Trump: Can't have border security without the wall

close

Video

Trump: Can't have border security without the wall

White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp weighs in on President Trumps meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," December 11, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: I want to join in too. That's a beautiful moment. Bret, thank you very much.

So, good evening everybody. In moments, reaction for us straight from the White House tonight on what happened in the Oval Office when the fierce battle over the wall got testy, and it played out for all to see. While Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer pleaded with the president not to have this conversation in front of the cameras.

He said it was better to be transparent. He also said he believed so strongly in border security that he would be proud to shut the government down over it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y. SENATE MINORITY LEADER: That's what we're urging you to do. Not threaten to shut down the government because you -- let me just finish.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You don't want to shut down the government, Chuck.

SCHUMER: Because you can't get your way.

TRUMP: The last time you shut it down, you got killed.

SCHUMER: Yes. Let me say something, Mr. President.

TRUMP: If I needed the votes for the wall in the House, I would have them in one session, it would be done.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-Calif. HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Well, then go do it. Go do it.

TRUMP: You want to know something?

SCHUMER: You've said it.

TRUMP: OK, you want to put that on mine.

SCHUMER: You've said it.

TRUMP: I'll take it. OK.

SCHUMER: OK, good.

TRUMP: You know what I'll say? Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.

SCHUMER: OK.

PELOSI: And we are entering into -- of this kind of discussion in the public view.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: But it's not bad, Nancy. It's called transparency.

PELOSI: Let us -- no, no, but it -- We have take -- we have taken this conversation to a place that is devoid, frankly, of fact.

SCHUMER: Let's debate -- let's debate in private.

TRUMP: OK.

SCHUMER: OK? Yes, let's debate in private.

PELOSI: And we can dispel that.

TRUMP: We need border security. I think we all agree that we need border security.

SCHUMER: Yes, we do.

TRUMP: See? We get along.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: See, we got along. That was fascinating this afternoon. Senator Lindsey Graham just spoke to the president. He will join me in moments. But first, Mercedes Schlapp, White House director of strategic communications. Mercedes, good evening. Good to have you with us today.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: Good evening.

MACCALLUM: Was that -- was that planned? Did the president decide that he wanted to kind of confront them in the Oval Office with all the cameras watching?

SCHLAPP: Look, for the president was not a confrontation. This is a moment to be transparent. To be able to bring up a very important issue not only to the president but to the American people which is that a border security.

The president has talked about the importance of ensuring that we build the wall, that ICE, and our -- and our custom Border Patrol agents have the resources they need to deal with the crisis on the border. As we've seen, Martha, we've seen illegal crossings up by 90 percent in the past two months.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCHLAPP: And we've seen what the -- what has happened with the caravan which right now we've been working with the Mexican government to ensure that there is this controlled situation down at the border. And that's why we need the funding at this point.

MACCALLUM: All right. Well, let me ask you a couple of different ways that might happen here. One is the suggestion that the House might push forward a bill for $5 billion for wall funding. And Nancy Pelosi sat right there. You know she's the -- obviously, she's going to be most likely the leader in the House. She said, "You do not have the votes for that Mr. President.” And there is a discussion that a lot of moderate Republicans do not want to take a wall vote.

SCHLAPP: Well, I think that that's something the conversation that the White House is having with the House of Representatives. Obviously, that's an important issue for many Republicans in the House. And the importance here that we've talked about, as well as the Senate, is that they believe that we need additional funding. We need the $5 billion for border security.

I mean, again, I think that this is a very critical issue. It's a moment in time that the Democrats have continued to push open borders.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely it is. But --

SCHLAPP: And they're going to -- they're willing to keep the government open and as well as make sure that our borders stay open and we cannot continue moving that direction.

MACCALLUM: Understood. But I'm just asking about the practicality of getting -- of allowing that to happen or helping to facilitate that in the short time that is left while the White House, and the Senate, and the House, are under Republican control.

Is it the White House's view that there are the votes to pass a $5 Billion Bill on the House side, at least, if they push that forward. Do you believe that those votes are indeed there?

SCHLAPP: I think that the -- again, the White House is working and speaking with the House of Representatives to ensure that we can get the votes there. I know that there's one thing about the president, we've seen the House vote through this before with these types of votes where they have provided the funding for border security.

The Senate is also -- Senate Republicans are also pushing for the same thing for $5.02 billion for border security and the wall. And I think Martha, this is -- this is the moment. This is a time where we really have to talk about this critical issue and ensure that we get the necessary funding to deal with the crisis on the border.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, I would imagine the president is frustrated that he's had -- you know all three arms of power for all of this time and hasn't gotten what he wanted on the Hill on this issue.

SCHLAPP: Right.

MACCALLUM: And now, you know, tonight, he needs to mention that --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHLAPP: Because he needs 60 votes in the Senate. So that's one of the biggest obstacles that we face, obviously.

MACCALLUM: Understood.

SCHLAPP: If when you need the 60 votes in the Senate.

MACCALLUM: Understood, understood. And he talked about that today. Our reporter at the Pentagon, Jennifer Griffin is saying that the Department of -- that the Defense Department says that they have no plans to build the wall as part of a military project. Your reaction.

SCHLAPP: Well, you know, again, I think that the key here is that we're first going to focus in on ensuring that we can get the funding out of Congress to be able to build the wall. We know for example that the Department of Homeland Security has already provided funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help with the building of the wall.

So, again, the focus here is to ensure that we're making progress. What we do know is that the wall works. We know that where you have wall that's been built, you've seen a dramatic decrease in terms of illegal crossings. In addition to that, we need to make sure that our border agents have the resources they need to deal with the constant influx of illegal immigrants coming into the country.

And this is something that because of the fact that the Democrats never wanted to really fix this problem, and close the legal loopholes like ending catch-and-release, and giving our border agents the authority to detain and move this individuals, it becomes a problem. And so, we are stuck with what we're seeing on the crisis of border, we need the funding necessary.

MACCALLUM: Let me -- let me ask you at this comment Nancy Pelosi made. And we know that in the past, a lot of these individuals have been supportive in 2006 of the Secure Border Act.

But -- you know, she came out of the meeting apparently and said this sort of, you know, sassy comment. She said, "For the president, it's a manhood thing with him. As if manhood can be associated with him." She said, "This wall thing." What's your reaction to that, Mercedes?

SCHLAPP: Look, I'm disappointed with the comment. There's no need to belittle this president like she did. It was a personal attack on the president. At the end of the day, our focus is to find a solution to the border crisis.

And this president has been committed day one to ensuring that we're able to ensure that we push for legal immigration. That we push for merit-based immigration.

Instead of having to deal with the over 700,000 cases out there in terms of illegal immigrants coming in, and in cases that we need to deal with. And so, we have created this overwhelmed immigration system that needs to be fixed.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCHLAPP: And that's what the president's been committed to. And that's why it's been so disappointing that the Democrats have not come to the table. We're hoping that based on this conversation that we're moving into a more constructive path.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right, Mercedes Schlapp. Thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight.

SCHLAPP: Thank you. Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So my next guest spoke with the president about all of this for a quite some time, a short time ago. He says the president is right to demand more, tweeting, "You are right to want more border security funding, including wall money. They are wrong to say no. Put DACA on the table and make them say no to the wall and DACA. #Digin.

Senator Lindsey Graham joins me now. Senator, good to have you with us this evening. What did the president say after this rambunctious meeting that we all witnessed in the Oval Office? What did he -- how did he feel about it?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Well, the first thing he asked me, how did I do? I said I thought you did great. I thought you made a very compelling case that you need more wall funding to secure the country.

Secure borders is not a manhood thing, it's a national security thing. And here's what's so hypocritical. In February of this year, 44 Democrats including Schumer voted for a bill that had $25 billion for a wall. In 2013, Schumer helped create a bill that I was part of that had $8 billion for a wall, $42 billion for securing the border in other ways.

So, they're just -- they want Trump to lose more than they want the country to win. They voted for vast -- large amounts of money to secure the border before, they just don't want to do it for Trump.

MACCALLUM: So, there's a lot of -- you know, sides that are having trouble with this idea, with this vote. I -- you know --

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: There's a suggestion that a $5 billion wall funding bill could pass the House in the coming days. And we're going to see what happens with that. Nancy Pelosi wants to be speaker. She needs 218 votes. She clearly feels like backing any solution in this is going to make that problematic for her, right?

GRAHAM: Well, she's got a political problem, the country has a border security problem. Here's what I would tell the president. If they voted for $25 billion in February of this year, insist on $5 billion now. The caravans have created more uncertainty on the border not less. What signal are we sending to the world if we reduce funding for border security and light of increased threats with inviting more caravans?

So the president is right. This liberal arrogance has to come to an end. Nancy Pelosi, said, "I will never put DACA associated with the wall. Well, we did that in February. So, this idea that the president needs to back down doesn't make sense to me. He needs to dig in and get the very Democrats who voted for $25 billion to give him $5 because we need the money now more than ever.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, you know, we talked about compassion and there's all of this concern for the people who are trying to get into this country on the part of Democrats. And then, the president offered 1.8 million DACA recipients, which was bigger than the number that they initially wanted.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And they turned that deal down.

GRAHAM: They wanted to lose. They want -- OK. So, they put an eight- month-old baby under the wall a couple of days ago. You'll never convince me. I've been doing this for a decade. I've done everything that I can to find a bipartisan solution. This, you'll never convince me that the president's demand for $5 billion to secure our border including a wall is unreasonable.

Again, in 2013, Democrats had an $8 billion wall plan. And February 20, of this year, 2018, they all voted for $25 billion for wall and border security. This is all about politics. The president needs to dig in and make them pay a price, they're overpaying -- they're over playing their hand.

If I were the president, I would put DACA on the table, and see if they say no to that. Wall plus DACA would be a good deal for this country.

MACCALLUM: So show me how you see this playing out as we head to Christmas in nears, there's discussion about all of you folks staying on the Hill through the holidays.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And the president said, you know what? I feel so strongly about this issue that I'm willing to shut the government down.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I'm only talking about 25 percent of it. Most of the funding is already past. Do you think that's going to happen?

GRAHAM: I think the president and people like me need to make a case to the American people that they are denying this president, money that makes sense.

The difference between $1.65 billion and $5 billion is what we're talking about. Again, in February, 44 Democrats voted for $25 billion.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GRAHAM: It's not the money, it's the desire to have Trump fail. And he needs to deal with it now. It's only going to get worse next year. He's on the good spot, dig in, make the case that this money is necessary, and challenge the Democrats to work with him on DACA plus the wall. And if they say no to that, that means they really do hate Trump more than they care about the country. And that will blow up in their face.

MACCALLUM: What about the politics on the president's side? Here is the latest. Marist Poll, 57 percent say that they would like to see a compromise from the president to prevent gridlock, also known as a shutdown. 36 percent, say don't compromise to prevent it. 8 percent are not sure.

But when you look at the numbers of Republicans that are polled, they want him to do exactly what you said, and that's dig in on the wall. So, how does this play politically for the president in his own party, ultimately?

GRAHAM: He's asking for $5 billion. His border plan. We had $25 billion on the table that Democrats voted for in February. He's not asking for all the money, he's asking for a fourth of the money to deal with the damage done by the caravan, and to secure our border, and to stop future caravans from coming. A compromise is taking less than what was on the table before, so (INAUDIBLE) this year.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Do you feel like that's already a compromise?

GRAHAM: Yes! And put DACA on the table.

MACCALLUM: Looking to your crystal ball, look towards Christmas, New Years. Are you guys all still up there working. Does this get resolved, or does the president throw up his hands and say, "You know, I'm going to turn to a military option again." Because he said as much in the Oval Office today.

GRAHAM: Well, I'd hate to take money out of our military budget because we need it for other things. Here is what I think. The president is on the right side of this issue. He's got to deal with this obstruction now, this hypocrisy now, this Liberal arrogance now. It only get (INAUDIBLE) next year.

MACCALLUM: So you recommend a shutdown if necessary.

GRAHAM: I recommend sticking to securing the border that is broken. And the difference between $1.6 and $5 billion is what we're talking about, it's a reasonable request, we need more money for the border, and if you don't see more threats to our border in this year versus last than you're just not watching the same movie I'm watching.

The president needs to make the case, he's being reasonable, and they hate him so much. They want him to lose, and the country to lose. I mean, at the end of the day, they had rather him loose and the country win.

Stick with it, Mr. President. You're on the right side of this issue. You will win this case with the American people.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Senator Lindsey Graham, always good to have you, sir.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Have a good night. So coming up next, Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy, response to explosive accusations claiming that he tried to suppress women from leadership positions in his party, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TED POE, R-TX: If I move from here and go over there and sit with my Democrat friends which will make them real nervous, does Google track my movement? Does Google through this phone know that I have moved here and moved over to the left. It's either yes or no.

SUNDAR PICHAI, GOOGLE CEO: Not by default. There may be a Google service which you've opted in to use, and if --

POE: So Google knows that I am moving over there. It's not a trick question. You know, you make $100 million a year, you ought to be able to answer that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That's one of many interesting moments today on the Hill. The CEO of Google was there today, he's answering lawmakers questions over privacy and the company's sweeping data collection of pretty much everything that we do and everywhere we go as was pointed out by the Congressman there. The search engine suppression of conservative voices was also on the docket as was its relationship which some are concerned about with China.

Republican Kevin McCarthy of California helped to arrange a Sundar Pichai's appearance on the Hill today and made an opening statement. He joins us now. Congressman McCarthy, good to see you as always. Thanks for being here tonight. What was the biggest takeaway for you today? What's your biggest concern about Google and bias and China?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-Calif., HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Well, the first thing you have to understand is how powerful Google is. The Wall Street Journal says 90 percent of all searches on the Internet go through Google. Think about that power. And if you end up the amount of information you're gathered, the power of what they have you see, two-thirds of all adults get their information from the internet, and Google also owns YouTube. So there's a -- the thing that concerned me the most, of course, it was privacy, of course, it was political bias, but what really concerned me was the dealings with China, this Dragonfly.

Remember in 2010, I give Google a lot of credit. They pulled out of China because they said they did not want a censure the individuals in there, see what they are doing on the Internet. But now they talk about doing Dragonfly. He said they weren't working with the Chinese government but they had 100 engineers working on a long-term project. To have 100 engineers working on a project such as that concerns me about which going forward. And Sundar did not rule out of one day in re-entering China.

And remember, when Google was created their motto was do no harm. They took that away a year or so ago, I wonder why.

MACCALLUM: Can the U.S. government, can Capitol Hill really keep Google from pursuing their business interests if they want to be international?

MCCARTHY: Well, this administration has some real concerns about some of the technology that China is doing. Remember, about $0.10 and others. So those technology companies are real concerning to me. My true belief is a free world needs a free and open Internet. So what does Google want to be? Do they want to be part of the free world? The things that China do about re-educating people that they disagree with their religions, monitoring individuals, and remember what China recently came out that they're going to score individuals inside the actions of their own government about whether they can even get on the bus or not. That's a real concern to me about moving forward. And I don't think Google would want to be a part of that.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to ask you about another story that came out today in Politico. And it reported that Congresswoman Ann Wagner very much wanted to be the head of the Republican -- of the National Republican Congressional Committee and that you discouraged her in favor of Tom Emmer who's some people according to this reporting believe was less qualified than she was for the job. What's your reaction to that? Can you explain that?

MCCARTHY: No, I never discourage anybody. We have competition for elections. Tom Emmer did win, Ann Wagner never ran at all. Ann Wagner is a dear friend. I think Ann Wagner is a very important part of our conference. She's going to be working on a suburban agenda. We look forward to working with her on that.

MACCALLUM: Did you discourage her from running? Did you say, you know what, you're not really the right person for this, I think Tom Emmer is?

MCCARTHY: No, I don't discourage anybody for running.

MACCALLUM: That conversation never happened.

MCCARTHY: No, I think competition is healthy.

MACCALLUM: All right, so Elise Stefanik is also really concerned. She says that she believes that the men in the Republican Party and leadership positions are not taking the lessons of the Midterms seriously enough. She says I'm going to keep pointing out to my colleagues that were at crisis level for GOP women. This election should be a wakeup call to Republicans that we need to be better. We need to be elevating women's voices not suppressing them.

MCCARTHY: Very true, and I say 100 percent true. That's why I even working with Elise Stefanik today. Remember, Elise is the individual who nominated me to become leader inside this conference. I'm an individual who created a program, not just young guns that elected more than a hundred Republicans inside, also funding the women inside Congress to help their leadership accounts. I'm the biggest donor to that. Elise and I are working together on a project across the country to help elect more women.

You know, we have some amazing women. Kristi Noem, Congresswoman Kristi Noem is now going to become the first woman governor of South Dakota. Or you look at Marsha Blackburn, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, she now moved on to become the first woman -- Republican Senator out of Tennessee. So we have an amazing set of group of women that are running --

MACCALLUM: I understood. Do you think the Republican Party has a problem with women and with women voters right now that you want to address? Is that fair to say?

MCCARTHY: Yes, yes. That's very fair to say. I think we lost the women vote in the process. We lost the suburban area. This is a place we need drastic improvement. Elise Stefanik was the youngest woman ever elected, one of the individuals that I helped from the very beginning in young guns and we want to be able to spread that across the country recruiting more women. We had more than a hundred women run last time. The biggest challenge for a Republican woman is not winning in the general election, it's winning in the primaries and I think that's a place you're going to see an improvement going forward in the next election cycle. That's one area that I'm going to work one of my hardest parts at.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to ask you a little bit about what you said yesterday in terms of Adam Schiff saying that he was very concerned about the president's potential campaign finance violation which seems to be so far the only thing that has surfaced as a potential issue legally and we'll see what else this whole thing goes, but you said if Schiff is taking this beyond to go forward and see there's an impeachable offense because of a campaign finance problem, there's a lot of members in Congress who would have to leave. What do you mean by that?

MCCARTHY: Well, here's what I met by that. Remember who Adam Schiff is. Adam Schiff is the same individual who before the investigation started two years ago said he had proof of collusion which he never brought forward, which no one has ever found in this process. So Adam is a little different individual when it comes there.

Adam, if he believes a campaign finance is an impeachable offense, that is not something that happens. Now, most members don't have a campaign finance problem, but when they do what you have is a fine, much like with you have us -- if you speed and get a ticket, you get a fine in that process. What we're talking about here today is the president actually hired an attorney to solve a problem. When you hire an attorney to solve a problem, you expect them to do it legally. It's more the attorney's problem than the individual who hired him. And for Adam Schiff --

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's what the President has said.

MCCARTHY: Yes, but that's the Adam Schiff taking it into a whole another level. It's the same Adam Schiff two years ago. He's putting his political bias for it and he's playing politics instead of really looking at the substance of the problem.

MACCALLUM: I got to go. I've got 20 seconds but are you guys going to be able to pass a bill that has $5 billion in wall funding before you leave for the holidays or are you going to be here throughout Christmas and perhaps throughout New Year's?

MCCARTHY: Well, the answer here is yes in the House. The question as it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Would Senator Schumer want to have another shut down like he had before?

MACCALLUM: So you do have 218 votes in the House t0 pass $5 billion for wall funding, your 100 percent confident on that?

MCCARTHY: Yes, I am.

MACCALLUM: OK. Kevin McCarthy, thank you very much. Good to see you, sir.

MCCARTHY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: As you know, Nancy Pelosi said those votes were not there. And also tomorrow I mentioned were going to talk to Ann Wagner and Elise Stefanik about the issue of women and leadership in the GOP on Capitol Hill. Also coming up tonight, why NASA is trying to convince NBA Star Steph Curry that that happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So tonight, there's growing outrage over a case of alleged campus rape, a former fraternity president facing four counts of sexual assault got what many believed to be a slap on the wrist from this judge and now his accuser is firing back tonight.

Trace Gallagher with the story from our west coast newsroom. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. The unnamed victim says in February 2016 she was sipping a drink at the Baylor fraternity party when she became disoriented and confused. She claims Phi Delta Theta president Jacob Anderson led her out to a secluded part of the property, forced her to the ground and repeatedly and violently raped her, both orally and vaginally.

She says at some point she lost consciousness and woke up face down in her own vomit. She was able to find a friend who took her to a hospital where police say the rape was verified. Jacob Anderson was indicted for sexual assault and the family of the victim says she was told, quote, "there was enormous amounts of evidence and the conviction was almost sure."

And now two and a half years after living through hell, the D.A. has decided not to bother even trying to get justice. In fact, after a deal was cut, Jacob Anderson agreed to plead no contest to a charge of unlawful restraint and was sentenced by Judge Ralph Strother to three years of deferred probation, meaning, he won't spend a day in jail, he won't have to register as a sex offender and if he completes probation won't have a criminal record.

And the victim learned about the plea deal by an e-mail from the assistant D.A. who wrote, quote, "I realize this is not the outcome we had hoped for or that I had originally offered but I tried a similar case last March and lost."

In accepting the plea, this marks the third time Judge Strother has sentenced a man accused of sexual assault to probation, the judge is aware of the outrage caused by his decision but says comments on social media were, quote, "not fully informed, misinformed, or totally uninformed." The victim's defense attorney says the judge's sentence shows that rape is no longer a crime in Texas. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Facts there are incredible. He nearly choked her to death, he raped her violently, he left her passed out in her own vomit. The rape exam confirmed rape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: In a tearful statement to the court, the victim said in part, quote, "I have to live with the fact that my rapist will go home smiling and happy and laughing at me, he stole my body, virginity, and power over my body and you let him keep it for all eternity."

Eighty-five thousand people around the world have now signed a petition asking the judge to deny the plea. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Awful story. Trace, thank you very much. So, coming up next, good news for the president when it comes to China tonight. And also, when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue, not a great day for Michael Avenatti, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight. The president gets a big win from China when it comes to U.S. autos, President Trump also goes after Kim Jong-un's right-hand man for flagrant and egregious human rights abuses and brutal state-sponsored censorship in North Korea.

Two big issues that are clearly good ones, good moves for the president tonight that you haven't heard that much about today in the reporting. Marc Thiessen joins me now, American Enterprise Institute scholar and Fax News contributor.

Obviously, there's always a lot of focus on Russia and all that is plaguing--

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Sure.

MACCALLUM: -- the Oval Office and the machinations at the chief of staff. But you know, these are two stories that caught our attention that have gone under the radar a bit. First of all, Marc, with regard to North Korea, the president promised back in Singapore that he was going to get serious about pressing on human rights. Is this reflective of that?

THIESSEN: Well, it's reflective of a broader strategy which is to be tough but willing to talk. I mean, it doesn't get a lot of attention but as you pointed out he just imposed the sanctions on basically three people in Kim Jong-un's inner circle which is obviously not going to make them happy.

In August he imposed sanctions on Russian companies that were violating sanctions and helping North Korea evade those sanctions closing off a loophole in the sanctions that were allowing them to pull in hard currency.

In November he restarted the small-scale military exercises with South Korea which is taking back something that he had given Kim during the Singapore summit. So what he is doing is, he is willing to talk, he's willing to sit down at the table but he's putting the squeeze on them economically, diplomatically, and he's making clear he's not going to play the game that all of his predecessors did, which is we'll give you, you make some symbolic meaningless concession by blowing up a water tower and we'll give you billions of dollars.

Those sanctions are not coming off until North Korea completes says, this is their word, completes the irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons, its chemical weapons program, its biological weapons program and its ballistic missiles. And if he sticks to that he's doing a good job.

MACCALLUM: Yes. That's obviously the goal and they keep pushing at it over and over which is what it's going to take.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: We'll see where it goes. With regard to China, you know, the markets have been having roller coaster nausea, basically all week and a lot of it comes from the trade issues, some of it comes from interest rates in outlook.

THIESSEN: Sure.

MACCALLUM: But this is a pretty big development. When China takes their tariffs on U.S. autos from 40 percent down to 10 percent--

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that looks like they are starting to blink a little bit.

THIESSEN: They are, and that's because, again, Donald Trump is coming into these negotiations from a position of strength. Look, China is an economic predator, they steal our intellectual property, they enforce American companies doing business in China to handover technology.

They put both tariff and nontariff barriers that prevent American companies from doing business fairly, competing fairly in dozens of sectors of their economy.

And so, what past presidents used to do is they'd file a complaint with the WTO. And what Donald Trump did is he came in and said no, we are not playing that game anymore just like he did with North Korea, and he said we are going to put 10 percent sanctions on $200 billion worth of Chinese product.

And by the way, if you don't capitulate, we're going to raise it to 25 percent next year. And the Chinese what they did was thought they were very clever. They went and they decided you know what we're going to do? We're going to target retaliatory tariffs against Trump voters, the rural farmers, we are going to go after soybean producers who are Trump voters.

And so, they targeted states like Indiana and Missouri and North Dakota thinking they could help Democrats take back the Senate and give Trump a blow. And instead the rural voters stuck with Trump and they threw the Democratic senators out. So now he's going into the negotiations where China took its kill shot at him, its political kill shot and they failed.

And so, he's in a position of strength, and he's telling them he's giving them a message whereas, the markets don't like but what China understands, which is I'm perfectly happy with tariffs. I'll have a deal if you want a deal, we'll do a deal. If you want to do tariffs, I'm a tariff man. And that freaks out the markets but the reality is that only if China understands that will they cave in--

MACCALLUM: Yes.

THIESSEN: -- and start behaving properly. And so, he's got to get that message across even if the markets don't like it.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And you know, short term, business folks and the markets get very nervous about this but in the same breath--

THIESSEN: Sure.

MACCALLUM: -- across the board executives that I talked to say well, he's not wrong. THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You know, and if he sticks to it, he may actually get somewhere, which is, you now, more than we've have in the past.

THIESSEN: Exactly.

MACCALLUM: And one other piece of good news that isn't getting a lot of attention is that Stormy Daniels now has to pay according to a judge in California, she has to pay back the president $293,000 plus extra for attorney's fees tonight. Final thought on that before I let you go, Marc?

THIESSEN: Yes. That's, I mean, that's good news for President Trump. And look, I mean, this Stormy Daniels thing, it's like we had the Mueller probe which was supposed to be about Russian collusion. Remember when Russian collusion was the issue? And now it's about porn star payoffs, and the Trump organization.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Sounds familiar, isn't it?

THIESSEN: And campaign finance violations. Guess what, I've got news for you. Donald Trump is not going to be impeached because of porn star payoffs. It's not going to happen and if Democrats try to do if they are going to pay a terrible political price in the 2020 elections.

MACCALLUM: Marc, thank you. Always great to see you.

THIESSEN: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Marc Thiessen tonight from Washington.

THIESSEN: Great to see you too.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, why NASA feels that they need to prove Steph Curry wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN CURRY, BASKETBALL PLAYER, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: We ever been to the moon?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Basketball superstar Steph Curry making news off the court for some controversial comments that he made during a podcast about whether America and our astronauts have ever really been to the moon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPH: We ever been to the moon? No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

CURRY: They are going to come get us. I don't think so, either. Sorry, I don't want to start conspiracies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I don't want to, they are going to come and get us. His skepticism even getting the attention of NASA, which you can understand why who responded to the two-time NBA MVP saying this. "We would love for Mr. Curry to tour the lunar lab at our Johnson Space Center in Houston. We have hundreds of pounds of moon rocks stored there, and the Apollo mission control. During his visit he can see firsthand what we did 50 years ago. In fact, there were six visits by men to the moon between 1969 and 1972."

Here now Derrick Pitts, chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute. Thank you very much, sir for being here. You know, what goes through your mind when you listen to this sort of chitchat suggesting that the hard work and the failures and the lives lost in the effort to make it to the moon seems to have been lost on someone like this?

DERRICK PITTS, CHIEF ASTRONOMER AND PLANETARIUM DIRECTOR, FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Well, the first thing I'll say about it, Martha, is that it's an inflammatory question to begin with, you know. Of course, it's a fact that six crews went to the moon and all the rocks were brought back and it was a huge national effort to make this happen. And we see the outcome of this every day in the various technologies that we use.

But what really brings to mind is that this is an area in which we're really not so much talking about Steph Curry himself but we are really talking about what nonbelievers actually do believe. What do they believe? Why do they believe it? And where did they get their information from?

Now I can understand what NASA wants to do by inviting Curry to come to the lab and look at the rocks and look at the equipment and all, that sort of stuff. But you know, that's very much like an English-speaking person going to a different country and expecting the non-English speakers better understand English if I speak louder and slower. It's very much like that.

It's not that I have to convince Curry that this is what actually happened, I have to find out what it is that the person, those nonbelievers believe, why they believe that and find out, you know, other things along these lines about where they got their information there.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That somehow these conspiracy theories have more gravity with them, so to speak, then reality does. And why they are inclined to believe it. And I just wonder, you know, we live in a moment where there is, you know, A.I. and virtual reality and everything is a green screen, and people are often, you know, have backdrops.

I'm actually sitting in New York City right now but I could have a backdrop that looks like New York City and not be here. Is that part of what we are seeing with younger people today?

PITTS: Yes. A lot of -- a lot of what we are seeing is that we have great capability to create images, you know, digitally without any difficulty at all and we can make things look extraordinarily real.

But the real issue is that some time ago we had many fewer really trusted sources of information and we can look along our lifelines and to see all kinds of different sources of trusted information, but nowadays there are innumerable sources of information available to people at the push of a button, at the drop of a hat. You can get to any one of innumerable sources of news.

However, you know, those agencies that put out news do not have any obligation to be objective or truthful. They can even drive their own agenda looking for people to support their positions.

So, since we know longer have a short number, a very small number of trusted sources, we can believe anything we want. And we very often can choose to believe in someone who says what we want to hear rather than an objective point of view. So, it's really much more about the idea that we need to be able to identify what these trusted sources are and people need to have trusted sources that can be objective.

MACCALLUM: Understood.

PITTS: Truly objective.

MACCALLUM: But you know, and I also think it's a bit of lapse in terms of what we are taught in school and the history of this country and exploration and understanding that, you know, just from a purely academic perspective. So, I would be remiss -- before I let you go, why are you, what convinces you that we went to the moon?

PITTS: Well, a couple things convince me that we went to the moon. First of all, I work for a particular system that has an innumerable number of checks and balances to make sure that what's being presented is actually correct. In fact, the scientific method itself is based on the idea that you crowdsource for people to pull apart your work to check to make sure that it's right, not because they want to prove you wrong but because they want to make sure that your work is correct so that their work that they build on can also be correct.

Also, I happened to be around at the time when that, when those missions took place, and I could see what was actually happening at the time as real. The folks that were presented through that particular program weren't around at the time and they also can pick and choose whatever resources they want.

Now we could go down the line saying the schools aren't really doing their job but that's just another situation in which you have to have a trusted authority that presents information that you want to accept from that authority if you trust that authority. If you decide you don't want to trust that authority, then you're not going to believe what they say.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PITTS: And you have to remember also that when we look at a series of events put together and we described that as a story line, we call that history--

MACCALLUM: Right.

PITTS: -- which is his story.

MACCALLUM: Well, I've interviewed Gene Cernan many times I did interview him. Buzz Aldrin and I can tell Steph Curry that there is no doubt that Americans sacrifice a great deal and indeed went to the moon and walked on its surface.

(CROSSTALK)

PITTS: And I've also met--

MACCALLUM: Derrick Pitts--

PITTS: -- and spoke to a number of astronauts who went to the moon and I firmly believe that is exactly what happened.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Derrick Pitts, good to see you tonight. All right. Coming up back to this very difficult topic, in terms of the Catholic priests who abused children, and apparently are still on the payroll. Father Jonathan Morris up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Shocking report tonight out of Pennsylvania finds that more than 78 priests accused of child sex abuse are still being paid, collecting checks and pensions from Catholic dioceses across the state, even after they are being removed by their ministry from the local bishops.

It's a problem that could partially traced back to the pope, who has required to formally sign off on all priests being ousted from the priesthood. A process that can take decades.

Joining me now, Father Jonathan Morris a Fox News religion analyst who we talk to a lot about these stories, as difficult as they are, it's extremely important. So, explain to everybody why it would be that these priests would still be paid and supported by the diocese and by the contributions that churchgoers put into the basket every week.

JONATHAN MORRIS, RELIGION ANALYST: First of all, we should be thankful that they are no longer administrating.

MACCALLUM: True.

MORRIS: We're talking about 78 priests that are no longer in ministry. Thank God. And the reason why they are still being paid or getting pensioned is because there has been no criminal or civil case against them. In the case of law.

MACCALLUM: Right. They are not being convicted.

MORRIS: So, exactly. So, it's similar to come I don't if it's a perfect analogy, but for example, in a police department, when somebody is accused of something, and they haven't been able to actually convict them of something, they go to basically--

MACCALLUM: A desk job.

MORRIS: -- a desk job.

MACCALLUM: Right.

MORRIS: Rubber room, something like that.

MACCALLUM: The teachers go to the rubber room.

MORRIS: OK. Teachers and police--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: The police officers go to the desk job.

MORRIS: But in this case, it's because the accusations have been way before the statute of limitations would allow a case to come against them. If they were police officers or teachers, they would actually still be teaching.

Let me explain what I mean by that. In the case of a priest right now, if there is any case that is presented that there has been a credible situation of an abuse against a minor, that priest is immediately removed, no matter when it was--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And teachers are no removed if there's a credible case of--

MORRIS: -- to 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

MACCALLUM: -- abuse?

MORRIS: You are talking about something that's before the statute of limitations from 30 or 40 years ago, you think something is coming before the Department of Education? No, nothing is happening. Right now, the situation with priests is very different. It's in no way--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: There's no doubt about that.

MORRIS: -- in no way does that justify.

MACCALLUM: But a lot of people want the statute of limitations changed.

MORRIS: OK. They are not.

MACCALLUM: And they also want to change in these other -- you I know believe it needs to be changed everywhere and not just--

(CROSSTALK)

MORRIS: Well, no. I would say if you are going to change it in the Catholic Church, change it everywhere.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

MORRIS: But governments don't want that. The city of New York doesn't want that. Why? Because all of a sudden, the government would have these massive lawsuits against it.

I believe the Vatican has a great responsibility here that it hasn't really taken on, and that is these cases of abuse, because it's so serious, because it is a child, they need to stay even though there can't be a criminal or civil case, we are going to--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: We are making on our judgment.

MORRIS: -- and we are going to make it efficient too. We are going to make it efficient so there aren't people paid by people in the Pews' dollars who are actually guilty. And that needs to happen.

MACCALLUM: Father Jonathan, thank you very much.

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.