and McGahn is pushing back.

It goes on to say, in the same meeting, the President asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the President's effort to remove this Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of their conversations. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle. What do you think?

NAPOLITANO: I think that that was an attempt by the -- by the President to interfere with McGahn's testimony and I'm glad that McGahn resisted. Just like the President according to the Muller team tried to get our former colleague K.T. McFarland to sign a false affidavit and she resisted. Obstruction doesn't have to be successful for it to be obstruction.

Now, he's out of legal jeopardy but he certainly not out of political jeopardy because the Democrats will make the most out of this and they should. These are things that the public needs to know about.

MACCALLUM: All right, with regard to the report itself, we have a kind of cool graphic that the Wall Street Journal did that is an overview photograph of all of the pages and you can see where the redactions are. It is I think by most standards fairly lightly redacted.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, I quite -- you know, I was wrong. I've sat right here and I said half of its going to be redacted, and the more redactions the less credibility it will have. I was very wrong. They were heard on the side of transparency in their redactions.

Now there are still things here -- well, Adams Schiff, he has the top security clearance. He can see anything same with Senator Lindsey Graham. They're going to see all this, whether they will keep it to themselves or go to the floor of the House and the Senate respectfully and release it, I don't know.

But in with respect to the redactions which was done by a team of Mueller and Barr's people, I thought they were quite professional.

MACCALLUM: Judge, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Great to see you though.

NAPOLITANO: Likewise.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARR: I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: I call it the Comey cabal. These top people the FBI who were so biased against the President that they were willing to take one party's opposition research document, this false salacious and unverified -- Jim Comey's words -- dossier and use that as the basis to go spy on the Trump campaign, that's what needs to be looked at. And that's what I think Bill Barr is going to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan today saying now that the President has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing, it is time to investigate the investigators. That idea also endorsed by President Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale who said, "Now the tables have turned. It is time to investigate the liars who instigated this sham investigation into President Trump motivated by political retribution and based on no evidence whatsoever," says Brad Parscale of the campaign.

Here now John Solomon, Executive Vice President at "The Hill" and Richard Goodstein, former adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns. What goes through your mind, Richard, when you hear that?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I think the Trump campaign is going to do everything they can to change the subject from the fact that the President, according to the Mueller report, got the help from a hostile foreign power, and to this day has done nothing to keep them from doing it again.

They welcomed it -- I'm not going to repeat that the conversation you had with Sean Maloney, and I won't be rude.

MACCALLUM: Thank you.

GOODSTEIN: But what goes through my mind is that they're going to -- we've had hundreds of hours on this in other networks of talk about Peter Strzok, who had he wanted to keep Donald Trump from being President could have revealed that he was under a foreign intelligence investigation, and he didn't.

The one thing that could have blown the roof off of the Trump campaign that Peter Strzok who everybody said was so hostile to Trump that could have done -- he did not do that thing --

MACCALLUM: Well, I would just say this --

GOODSTEIN: And Jim Jordan was the chairman of a committee and had hearings on this subject.

MACCALLUM: All right, I would just add to that, Richard, that if Peter Strzok really wanted to make sure that the Russians weren't involved in the campaign, they could have given him the President a defensive briefing and filled him in on what they were finding. That's the other side of that equation.

GOODSTEIN: I agree with that.

MACCALLUM: But John Solomon, you say that it's fitting that this scandal that began with a blatant political report, the Steele dossier is ending with one too, explain?

JOHN SOLOMON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE HILL: Yes, listen, I think the Mueller report is less than a legal document and more a political narrative. I don't say that is necessarily wrong, because the President is in political office. But you normally don't write a report a declination letter that says, "Here's all -- if we were going to indict someone, this is all the evidence, and oh, by the way, we don't have enough evidence to indict." And that's what this report does.

It goes through a long narrative then it says, "Oh," at the end, it's a bad punch line. We're not -- we don't think there's any criminality here. But the President is held to a higher standard than the rest of us. That's an American assumption. But we're two and a half years in, and the Russian collusion narrative is dead. The Russian collusion narrative, that Richard's client, once fomented through the Steele dossier.

In the report today, you can't find the Steele dossier mentioned except for one time and the word unverified is in front of it. Why is that? It was bad evidence.

MACCALLUM: Richard, you want to respond to that?

GOODSTEIN: I do. Two things. First, the report if you read it, and I encourage your readers to read it and not take any of our word for it basically makes clear that this investigation about Donald Trump and the Russians began long before we even heard about Christopher Steele in July of 2016, one; and two, it's not true to say there is no evidence of collusion and no evidence of obstruction.

Mueller -- incidentally, this is not just a garden variety prosecution. This is an attack by a foreign power. That's why we needed this report. And that's why Mueller it seems wanted to turn this over to Congress, not have the Attorney General make a decision to kind of shut things off.

MACCALLUM: I'm sure John would like to comment on the early origins of the investigation.

SOLOMON: Yes, listen. Christopher Steele was hired in May by Hillary Clinton's campaign. So it is before July 31st. He approached the FBI July 5th, before the FBI opened the investigation. The facts don't support that. But I want to say one more thing. He said Peter Strzok could have killed the President by going public. He didn't have to. John Brennan went to Harry Reid and Harry Reid went public, eight or nine days before the election, saying the FBI is covering up an investigation to Donald Trump. Pete Strzok didn't have to do it. John Brennan went to Harry Reid and they made it get out into the public that way.

GOODSTEIN: I encourage people to go back and read the story of what Harry Reid said, and you couldn't begin to make sense out of what it was and understand it was the full breadth of what we now know the Russians did that the Trump campaign welcomed and did nothing, didn't tip off the FBI, did nothing other than saying, "Hey, WikiLeaks, it's great. Read it."

And of course now Donald Trump says, that's not his deal.

MACCALLUM: All right, we've got to leave it there. John Solomon, thank you very much. Richard Goodstein. Good to see you both.

GOODSTEIN: Thanks, Martha. Appreciate it.

MACCALLUM: Still head on "The Story," Trey Gowdy's first response to the report that came out today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Mueller redacted report putting renewed focus on how the Russian sought to interfere in this 2016 election process. But what about what they are up to now. Moscow has just confirmed that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will visit Russia later this month in his first ever meeting with Vladimir Putin.

The announcement comes on the same day that the rogue regime claims to have tested a tactical guided weapon and says it no longer wishes to negotiate with the United States' Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, but rather someone and this is their quote, "who is more careful and mature and communicating with us." Earlier I spoke exclusively with U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: First of all, your reaction to this North Korean situation. What do you think is at work here?

RICHARD GRENELL, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY: Well, look, I think Secretary Pompeo has got tough diplomacy going on and he's drawn a line and he knows what's at stake. So we fully support the Secretary of State and the President and all the way on down with the National Security team, I think they're holding the line.

MACCALLUM: But do you think that North Korea and Russia are trying to sort of nose us out of what's going on in terms of the progress in these talks?

GRENELL: Look, I wouldn't put anything past the Russians. The Russians for a very long time have tried to use maligned activities and destabilized certainly here in Europe. I mean, look what they've done in Europe. They've done a land grab in Crimea. They've shut down a passenger jet killing 298 people. They've used chemical weapons, a weapon of mass destruction on European soil to go after the Skripals, and nothing is off the table for them.

They have been interfering in elections for a very long time. I've written this before I became Ambassador. I had been writing about what the Russians were doing in Eastern Europe during elections and trying to destabilize political parties. They've done this for a very long time. No one should be surprised.

MACCALLUM: You know, there's a lot of controversy, obviously, going on with the South Bend Mayor, Pete Buttigieg who has been sort of in a war of words with Vice President Pence, and you obviously have spoken out quite openly about being a being gay, U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Do you have any thoughts? You know, first of all, let me play this sound bite from Pete Buttigieg, so you can get a sense of what he's saying. And I want to get your reaction to it, if I may.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is somebody who was against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," because he felt it was too pro-gay. He wanted to make sure that even closeted members couldn't serve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So he went on to say that this is why he has this open dispute going on right now with the Vice President. What do you say to that, Rick?

GRENELL: Look, Mayor Pete has been pushing this hate hoax along the lines of Jesse Smollett for a very long time now, several weeks. And I find it really ironic that Mayor Pete stayed silent about this so called, you know, hate hoax on him, and others during 2015, 2016, and 2017, when Mike Pence was Governor, there was total silence.

It's ironic that right about now when he's starting his fundraising apparatus to run for President that he comes up with this idea and this attack. One of the things that really bothers me about this attack is that Mike Pence is a friend of mine. Mike and Karen are great people, they're Godly people, they are followers of Christ. They don't have hate in their heart for anyone. They know my partner. They have accepted us.

Now you ask me, do we agree philosophically on every single issue? No, I don't agree philosophically with my hero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer on everything. I don't agree with my partner on everything. But the gay community used to be the community pushing tolerance and diversity. We were the ones that were saying everyone should be able to accept and love each other. Now, suddenly, there's a whole community of people that are demanding that we all think alike. I think it's outrageous.

And let me just say one more thing is that when Mayor Pete came out, the Vice President complimented him and said he holds them in high regard. The Vice President or the then Governor has said nothing but positive things about Mayor Pete. I think this is a total hate hoax and I think it's outrageous.

MACCALLUM: Well, thank you. Rick Grenell. Great to hear from you. The Ambassador to Germany. Good to see you, sir. Thanks for being here.

GRENELL: Thanks, Martha.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Strong words. All right, so will this endless cycle of investigations in American politics ever end? Trey Gowdy weighs in next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI AGENT: If you want to represent what you said accurately, I'm happy to answer that question, but I don't appreciate what was originally said being changed.

TREY GOWDY, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE: I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok. I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It should never happen to another President again. This hoax -- it should never happen to another President again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Nice thought, but is it even possible. Both sides are addicted to investigations and it has been going on for decades now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The facts have integrity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They seek to do nothing more than to attack, attack, attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: When the House voted to impeach President Clinton, Republicans and Democrats went running to their respective corners. And many might argue they never returned. That partisan divide only widened under President Bush and Obama and now Trump, each with their own investigations and scandals and controversies that went back and forth fueled by the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something spraying out of that and the salt sprang out of that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The fact is we had four dead American. What difference at this point does it make?

GOWDY: How long will it take you to produce Lois Lerner's e-mails? Could we have that by Friday?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely not.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened? Or part of what happened the night before?

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I don't know. Have you?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Wow. That's stress inducing, right? Here now, Trey Gowdy, former Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who you saw in that montage. And now a Fox News contributor. Trey always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.

You know, each side, obviously would say that they had very good reason for the investigations on either side. But nonetheless, the tenor of these sort of tit-for-tat investigations has been something that we've been living with for quite some time.

GOWDY: Yes, and the next two years will worse. I mean, if the President thought he had a cloud over the last two years, at least Mueller did his work confidentially. Congress will not. At least Mueller, I think had an open mind going into the investigation. Congress does not. Mueller, I was shocked at the paucity of leaks from the Mueller investigation. Congress leaks all the time.

So the next two years, unfortunately for my fellow citizens, and I say that, seriously, I am sorry for my fellow citizens, most of whom Russia is not number one or number two on their list of concerns or the Russia investigation. They're going to be living with this, except in a worse way for the next two years.

MACCALLUM: All right, well, you went after Peter Strzok and that may be where this investigation is headed next if you take the President's campaign manager at his word and some folks who are around the President. Here's an exchange that you had with the FBI agent, who was one of the early on board folks in investigating the Trump campaign. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STRZOK: You mentioned -- did you say word "impeachment." That was used in the context of my not knowing what this would lead to. I was not prejudging impeachment. When I used that term it was saying it might be nothing.

GOWDY: Oh, Agent Strzok, please.

STRZOK: It might lead all the way --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Thank you, Agent Strzok.

GOWDY: Agent Stzrok, are you kidding?

STRZOK: If you want to represent what you said accurately, I'm happy to answer that question. But I don't appreciate what was originally said being changed.

GOWDY: I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Stzrok. I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: You were obviously very fired up about what you saw in those text messages. Do you believe that investigation should be the next one that's taken up?

GOWDY: Well, I think is going to be. I think Lindsey Graham has made it clear. Michael Horowitz is investigating it now. He's no partisan. Bill Barr has expressed an interest in investigating. I would think everybody would want to know was there sufficient factual predicate for the launching the initiating of this investigation? It'd be great. Great. Martha, if we could agree, we don't need biased FBI agents running counterintelligence investigations. That's something that most Americans do agree on, but Congress cannot.

I mean, it'd be great if we had some unanimity. Let's make sure Russia and no one else ever does what they did to us in 2016. But you don't hear anything about that. What could be a unifying finding by Mueller that Russia targeted us and tried to sow the seeds of discord that would be unifying. What you see is Republicans going to investigate the origins and you're going to have Schiff -- by the way, he's not done with collusion. His political future depends upon there being collusion. He's going to go look into that.

And of course, Nadler and the rest of them are going to go look at obstruction of justice. So it's going to last for two years, it will not be bipartisan. The Senate Intel Committee, I think did a reasonably good job on the bipartisanship until they got to collusion. But you'd be hard pressed to find another committee in Congress that did.

MACCALLUM: You always stuck up for the Mueller investigation and I'm curious now that you've seen the report, and you've seen that he definitely cracked the door open to continue to look into obstruction by not making a definitive conclusion on whether or not he thought there was obstruction of justice. What do you think of the report now that you've seen it, Trey?

GOWDY: I still don't think it should have been made public, and I'm in a really small universe of people that believes that, but I think the Department of Justice speaks in indictments and not in reports. If you have sufficient evidence to charge someone with obstruction, then at least do them the courtesy of allowing 12 of their fellow citizens at some point to hear all the evidence and reach a unanimous verdict.

But this is like a hung jury, Martha. He issues the report. If you like Trump, you dismiss the obstruction. If you don't like Trump, you're going to seize on that. But there's no resolution. There's no verdict. Which is why I was flabbergasted that my Republican colleagues thought this report should be made public. What has it resolved it? No one's mind has been changed. And it is not the way of our justice system, which is the envy of the world. It's not the way it works.

MACCALLUM: I understand what you're saying. So it seems to me that you would be critical of the fact that Robert Mueller, sort of changed the bar, so to speak, in terms of you know, he couldn't prosecute on obstruction of justice, but he said, but I also can't exonerate him. Many people say that that that's not how it works.

GOWDY: Well, the only caveat I would add is Mueller did not make the decision to make this report public. That was Barr. Mueller is entitled to send whatever he wants to the Attorney General. The Comey press conference is what set this unbelievable precedent about discussing people that you don't charge.

I think it's appropriate for Mueller to say, look, we didn't charge him, and we're going to tell you, Mr. AG why we didn't, but Barr made it public.

MACCALLUM: All right, Trey Gowdy. Always great to have you. Thank you very much. More of THE STORY coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So that is The Story on a very busy April 18, 2019. We will see you back here tomorrow night, 7:00. Look forward to it. Thanks for being with us, everybody. Tucker Carlson coming up next.

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