This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 29, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL ANCHOR: Thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. That's it for "Special Report" from the White House. Fair balanced and still unafraid. "The Story" hosted by my colleague Martha MacCallum, starts right now. Martha.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Thank you, Bret. Good to see you. So we are as Bret has mentioned, standing by. There's a live shot in Nashville where there's going to be a big rally we hear. President Trump is about to make an appearance there in Nashville for Marsha Blackburn.

But first, breaking tonight right here in New York where ABC delivered a major blow to its own prime-time lineup today, canceling their number one show, Roseanne. Over what the network called abhorrent and repugnant tweets. But another question raised by all this tonight, will other stars be next who have leveled similar personal attacks as they are now back in the spotlight?

Good evening, everybody, I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story." Candace Owens, here in a moment with her take. Plus, this, breaking news this evening as North Korea is about to arrive in New York. The chairman of the ruling party is on his way to the Big Apple. He will see Secretary Pompeo. General Jack Keane, joins me with what is going on with this North Korea summit. That's coming up in a moment.

The president saying he's looking forward to this summit. Still, he hopes it's all going to be resolved. He says it's about time to get passed what he calls "the witch hunt".

Plus, the top House Intelligence Committee Democrat lashing out. Suggesting that the president's tweets over the weekend that he was spied on in his campaign is just propaganda. Is he right? In moments, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, with his reaction to that.

But we begin with Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry, standing by tonight in Washington. Hi, Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, great to see you. The president's lead attorney Rudy Giuliani, openly admitted this weekend, they believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe is rigged. Their goal is to undermine that investigation in order to impact public opinion on the political question of whether he will face impeachment.

Now, where the president is succeeding on that score is raising doubts about the investigators. Former officials like James Comey and James Clapper, who when confronted with mounting evidence that there was surveillance of the Trump camp, have tried to shift it into a semantically question about whether it was spying or just using informants.

The president hammering a waging noted in more than a dozen tweets over the weekend including, "With spies, or informants as the Democrats like to call them. Because it sounds less sinister but it's not all over my campaign, even from a very early date. Why didn't the crooked highest levels of the FBI or "Justice" contact me to tell me of the phony Russia problem?

On the other hand, the president keeps trying to frame this as Democrats are out to get him when it's widely believed Mueller's a Republican. Other key investigators like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, were appointed, nominated by the president himself.

The president alleging Mueller is going to interfere with the midterms tweeting, "The 13 angry Democrats, plus people who worked eight years for Obama, working on the rigged Russia Witch Hunt, will be meddling with the mid-term elections. Especially now that Republicans -- stay tough! -- are taking the lead in Polls. There was no Collusion, except by the Democrats." The president says.

Now, one of those Democrats pursuing the president, Adam Schiff, he keeps saying there is no evidence to support the allegation, the FBI placed a spy inside the Trump camp. But that phrasing leaves the door open to one or more informants conducting surveillance of the Trump camp. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D—CALIF., HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There is no evidence to support that spy theory, you know. This is just a piece of propaganda the president wants to put out and repeat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Now, Giuliani said again, he wants to see the Intel on this spy issue before agreeing to a presidential interview with Mueller. And the lawyer has also said the president doesn't have time until after the on again off again summit with Kim Jong Un is settled now.

In another tweet this morning, the president announced sorry he can't spend more time on the Russia probe because he has to deal with North Korea and other issues like the economy, except when he tweets more than a dozen times about the Russia probe that keeps the focus, yes, on the Russia probe. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Indeed it does, Ed. Thank you very much. So, joining us now, South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also a member of the House Intel Committee. And you were one those who saw some of the background documents related to this issue of whether or not there was a spy or informant in the campaign late last week. Anything that you can share on a broad scale about what went down there?

REP. TREY GOWDY, R—S.C., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think there are two things important to understand. Number one, the source of President Trump's frustration. Brennan say he should be in the dustbin of history. Comey said impeachment is too good of a remedy. Clapper doesn't like him, Loretta Lynch, said call it a matter, not an investigation.

Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation, and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him before Bob Mueller has come up with a single solitary finding. That's what's got him frustrated.

What should have him hearten is the fact that Chris Wray, Rod Rosenstein, and all the senior folks at DOJ now were all Trump appointees. So, here is what's fair to ask, what did the FBI do? When did they do it? What was the factual predicate upon which they took whatever actions they took and against whom were they directed?

But remember, Martha, it was President Trump, himself who said, number one, "I didn't collude with the Russia but if anyone connected with my campaign did, I want the FBI to find that out." It looks to me like the FBI was doing what President Trump said I want you to do, find it out. He is not the target. So, when Schiff and others don't make that clear, they're doing the disservice to our fellow citizens. He is not the target.

MACCALLUM: But this raises the question that the president raised in this -- in this one of those tweets, there were a lot of them. In which we talked about quite a bit here last week, is if that were the case, why didn't they give him a little briefing?

So, here is what we found out. You know, we do have somebody who asked some questions of George Papadopoulos. We do have somebody who's asked questions of Carter Page. Here's what you need to know.

GOWDY: I think, defensive briefings are done a lot. And why the Comey FBI didn't do it? I don't know, but Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein have at least made it clear to us, Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation. He is not the current target of the investigation. Now, keep in mind that can all change depending on what a witness says.

But as of now, I think Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Trump is the target of their investigation. I'll leave it up to them how to brief the president, or how to brief his lawyers.

MACCALLUM: Was that point of view that you're talking about right now, was that strengthened when you went into this briefing last week?

GOWDY: Yes, I am -- I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. And that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, given the things that were over here on your right hand, all the frustrations, do you think it's problematic the way the president has -- is tweeting about this all the time? Because he feels like he needs to get -- he needs to vent. He's got to get his message out there. Is it legally problematic in your mind what he is doing?

GOWDY: I think any time you create prior statements, you give Mueller or other folks a chance to question you on them and ask what was your factual basis, why did you say that? The president should have access to the best legal minds in the country. And I think he should take advantage of those. And he has got some really good communicators that are on his staff and at his -- at his call. If I were his lawyer, and I never will be, I would tell him to rely on his lawyers and his comes folks.

MACCALLUM: All right, here is one of them, Rudy Giuliani, speaking with Bill Hemmer over the holiday weekend. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS CO-ANCHOR: What's wrong with the government trying to figure out what Russia was up to?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nothing wrong with the government doing that. Everything wrong with the government spying on a candidate of the opposition party, that's a Watergate, a spy gate. I mean, and without any warning to him. And now, to compound that, to make it into a criminal investigation bill? That's why this is a rigged investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOWDY: There are two things wrong with what the former U.S. attorney said. Number one, no one knows whether this is a criminal investigation. Mueller was told to do a counterintelligence investigation into what Russia did. And number two, President Trump himself in the Comey memos said if anyone connected with my campaign was working with Russia, I want you to investigate it.

And it sounds to me like that is exactly what the FBI did, I think when the president finds out what happened, he is going to be not just fine, he's going to be glad that we have an FBI that took seriously what they heard. He was never the target, Russia is the target.

MACCALLUM: So, it sounds to me as if you would advise him that there's no problem with him sitting down with Robert Muller.

GOWDY: Oh, absolutely no. I have always said, I think you want to sit down with Bob Mueller. You've told us publicly there was no collusion, you've told us publicly there was no obstruction. Say in private what you've said publicly, limit the scope to exactly what the -- what the Mueller memo is, but if he were my client and I'd say if you've done nothing wrong, then you need to sit down and tell Mueller what you know.

MACCALLUM: you know, we had -- there was one judge who said that the scope was all over the place. Do you feel comfortable with the scope of this investigation, and do you feel like your committee has been shared with to the extent that, that exists, that the scope exists?

GOWDY: I'm not sure what the scope of the Mueller probe is. But I know this, Rosenstein is the one who created the memo.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GOWDY: It's not Bob Mueller's fault.

MACCALLUM: Have you ever seen that memo?

GOWDY: I have -- I have. I've seen the memo that you've seen also. The other memo some of my colleagues want to see is a more narrow admission.

MACCALLUM: I want to basically say, investigate Russia and all -- anything related to it.

GOWDY: And as a frontal way line at the end, and of course, if there's any criminality look at that to me. We run towards the criminality, but I would think everyone would want to know what Russia did. So, I mean, with whom if anyone is the second part? The first question is what did Russia do?

MACCALLUM: All right, we'll see. Trey, thank you very much.

GOWDY: Yes, madam.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you, congressman.

GOWDY: Yes madam.

MACCALLUM: So, also with us tonight, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has been listening to this, Judge, you know, your thoughts on what the congressman and I were talking about in terms of this spy issue whether or not the president should be concerned about it.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well full disclosure, Congressman Gowdy and I are buddies and we have discussed this before I listen to him tonight. He is really the perfect person to talk to about this because he's seen a lot of things that the rest of us have not seen.

But the allegations by Mayor Giuliani over weekend which would lead us to believe that the Trump people think that the FBI had an undercover agent who inveigled his way into the campaign, and was there as a spy on the campaign seem to be baseless, there's no evidence for that whatsoever.

MACCALLUM: All right, go ahead.

NAPOLITANO: But the other allegation about this professor whose name we're not supposed to mention, talking to people on the periphery of the campaign that is standard operating procedure in intelligence gathering, and in Criminal Investigations.

MACCALLUM: All right. But obviously, that the president is concerned about the existence of that person. He feels like there was someone spying on the campaign. And you know, it just goes back to the other question about if that were the case, and the president said I want to know if anybody's working with Russia, why would -- why was he not sort of clued into that and he talked about that in a tweet over this weekend. Should he have been?

NAPOLITANO: In my opinion, yes. But quite frankly, that's a judgment call. Sometimes you don't want to tell people that you are worried about whether or not their organization has been invaded so to speak because you don't want that word to get out there, and you don't wanted to affect the - -

MACCALLUM: But judge, they are claiming that, that invasion was so deep that it impacted the outcome of the election. That's what James Clapper, says.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, yes.

MACCALLUM: So, if that's happening, it's like a crime in progress.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, and listen, I came --

MACCALLUM: Right? So how can you not step in, and say, "Look, you, you, and you, you are off the campaign. We want to know who you've been talking to." You know, is it not -- you know, stopping a crime in progress?

NAPOLITANO: I understand the president's frustration that he was not informed of the fact that his campaign was being investigated, not because they think the campaign did anything wrong. But some people may have unwittingly, or perhaps, wittingly welcome to the Russian involvement in the campaign that Donald Trump didn't know about it.

What I have told the -- a candidate, I would have. But I respect the judgment of those who decided not to tell him. Now, look if they were there for some nefarious reason that the one Giuliani suggested to gather data from the campaign and pass it to the West Wing, and pass it to Mrs. Clinton, I'd want to see evidence of that before I made an allegation that outrageous.

MACCALLUM: Judge, good to see as always. Thank you, sir.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: So, straight ahead tonight, the North Korean general who was blacklisted from travel to the United States is now on his way here. Who is this individual? What do we know about him? And what message is he carrying from Kim Jong-un? General Jack Kean, up next on that.

Plus Roseanne asked by ABC in the wake of a racially charged tweet. So, will others who have said horrible things, perhaps, be next?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSEANNE BARR, ACTRESS, ROSEANNE: -- thinks every girl should grow up and be president even if there are a liar, liar pants suit on fire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, as North Korean officials welcomed American diplomats on their home soil rolled away, Kim Jong Un's right-hand man is on his way to the United States. That is him during a layover in Beijing and he should be in New York City we understand tomorrow to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the next 24 hours. U.S. officials no doubt on high alert as Kim Yong-chol, a blacks -- blacklisted North Korean general with quite a past is going to be on American soil. Trace Gallagher here now with his back story. Hi Trace!

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Hi Martha. Make no mistake. 72-year-old Kim Yong-chol has very few fans in both South Korea and the United States. South Korea still believes Kim Yong-chol a former four-star general and chief intelligence officer was behind the 2010 attack of a South Korean navy ship that killed 46 sailors and former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper identified Kim Yong-chol as the man in charge of the hacking operation of Sony Pictures back in 2014. But therein lies the dichotomy because while General Kim is feared and hated, he also happens to be the primary face of North Korea's charm offensive which began during the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. And Kim Yong-chol was at the closing ceremonies. He has also been in attendance at all four of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un's recent summits too with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and two with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

And separately Kim Yong-chol is considered a key negotiator in the diplomatic talks with South Korea. As for U.S.-North Korea relations, experts say it's crucial that General Kim also reportedly has a solid working relationship with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who has been in North Korea twice in recent months. The White House says that Pompeo and Kim Yong-chol will meet later this week to finalize plans for the U.S.- North Korea summit. The remainder of the schedule has not yet been released but President Trump tweeted this quoting we have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning summit and more. Kim Yong-chol, the vice chairman of North Korea heading the New York, solid response to my letter. Thank you. So while the former North Korean general surprise trip to the U.S. is certainly a positive sign that the summit is on track, it's still two weeks away an eternity for diplomacy. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you so much. Here now is General Jack Keane, Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst and Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. General, this has already been quite an interesting roller coaster to watch. You know, Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State has been twice now to North Korea so I guess on this round they said you know what, you're going to come to us in New York and we're going to talk there while another delegation has gone over to discuss denuclearization and exactly what that looks like. Where does this all stand in your mind?

GEN. JACK KEANE, FOX NEWS SENIOR STRATEGIC ANALYST: Well, I think the visit of the -- of the North Korean envoy here something that of that stature who clearly has been in all the major negotiation points. He's obviously carrying a message. And I think first that message is that Kim Jong Un is definitely wants this summit to go forward. The President hasn't made that final decision yet but he's stunned the North Koreans and the Chinese and I think the South Koreans as well when he -- when he tubed the summit based on it what he believed and I think rightfully so which was -- which seemed to be a lack of seriousness on the part of the North Koreans unduly influenced by the Chinese. So he's carrying that message we want this summit to go forward.

And I think likely, he's trying to get the actual content of the summit back on track that Kim Jong Un is serious about denuclearization. Whether he truly is, that remains to be seen. What these guys say and what they do largely are two different things. And I think he's also trying to convey a message that Kim Jong Un is absolutely committed from the United States major concession to him is that the security of his regime indefinitely. But I do think the key meeting is also going to take place and is taking place yesterday (INAUDIBLE) with the -- with our delegation and also the North Korean delegation because they're getting into the details, Martha, of what North Korea is really going to put on the table.

MACCALLUM: And that's really what it all comes down to, right? I mean what does denuclearization mean? What does it look like? Is it something that happens in a couple of stages because in the past we've been promised that and got nothing? We've seen those facilities reopened re-operating in no time after they got their money essentially. What does it have to look like in your mind?

KEANE: Well, I think what the leader of our delegation Sung Kim is probably asking the North Koreans and wanting from them, if you're serious about denuclearization give us a full accounting of your nuclear weapons and your missiles, where they're located, where the storage sites are, where the fuel sites are, etcetera. Let's put together a process to verify and our ability to oversee your disarming and dismantling that on some kind of a schedule that makes sense, not something that's going to take many years but something that's reasonable and in a couple of years. I'm confident our delegation would want to see that from the North Koreans.

Now, whether they're willing to put that on a table or not is another matter. It's likely there's going to be differences, Martha, and I think the summit hinges on whether our delegation in their minds can think that we can resolve some of those differences through negotiation where the summit at least can have the strategic framework and begin a process to be successful. If they think it's not resolvable, then I think the summit would be delayed until we're able to change those conditions a little bit.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating, you know, clearly they already know that President Trump doesn't approve of the Iran model so that that's probably not going to happen and it's probably the model that they would most like. So we'll see where this goes. General, thank you very much. Great to have you with us tonight.

KEANE: Yes, Martha, one more thing. And they know full well that they can't play Donald Trump. China, North Korea, and even South Korea have all tried that in the last few weeks and they're not going to get away with it.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I remember Nancy Pelosi said, oh he must be having a giggle fit over this letter Kim Jong-un but she has that -- she's noticeably silent on the whole thing at this point so we'll see. General, good to see you tonight. Thank you again.
KEANE: Take care, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You too. So coming up, the Golden State killer case in court today. They found his DNA in the garbage and scanned it through an ancestry Web site. So if you have spit and sent your DNA is it safe? Plus, Roseanne Barr gets the boot. Turning Point USA's Candace Owens and African-American Studies Professor Jason Nichols up next.

BARR: A lot of us you know, no matter who we voted for, we don't want to see our president fail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARR: Dear lord, thank you for this food and for bringing our son D.J. home safe from Syria. Please protect his wife Gina and all our troops still overseas. But most of all, Lord, thank you for making America great again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Roseanne was ABC's first number one hit in 24 years today came crashing down for her and for the network that had just gushed about her during their upfront presentations after she took aim at former Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett with this terrible tweet that you can see up there on your screen now. So within hours, ABC released this statement. Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values and we've decided to cancel her show. Joining me now is reaction Candace Owens, communications director for Turning Point USA and Jason Nichols, African American studies professor at the University of Maryland. Welcome to both of you. Good to have you both with us tonight. Thank you. This is Roseanne's apology that she put out before she got fired. I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me. My joke was in bad taste. Candace, is that -- should that have been enough or no?

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TURNING POINT USA: Well, if it begs the question why is it enough when other people say awful things on air? Why is it enough when Bill Maher uses the N-word live and it's not enough when she does it? The question I think that's on so many Americans mind is not whether or not what she said was right or wrong and it's clearly wrong. Now, she should be condensed but the question is why other people tend to be pardoned in these same situations? We saw this with Bill Maher, we saw this with Joy Behar, we see this with Keith Olbermann who has said some disgusting things via Twitter, yet was able to secure a job at ESPN. So it begs a bigger question, it's difference between right and wrong liberal or conservative?

MACCALLUM: No. You know, I think wrong is wrong. Just take a look at Joy Behar. You just mentioned her. Let's play this soundbite from February 13.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY BEHAR, COMEDIAN: One thing to talk to Jesus it's another thing when Jesus talks to you. That's called mental illness, if I'm not correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So Jason, she basically said that Christians who believe that Jesus speaks to them are mentally ill or have a mental illness. She also apologized and last time I checked she's on the air pretty much every day.

JASON NICHOLS, AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Right. And her comments were terrible. But one of the things that we need to realize is this is a pattern of behavior by Roseanne. She sent the exact same tweet about another African-American woman in 2013. So, when you have a pattern of behavior --

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS SHOW HOST: But they knew that when they hired her at ABC. I mean everybody knew who they were getting, right?

NICHOLS: Again, but it wasn't a pattern at that point, Candice. It wasn't a pattern at that point.

MACCALLUM: That was me. That's okay.

NICHOLS: I'm sorry.

MACCALLUM: It's okay. No problem.

NICHOLS: But, you know, it wasn't a pattern at that point. If you have done it over and over again and you have pictures of you as Hitler and putting ginger bread men into an oven. I think at a certain point we've got to take a stand. And the company decided to take a stand.

MACCALLUM: We all, you know, anybody who has been around the past 20 years watching Roseanne do her stuff knows that, you know, she is -- you know what you are going to get. She is crude and crass and she says things that she shouldn't say and you know, it's completely up to ABC's discretion here if they just, you know, they obviously made a decision that they felt that this was fireable behavior.

You know, you look at Wanda Sykes who called Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker. Kathy Griffin who held a bloodied severed head of Donald Trump. You know, when you look at all these -- what I'm curious about, Candace, is that the prescription for punishment seems to be career-ending in certain situations, right? And then in other situations it's not. Even Joy Reid who made homophobic slurs was one of the people who was asked to come on today on Msnbc and give her reaction to, this Candace.

OWENS: Yes. It's unbelievable. And I thought of Joy-Ann Reid. Not only did she say homophobic slurs, she then lied about it. She lied about the homophobic slurs. Said she got hacked and she was not made to leave her show whatsoever. She is still brought on to TV every single day. And Jason, to answer your question, if you're saying that the difference is establishing a pattern then have you've not yet answered why Keith Olbermann is able to secure a contract with ESPN.

Have you read his tweets lately? Talk about establishing a pattern. He has been absolutely vitriolic, hateful and disgusting not only to our president but to any single person that supports him. So again, I ask the question. What is the differentiator here?

MACCALLUM: Jason?

NICHOLS: Candace, has he called anyone a monkey which we know goes back to or excuse me, an ape, which goes back to stereotypes that started during the antebellum period that have been, you know, started with scientific racism. Has he called --

OWENS: Oh, so it's a historical background. I'm just asking you on air because I'd like to know. I would like to know once and for all what is the differentiator. Is it a historical factor? Is it how long it's been said where Joy-Ann Reid's homophobic slurs not been said forever since the beginning of time against case?

NICHOLS: Again, one of the things you have not established is whether Joy-Ann Reid has been hacked. That's never really been established/ but that's -- we're talking about ABC and their --

MACCALLUM: Jason, she basically admitted it. Jason, hold on. Hold on.

OWENS: She did admit it. She admitted and she apologized. She said she did not get hacked.

MACCALLUM: She said that's a person that I don't recognize. I'm no longer like that. That's what she said essentially. I'm paraphrasing --

OWENS: That is correct.

NICHOLS: And this is ABC's choice. ABC decided that they don't want this type of behavior and this type of pattern to continue --

MACCALLUM: I think everybody is saying they get that.

NICHOLS: -- and they've actually made it --

OWENS: We get that. You're not adding anything new here. We understand that and we're not condemning ABC. We are asking clearly --

NICHOLS: So then what is your point then? I'm missing what it is that you are saying?

OWENS: -- what is the differentiator? Why is it okay when Joy-Ann Reid does it and lies about it and it's not okay when Roseanne does it?

NICHOLS: Well then, what you should do is --

OWENS: We are not saying either forms of behavior are acceptable.

NICHOLS: It sounds as though you are because that's exactly what it sounds as though --

OWENS: No. That's not at all we have said.

MACCALLUM: No. I don't appreciate you --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALUM: -- very early in the discussion that I don't think anybody is defending what Roseanne Barr said.

OWENS: Nobody is defending --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I got to go guys. I wish we had more time. Jason and Candace --

OWENS: I'm trying to understand why you are defending the actions of Joy-Ann Reid, why you are defending Keith Olbermann.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Put a button on it. Thanks you guys. Sorry about that. More time next time hopefully. All right, up next, embattled Missouri governor Eric Greitens announces that he is resigning amid mounting scandals. Missouri Attorney-General Josh Hawley has been investigating the governor. He's up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC GREITENS, GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI: And people of good faith know that I am not perfect, but I have not broken any laws nor committed any offense worthy of this treatment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: We are waiting for President Trump's rally in Nashville. A lot of people already in the house there as they get ready. He is there for Marsha Blackburn who is running for Senate for Bob Corker's seat. We're going to take you there as it gets underway. But first some other breaking political news tonight. Missouri Governor Eric Greitens announced his resignation today amid a flurry of scandals and investigations which began just hours after he was sworn in January.

The governor admitted to having an affair with his former hairdresser before he took office but he denied allegations of blackmail after the mistress alleged that he took a partially nude photo of her. The photo never materialized and the state dropped the case exactly two weeks ago leaving Greitens free of the felony charge.

My next guest, State Attorney General Republican Josh Hawley, launched a separate investigation into a charity donor list that he says Greitens used for political purposes. Hawley called on him to resign in April. He joins me now in his first exclusive interview on in this evening. Good to see you Attorney General Hawley. Thank you for being here tonight.

JOSH HAWLEY, MISSOURI STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Great to be with you.

MACCALLUM: I guess the question is it looked like he was, you know, kind of in the clear. So what happened between then and now that forced the resignation today?

HAWLEY: Well, look, the governor has done the right thing by the state of Missouri today and resigning his office and I am cheering for our new incoming governor Mike Parson. He is going to do a great job. My office stands ready to assist in the transition. And now the state of Missouri can move forward to what is going to be a better day. And so we look forward to putting this behind us and Governor Parson, I think, is going to do great.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that, you know, it was your pursuing of the charity donor list that sort of turned the tide here because he had a decision that didn't go the way his attorneys wanted it to go today, correct?

HAWLEY: That's correct. Earlier in court today, Martha, but you know, look, I took an oath as attorney general to enforce the law of Missouri without fear or favor to anybody and that's exactly what I have done and that's what I'm going to go on doing, whether that means taking on sex traffickers or standing up to big pharma or to big tech.

My office enforces the laws of Missouri and defends the people of Missouri no matter who it is, that's what we have always done and that's exactly what I'm going to keep doing.

MACCALLUM: There was some vulnerability or there was some criticism of you early on that you weren't tough enough on the Republican governor of your state. Is that something that you expect is going to come up when you are in debates against Claire McCaskill who you're running against for Senate in Missouri?

HAWLEY: You know, Claire McCaskill is eager to change the record from anything having to do with her record. She has a terrible record for the people of Missouri. She has voted to keep our border open, to not secure it. She has voted to send jobs overseas. She has voted to raise the cost of our healthcare, Martha. That is why she is the least popular senator in America on a ballot this November and we're going to send her home. So I'm proud to stand on my records, standing up for and fighting for Missourians and I look forward to taking that into the November election.

MACCALLUM: All right. It's good to see you tonight. Thank you very much for being with us Attorney general Josh Hawley and candidate for the senate in Missouri. Also developing this evening on another front, the "New York Times" coming under some fire for, quote, peddling fake news when it comes to President Trump.

They say that a recent report on his on again off again summit with North Korea, that claims that a senior -- this is a quote from the paper -- a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12th would be, quote, impossible. To which the president fired back, wrong again. Use real people not phony sources. And further review reveals that the president actually had a legitimate case to complain about that.

Mollie Hemmingway, senior editor at "The Federalist" and a Fox News contributor wrote about this today. Mollie, great to have you with us this evening. You know, I don't know how many people spend time going back and forth on twitter watching all of this stuff, but it's pretty interesting when you dig into what happened here. They basically said, you know, that his aide was undercutting him, well, there is no way we can do this on June 12th. And the president said that's not what happened. What did happen?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right. So the actual story was saying that Trump was not listening to his aides and that they were at odds. And to support that claim, they said there was this aide who said it would be impossible to have a June 12th meeting. Trump said that's a phony news, fake news. They countered by releasing audio of an off-the-record briefing and outing the person who gave that briefing and saying well, see this proves we were right.

The only problem was the audio definitely did not show that they were right. The audio shows him being asked if he thought this was an impossible thing to have this meeting at this date. He definitely does not say that he thinks it's impossible. He says the point is North Korea better act and act quickly if they want something to happen, but he does not say that it's impossible.

And it's important to remember too that this briefing happened after Trump had exited the summit but before North Korea responded that they would behave better or, you know, that they were trying to get things back. So that context is very important and they just completely misunderstood, at best, or they lied about what that source had said.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, I mean, when you look back, there are so many examples of things along these lines and you point some of them out. You know, it matters as a reporter if the aide says that it would be impossible, right. Impossible is a very definitive word, but what the aide was saying in the room was that they have been working hard towards the summit. That it's difficult to pull these things off in time frames.

But that's very different. You know, if the president turns to that aid and says we are going to go on June 12th, I think you can bet that they're going to work all night in order to get ready for June 12th.

HEMINGWAY: Right. And it wouldn't have been the biggest error if the entire point of the story wasn't that Trump and his aides were at odds. This guy definitely was saying it was difficult, but when you are trying to make that case, you know, you better make that case air tight. And that's why people have trouble believing anonymous sources to begin with. It's not that these people don't exist, but the media have not shown themselves to be trustworthy about accurately conveying information that comes from people.

MACCALLUM: It's important. Words are important and facts do matter. Here is Kellyanne Conway talking about another instance of this having to do with the children who were separated from their family in the immigrant situation at the border. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Look at what they did this weekend. They saw these pictures of two migrant, I suppose, children in cages and because one of them tweeted it must be true and so they just retweet and retweet. Those were pictures from 2014. All of a sudden they started deleting those tweets because it didn't fit their narrative about this president and the border. And that means, to me, that they didn't really care about the story about the migrant children. It didn't fit the political narrative.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Yes. The tweet on one of those, you know -- there it is. All of these photos are disturbing, but the first two are especially awful. And it is awful to see these kids in this situation. And this is still the policy of this administration but these pictures were taken in the prior administration when the same policy existed, M0ollie.

HEMINGWAY: Well, recently President Obama said that he didn't have any scandals during his administration. There's a hidden truth in that which is scandals weren't covered during the Obama administration. When something like that happened, children in cages, the media might have covered it a little bit but they didn't make it into a huge thing like happened on twitter where former Obama officials and members of the media were tweeting this out and manufacturing a bunch of outrage about something that is a long standing issue going back through multiple administrations.

That unevenness with how these administrations are covered also goes a long way to explaining why people are having trouble having confidence in the media.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And when you think about it, if you are horrified by those pictures, you should be horrified by those pictures, right?

HEMINGWAY: Right.

MACCALLUM: And then those same people who were tweeting that should have said, wow, I am horrified to figure out that this actually happened in 2014 under the prior administration so I condemn them and this administration and every other administration who has had this policy. But, instead, you know, they take it down in sort of the dark of night and pretend like they never said it.

HEMINGWAY: Well, not just that. There has actually been a huge series of mistakes about these stories, conflating issues of families arriving seeking refugee status versus children arriving who are unaccompanied minors who are placed in the homes of other people. There have not been really quality coverage from a lot of people explaining the nuances and details of a very complicated immigration story and it's much easier to just get upset rather than cover these things well.

MACCALLUM: Mollie, great to see you. Thanks for coming. Good to see you.

HEMINGWAY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up tonight, if you have spit and sent your DNA, is that DNA safe? Is it private to you? The ethical debate that has now been sparked by the capture of the suspected Golden State killer. What is really happening with your genetic information and your family's genetic information when you sign up for those sites?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our interest, the public's interest is far more than understanding how genealogical websites were used.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, we are waiting for President Trump to get on stage in Nashville this evening. He is there in support of Republican senate candidate Marsha Blackburn who is running against the Democrat, Mayor Phil Bredesn, and she is in a pretty challenging tough race there. So we're going to take you there as soon as that gets underway this evening.

But in the meantime, this intriguing story, the suspected Golden State killer, that man right there, accused of 12 murders, dozens of rapes and more than 120 burglaries, back in California court today as the judge is weighing whether or not to unseal the search and arrest warrants in that case. Investigators found the elusive suspect, Joseph D'Angelo, former police officer, after submitting his DNA to a free public genealogy website called GEDmatch or GED match.

It's a technique that has sparked an ethical debate over how this technology is used with growing questions over issues of permission, privacy, and transparency. Here now, CeCe Moore, is the leader of the new genetic genealogy research unit with Parabon and recently helped I.D. a potential suspect in cold case in Washington State through her work. CeCe, it's really good to have you with us tonight. I mean, obviously this is a cutting edge part of forensics and crime solving. How does it work? How did they get his DNA and how did they track him rather, excuse me, through a genealogy website.

CECE MOORE, GENETIC GENEALOGIST: So they used his DNA from the crime scene and they needed to get it into a compatible format with the public website GEDmatch. So that was a different process than the typical law enforcement DNA process. This wasn't through their CODIS law enforcement database.

They had to use a much more advanced technology called genotyping or in this case, I think they actually used full genomic sequencing. And then they picked the snips or the genetic markers that are used in GEDmatch to compare it to other people. So then they uploaded that file once they compiled that and ran it against everyone else who is already in that database looking for people who shared significant amounts of DNA with him.

MACCALLUM: Incredible. I mean it really is, you know, when you think about false imprisonment and the mistakes that have been made over the years and you think about the potential for this kind of technology. But of course, it raises questions for people who send in their DNA To these different sites and they wonder, you know, how safe is my DNA?

MOORE: I think it's really important to know that if you are testing in one of the big genetic genealogy companies like AncestryDNA, 23andMe, Family Tree DNA, and MyHeritageDNA, that those databases are not being accessed by law enforcement. In fact, those companies have released terms of service actually prohibiting that use. So, the only way that they would ever be able to access those databases is through a subpoena. And so far there have been no successful subpoenas in that way.

So, this is actually a different website. It's not a commercial website. It was created by two citizen scientists. Volunteers have built this website and it is -- you can only access it if you have tested at one of these other companies and you choose to download your raw data file and upload it to this site.

So, they are not a testing company. They are only accepting files from the testing companies. And all of the companies warn that if you download your raw data file they can no longer protect its security. So this is something you would have to take a couple steps to do and be very aware of what you were doing.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, I think people think about Facebook and they think about social media and accepting the terms and conditions, right? And so you are saying you do have to be very careful when you are accepting the terms and conditions as you are using these sites because it's possible that they could share some of your data.

MOORE: Yes. I think it's important that everybody is well aware of how their data is being used. So, in this case, I was really happy the case I worked on, to have informed consent from the people using GEDmatch and that was really only accomplished because of the GSK case. It got so much media and so much coverage that pretty much everybody who is participating in GEDmatch had heard about it and people had the opportunity to remove their DNA or privatize it if it was something they were not comfortable with.

As far as the big companies like I said, they are not being used for law enforcement, but people should still read those terms and conditions so they make sure that they feel comfortable with what their DNA will be used for.

MACCALLUM: And just real quick, about 30 seconds. What was the cold case that you solved, what was that criminal? Who was that criminal?

MOORE: This was a double-murder of a young Ccanadian couple. It was 31 years ago in Washington State. They had crossed over the border to run a quick errand and ended up both viciously murdered and the female sexually assaulted. He had been free for 31 years, not paying for this crime so, I'm very happy for the families to finally be getting some closure and for him to be taken off the streets. This is a way to make our society much, much safer.

MACCALLUM: Thanks so much. Good to see you tonight.

MOORE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Countdown is on. We're now just minutes away from the big rally in Nashville. We're going to take you there live as soon as it gets underway. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCAIL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, there is the crowd in Nashville, listening to the Trump soundtrack that plays at all of these events. He is expected any minute really now. Tucker Carlson is coming up in a few minutes and he will take you there live. Marsha Blackburn versus Phil Bredesen, tight race, and the president there to help her out.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.