Jill Stein refuses to fully comply with Senate Russia probe

close

Video

Jill Stein refuses to fully comply with Senate Russia probe

Green Party's Jill Stein is refusing to turn over certain documents after Senate Russia investigation's request; Jill Stein explains on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 3, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST: Thank you, Shannon. We'll see you later tonight. So, a retracted story from NBC about Michael Cohen and now a pitched battle by the president to fight back against the Mueller probe in a way we have not seen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: This has become a witch hunt to like president said. They think the truth is defined by James Comey. James Comey is the biggest liar of 2016-2017. The basis of the case is dead. Sessions should step in and close it and say enough is enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Wow, a lot there. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story." It now seems pretty clear that the first meeting between the president's new attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and the special counsel, Robert Mueller, likely did not go all that well. Because if you look at that meeting and what came right after it, that is when this whole thing became a brand-new ball game. Lawyer Ty Cobb was out. 49-questions were then leaked to the press and the new man on the team everywhere pressing new lines of attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's not campaign money. No, campaign finance violation. If you are wealthy, you are a target.

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: People pay that kind of money even when it's not true. In fact, sometimes they pay it when it's not true, even more than when it's true, because it's so unfair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, this is a sparring stance that the president is known for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I only go after them when they go after me. I'm a counter puncher. If they go after me, I go after them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Giuliani's media blitz triggered yet another new salvo from the Mueller side in the form of a leak to NBC news this afternoon, that then turned out to be wrong. NBC reported that Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, had been wiretapped. And then, at least one of the calls that he had made that was picked up was to the White House. Giuliani said at the time, he didn't think that that was true. And he turned out to be right. NBC issued a correction saying that he was surveilled; the meaning and the difference of that in just a moment. Tonight, joining me, Corey Lewandowski, Michael Caputo, and law professor Jonathan Turley. First, we go to Trump Campaign Manager and Author of the book: "Let Trump be Trump", Corey Lewandowski. Corey, good to see you tonight. Thanks for being here.
So, it's pretty clear that we have seen a real sort of tact here, a real change in the way they're going about this.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND AUTHOR: I think that's right. And what you see now is Mayor Giuliani, a very well-known, well-respected, former prosecutor understands what the Mueller team is trying to do, and what he's outlined here is very clear. There has been no evidence of collusion whatsoever. And so, for the entire premise of this investigation which was supposed to be looking into whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to impact the election, that has not occurred. And now it's spun off in a series of different other things that they're looking into. And what the mayor is saying is: let's end this or we're going to fight about what you really should be looking into.

MACCALLUM: What you think Rudy Giuliani really picked up on in that meeting that he had with Robert Mueller, when he took over the job and said, look, let's sit down, let's talk about where we are here? What do you think he picked up on that triggered all of these changes?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, I don't know, but my guess would be is that the mayor sat down with the Mueller probe people, and realize that they had no evidence whatsoever of collusion, which is exactly what the president has been saying, which is exactly what I've been saying from day one -- there is no evidence of collusion. So, if that is the goal was supposed to be, was to find any potential evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians or foreign officials, none of that exists. And I think probably what the mayor found out during that time was it didn't exist.

MACCALLUM: Well, we're about to talk to Michael Caputo in a minute, who says that he was shocked at everything that the Mueller team knew, about every intricacy of this campaign. So, we'll see. One of the things that I'm still going back to is this issue of the 49 questions. I want you to look very carefully at this passage from The Washington Post story. It says, "In the wake of the testy March 5th meeting, Mueller's team agreed to provide the president's lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that the prosecutors wanted to discuss. With those details in hand, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believe the president would be asked." That suggests, Corey, that the
49 questions didn't come from Mueller side, they came from Jay Sekulow. Do you know if that is true?

LEWANDOWSKI: I do not know if it's true, but what's amazing to me is how all of this information gets played out in the media every day. I mean, look, it's really astonishing. This is supposed to be a series of professionals having communications back and forth about if the president is going to sit down and have an interview, what the scope of the conversation is going to be? Is it going to be interrogatories and questions answered, or is it going to be something else? And we see all of this in the news every day. And maybe that's a credit to some of the media agency, but really, to me, it's more disturbing of the information that's getting out and being leaked from all over the place.

MACCALLUM: That's true. There's a lot of it. I want to know what you think about this $130,000. The president said on the plane, you know, I don't know anything about it; you have to ask my personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Then, Rudy Giuliani comes on last night and talks to Sean Hannity, and said the president paid him back. That's a new story. What do you think went on here?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, that is new information. I was not aware of the information prior to Mayor Giuliani releasing that information to Sean Hannity. But what it sounded like was that there was a stipend every month to Mr. Cohen in the amount of, I think, it was $35,000 a month or something like that. That was just paid consistently over a period of time. And for my understanding of what the mayor said, that money was not paid for from the campaign, has nothing to do with the campaign finance violation; that money directly from then Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen. And there's a series of payments that just seem to take course over a regular period of time.

MACCALLUM: Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' attorney was lapping this up. I mean, he seems to think that this is a huge issue that the president has now admitted that he reimbursed or his attorney has said he reimbursed him. He said bring it on. You know, I see this all the time. I know exactly the game that these guys are playing.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, you know, it's amazing. That attorney has spent more time on television than he has litigating his own client's case. It's amazing. All he does is go on television, and he's trying this court -- he's trying this case in the court of public opinion. And what mayor Giuliani revealed last night was that Mr. Trump, as a private citizen, had a contractual relationship with his attorney and paid him a series of payments over a standard period of time every month. That is not a newsworthy event. But this is what Stormy Daniels wants to make a newsworthy event. This is standard operating procedure for most people who deal with their attorneys -- they just pay them every month. I don't understand what the question is.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I just want to ask you a quickly. Olivia (INAUDIBLE), who actually wrote a story that was interviewed with Michael Caputo -- who's coming up next. You are suing her; she apparently went into your house uninvited?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, apparently. She's admitted -- according to her. According to her, she broke into my home in Washington, D.C. -- we call that breaking and entering unless you call it something else, right? You can't just walk into somebody's home, she took pictures inside the home. And all of a sudden, a photo album that was at my home has gone missing right after she left. Now, I'm not accusing her, I'm just telling you the facts. You can't just walk into somebody else's home and say it's under the guise of journalism. That's not how it works. So, you know, my attorney has notified her employer that we will continue to pursue legal action on this. Because if this was me walking, or a conservative reporter walk into the home of pick-a-liberal-commentator, whoever that may be, the media would be in outrage. But instead, she has the audacity to open -- she knocked for 10 minutes and nobody answered, and then she has let herself in. How do you do that? That is a crime. She has to be held accountable.

MACCALLUM: All right. Corey, thank you. We'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for being here tonight.

LEWANDOWSKI: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, my next guest is a former Trump Campaign Senior Advisor, who was grilled by Special Counsel Mueller's team just yesterday, and he joins us now in an exclusive, Michael Caputo. Michael, good to see you. Welcome back to the program tonight.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: Thanks for inviting me.

MACCALLUM: So, you were -- you've already been question by the hill, but yesterday, you sat down with Mueller folks, what was that like?

CAPUTO: Yes, yesterday was my third trip to Washington in order to talk about the Russia collusion, delusion. And it was with Mueller, and the day before was with Senate Intelligence. It was very different from what I did at Senate Intelligence, and what I endured at House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last year. The Mueller investigation really wasn't, you know, trying to define something. Every question they asked, they already have the answer to. So, from my perspective, they're quite directive in what they're doing. They still believe in the theory of Russia collusion, but of course my perspective is a little bit tilted, because I would not be asked about obstruction, I was not in the administration when these allegations were launched, and they wouldn't ask me about financial crimes, because I have nothing to do with some of the allegations that are floating around by some of the other folks. It would be all Russian conclusion you would think, but from my perspective, that book is not closed yet.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know, not the specific questions, but in terms of your feeling from what they were asking, did you get any sense of how far along they are or if they seem to be wrapping this up or whether they are midway through? Did you get any indication of that?

CAPUTO: I think they're pretty far along. They had the, -- you know, without interfering with the investigation, I have to be quite careful about what I say. In fact, it was a little bit of an intimidating session, so I'm being overcautious, frankly.

MACCALLUM: How so?

CAPUTO: Well, it was very clear that they did not want me to talk about this stuff. And I think I that I can characterize what I exchanged with them, but I think that everybody has been on caution by the Mueller team that are going out there and talking about a chapter in verses, that's highly discouraged. You know, if somebody over there gets mad, they can invite me back to Washington and it's another $25,000.

MACCALLUM: I understand, and I don't doubt it. You know -- In terms of the question, and I know you can't talk about the questions specifically. But you know, in terms of the way that they were questioning you, you know, do you feel like you're a target or that you -- what was your take away? Did you walk out there feeling, like, OK, I'm done and they got what they wanted and then they didn't find anything of interest with me?

CAPUTO: Well, you know, they told me at the beginning, and they told my attorney when they invited me, and when I decided to come willingly that I'm a witness, not a subject or a target. And afterward, that did not change, but I think that they were looking for an opportunity to make me a subject in this thing, but at the same time -- you know, they're talking about WikiLeaks and D.C. leaks and gossiper, and things like that. They're still very --

MACCALLUM: But you said that they knew more about the campaign than you did yourself. What did you mean by that?

CAPUTO: Well, I actually said that they know more about the campaign than any one person does who worked there. They have all of the documents that were produced. They have all of the emails from everyone. They've further documentation from people who worked outside the campaign -- their e-mails, their text, they have the entire campaign text. They know chapter and verse on the campaign, and yet, it does not sound like they have proof of collusion delusion.

MACCALLUM: Michael Cavuto, thank you very much. I know you've been through a lot, and you're happy -- you hopefully can move on with your life, and we hope they'll be able to do that too. Good to see you today. Thank you, sir.

CAPUTO: Thank you very much.

MACCALLUM: You bet. So here now, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Attorney at Law Professor at George Washington University. Jonathan, always good to have you here. So, how do you think Rudy Giuliani is doing so far, is helping or hurting this case?

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY AND LAW PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, I don't think this was a particularly stellar performance, to be absolutely honest. You know, you take these interviews under type of legal hypocritical oath to first do no harm. I do think that he caused some damage for the president. And much of it is not necessarily the defense, but the delivery in these interviews. Now, I don't see the intelligent design behind this. You know, for example, trying to convert what was treated as a gift into a loan, does not take you out of the campaign finance problem. Now, we can talk about how serious a campaign finance allegation may be -- these are not often prosecuted, but it is simply not true that just because the money did not come from the campaign this is clearly not a campaign finance violation.

Indeed, by saying this alone, it can trip other wires including new reporting problems even tax problems, so I was a little bit surprised by that whole take. Now, in other respects, I think that he's been unfairly criticized. You know, for example, people have said that he implicated Trump in an obstruction of justice by saying Trump that fired Comey because he refused to make public what he had said privately. I wrote a column today in The Hill saying, over a year ago, I wrote that I was surprised the media was not addressing that very obvious defense, because the president stated that defense.

MACCALLUM: He did say that. He clearly said that that was something that bothered him way back.

TURLEY: Right.

MACCALLUM: There doesn't need to be one specific reason that he decided -- usually, when you decide to fire someone, it's a culmination of a lot of different things, isn't it?

TURLEY: It is. And what concerns me is that the media has focused on one narrative to the exclusion of others and this explanation is actually the best supported. Other witnesses have said that the president was very upset that James Comey told people outside the FBI in Congress that he was not a target, and he clearly felt that he's being treated unfairly. Now, should he have raised that with Comey? No. I don't think he should have. But that's not a crime. But also, this is not a new defense. It is certainly not obstruction of justice in my view.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, what about this wiretapping issue, because there was sort of this, you know, heated reporting this afternoon from NBC that the calls had been recorded from Michael Cohen's office, and that one of them was to the White House. And then they had to come back and retract that and, you know, surveillance, which I think we can describe very much as metadata. You know, sort of the numbers, the phone numbers that come in and go out, and the length of the call, right?

TURLEY: Well, it's sort of ironic, isn't it? Because the media is now saying, well, the surveillance -- these are often the same outfits that criticized the president for using the term "wiretap", instead of surveillance. Even though his generation often referred to wiretapping as surveillance. So, it does sound like what they are describing is a pen register to capture all of the numbers and durations. And that is often sort of freely granted, and freely implemented by the Justice Department; it does not include content of the communications.

MACCALLUM: All right. You know, in terms of the approach which is sort of like a scorched earth, you know, very aggressive approach that they're taking, why do you think that they're doing that? And do you think it's wise?

TURLEY: I do not think it is wise. But clearly, it is a change in strategy. Ty Cobb was known for someone who wanted to try to thread this needle, wanted to see if they could narrow the category, sit down the president, and get this over with. I do not see the end game, because if they force a subpoena, and it is challenge, I think Mueller will win. Now, they can narrow the subject and narrow the time, but at the end of the day, the case law favors Mueller. The biggest danger is if he forces the president into a grand jury, he goes in there without counsel, and that is a significant danger for the president.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan Turley, thank you. Always good to see you. Thanks for coming out tonight.

TURLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next from bro hugs to blank stares, President Trump meeting with Angela Merkel, not exactly playing out like the visit with Emmanuel Macron. But the newly confirmed, as of today -- there he is, being sworn in, our new U.S. Ambassador to Germany, say something very different happened when the cameras were not rolling. That is going to make his new job quite interesting. Rick Grenell, fresh of his swearing in ceremony, joins me exclusively when we come back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my high honor to introduce to you the 29th United States Ambassador to Germany, Ambassador Richard Grenell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PENCE: And then, I will well and faithfully discharge.

RICHARD GRENELL, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY: And then I will well and faithfully discharge.

PENCE: The duty the office on which I'm about to enter.

GRENELL: The duty the office on which I'm about to enter.

PENCE: So, help me God.

GRENELL: So, help me God.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: A historic moment, nearly a year in the making for U.S. Ambassador to Germany. We have one now, Richard Grenell who has his work cut out for him after President Trump said just last week that he doesn't think all of the European countries are paying their fair share to NATO, including Germany. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We need a reciprocal relationship, which we don't have. The chancellor and I have discussed it today at length and we're working on it. And we want to make it more fair. And the chancellor wants to make it more fair. The same thing with NATO.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Talking trade and NATO there. Here now exclusively in his first interview since being sworn in is U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Rick Grenell. How does that sound, Rick? Do you like that handle?

GRENELL: It sounds very weird. Please, just call me Rick.

MACCALLUM: So, tell me what that was like today. Because I know, you know, as we said in the intro, this took forever, it was held up in the senate for months, and months, and months.

GRENELL: Yes. Look -- I mean, look, I'm humbled and honored. It's amazing. One of the reasons why I got really focused on Candidate Donald Trump and Mike Pence and the ticket, and to really try to push forward was simply because they askew politics, and they're really focused on the American people, and the American taxpayer in particular. And what I saw last Friday when I was sitting in on the meetings watching President Trump negotiate with Chancellor Angela Merkel, really, I have to tell you was a culmination of 25 years working in the industry, I have longed to work for a president who really focuses on the taxpayer. This is a guy who is incredibly good at the negotiations. I wish that every American could see him do it, because he's completely relentless about the American taxpayer. And he does it in a very nice way. He's actually very complimentary to the other side. It's really the art of the deal, it's quite amazing.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it is. It's fascinating to hear you say that. He worked for a number of administrations, you are at the United Nations for a long time, and I know you were frustrated by what you saw. You know, what is President Trump like with Angela Merkel? I mean, not to betray anything from behind closed doors but, you know, just in terms of how he -- because everybody thinks they do not have a great relationship, but you're talking about the way that he's able to press, but to do so diplomatically.

GRENELL: Oh, he was extremely complementary Chancellor Merkel, and what she has accomplished, and he does it in a way that is real. Look, to be in that moment, you have to understand that when you're watching two people negotiate, too officials, what I've usually see is that a U.S. official make a plea to the other side, to come along to our side, to do what we want, because it's the right thing to do or we make this a moral argument about, you know, this is what we believe that the world looks like or this is what we should do. And I think that it does not work that way. The other side usually brings in their economy, brings in their trade issues, and they integrate the issues into a negotiation. President Trump is the first U.S. official that I've seen that actually pulled in every piece of the Agricultural Department.

MACCALLUM: It's really interesting. I mean, he has said with the southern border, you know, going to be about NATO. You know, if we don't have security, it's going to hurt you there. He's joining the economic issue with the diplomatic issue in a way that I think is completely unprecedented. And you've seen that, you know, from the front row. The Iran deal, it's largely believed that he's not going to recertify this on May 12th. So, you're going to be in a situation where you're going to have to approach that discussion with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Do you think there's room for European countries to come along and renegotiate that deal?

GRENELL: Let me tell you where there is room for German companies to stop doing business inside Iran, we cannot have that. You look at what Iran does, their human rights record, whether it's working to destabilize Syria. They've got -- look, the world's importer of terrorism. They're a state sponsor of terrorism. They spend billions of dollars to spread terrorism around the world. Why would a country want to do business with them? So, I think it's going to be incumbent upon me to kind of explain to the German businesses that they do not want to do business inside Iran. It's just not right.

MACCALLUM: What about trade? I mean, clearly, you heard the president in that sound bite, he wants there to be a reciprocal agreement. He's doing bilateral agreements pretty much with every single country. How is that going to work?

GRENELL: Look, I think that it can work. First of all, when it comes to Germany, Germany is the largest economy in Europe. So, they're eager to have a working trade relationship with the United States. As President Trump says, it needs to be free and fairer. And so, that's what we're going to work towards.

MACCALLUM: All the best to you, Rick, in the new position ambassador to Germany, the 29th, did they say?

GRENELL: The 29th.

MACCALLUM: 29th ambassador to Germany. A lot of history there, thanks, Rick. We'll talk to you soon. Best of luck.

GRENELL: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, a catholic chaplain working on Capitol Hill -- there's always a chaplain on Capitol Hill says he was forced to step down by Paul Ryan. But then, today the priest says, you know what, I'm leaving. So, what happens next? And capitalism is what made America great, but Hillary Clinton says, it does not work so well for a Democrat on the campaign trail. Marc Thiessen and Juan Williams, here to explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE MODERATOR: You may be the only presidential candidate since World War II that actually had to stand up and say, I am a capitalist. And you did, did it hurt to you?

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATES: Probably.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, it's been a long, long list that Hillary Clinton has come up with of reasons for "What Happened?", which was the title of her book -- why she lost the 2016 election. You've got Russia, Comey, Bernie Sanders, the DNC, President Obama, sexism, all of those have shared some of the blame, but now she says that being a capitalist also was a knock against her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE MODERATOR: The only presidential candidate since World War II that actually had to stand up and say I am a capitalist. And you did, did it hurt you?

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Probably. I mean, you know, it's hard to know. But, I mean, if you're in the Iowa caucuses and 41-percent of Democrats are socialists, or self-describe socialists, and I'm asked if you're a capitalists and I say, yes, but with the appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability, you know, that probably gets lost in the -- oh, my gosh, she's a capitalist.

MACCALLUM: Marc Thiessen joins me now, America Enterprise Institute scholar, and Fox News contributor, Juan Williams, cohost of The Five, and a Fox News political analyst. Gentlemen, good to see you tonight.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, Juan, in the Democrat Party is it a knock against you to be a capitalist?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, I think what the key point here is there're more Democrats who tells pollsters that they identify as socialists. Do not see socialism as a threat. And I think this is in part tied into Bernie Sanders. I think Sanders was very clear, and he continues, Martha, on the idea, for example, of guaranteed jobs for all Americans, and that has surprising support. A conservative pollster like Rasmussen has nearly half of the American saying that's a good idea. Similarly, I think support for things like more people being put on Medicare, an expansion of Obamacare, appeals to people in a way. And I think Sanders has in a populist mode more than a socialist mode, technically, I think appeal to people who feel as a result of income and equality in our country that they want the government to provide--

MACCALLUM: Does that bother you, Juan? That your party is moving that way, does it bother you?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- you know, it's not the party so much, because I don't think you see among the party leadership, but you do see it among young people who are at the heart of the Democratic Party.

MACCALLUM: I looked at a graph today and it showed -- you know, where most of the new candidates are that are running, and most of them fell between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

WILLIAMS: There you go.

MACCALLUM: Marc, what do you think?

THIESSEN: Well, if I was a Democrat I'd be terrified by those comments. First of all, she lost to a capitalist, probably the biggest capitalist ever to be elected president. So being a capitalist is not incompatible with getting elected President of the United States. In fact, if she'd done a better job of defending capitalism maybe she'd president right now. And capitalism is still in this country of majoritarian value. And it's not hard to defend it. I just don't understand why she can't defend it.
First of all, you don't call it capitalism, you call it free enterprise, which is what this country was built on.

And second of all, it's very simple to defend. In the last 40 years there has been an 80 percent reduction in the global -- in the worst poverty in the world which coincided with the decline of socialism across the world and the rise of Democratic capitalism.

Capitalism is free enterprise are the system that has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. Of course, we support capitalism. We don't support crony capitalism, which is what Hillary Clinton and bill Clinton practice because they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they've never produced anything in their lives. It's all through cronyism. As a capitalist, I'm against that kind of capitalism. I'm for free enterprise.

WILLIAMS: But, Marc, you know, it's interesting to me that, in fact, I think Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump supporters have a great deal in common. I think they're both strongly--

MACCALLUM: Not capitalism.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Go ahead.

WILLIAMS: But, I think, if you look at trade and the idea of tariffs, I think you see both Bernie supporters and Donald Trump supporters saying the little guy in America, in rustbelt towns, has been hit hard by these trade deals, we do not like it. We're not for unvarnished, unleashed capitalism. We think the government should protect us.

MACCALLUM: How? I mean, how protected you want to be?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: That's a fair debate. But, I think, Marc was making the case that it's just the Democrats and that no Trump supporters will be--

(CROSSTALK)

THIESSEN: -- for Donald Trump instead of Hillary for that reason. Look, no one is talking about -- you know, we're not talking about the monopoly guy with the monocle, you know, the symbol of what America represents. We're talking about the free enterprise system which allows -- and conservatives are against big business. We're for small business, free enterprise, which has produced more jobs and more prosperity than any system in human history.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I have half a minute left. What do you think about this chaplain issue on the hill? Marc, you know, the catholic chaplain was pushed out. Now, Paul Ryan says, you know, you can stay and we're going to meet next week and talk. What happened there?

THIESSEN: I'm not sure. But, I mean, I think it's not the chaplain -- I think it's not the chaplain job to go up and give a prayer on the floor that favors or puts his finger on legislation one way or another, which I think it seems what happened. But, you know, it's up to Paul Ryan who the chaplain of the House of Representatives is. And if decides that he want a new chaplain, that's his prerogative.

MACCALLUM: He's the only one who's ever been pushed out. And everybody
seems--

WILLIAMS: And he's a catholic. And he said very clearly that the tax cut should help everyone, and I guess Paul did not like it. But now, feeling the political backlash and thinking it's too strong, that's why he's opening the door to a return.

MACCALLUM: Don't mess with the chaplain, that's the lesson for now. Thanks you guys. Good to see you.

WILLIAMS: You're welcome.

THIESSEN: Take care.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, why investigators are ordering Jill Stein, remember Jill Stein? To hand over her documents related to Russia involvement in her campaign. And she handed over some, but she said some of them she's not going to disclose. No transparency there. She joins us next to explain why. And imagine finding out that someone that you've worked with for years had a secret life as a serial killer. The police officer who served alongside the Golden State killer, he had him in his home with his wife and his children, he is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FARREL WARD, RETIRED EXTER CALIFORNIA POLICE SERGEANT: Working with a serial killer, you know, that's -- I mean -- I guess I'm lucky to be alive and so are the other guys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: What a story this is. The suspected Golden State killer was back in a courtroom today. A judge ruled that prosecutors can collect DNA and fingerprints from Joseph D'Angelo who is believed to be behind at least a dozen killings and more than 50 rapes during the 70's and 80's. So, just last week after decades on the run, he was tracked down in part by detectives who used genealogy websites like ancestry and 23 and me, I do not know exactly which one it was, but has a lot of people wondering what exactly you give up when you spit and send your DNA to those sites?

It's something to think about, America. We'll talk more about that another night. But, my next guest is retired Exeter California police sergeant, Farrel Ward. He worked side-by-side along the alleged serial killer for three years. Farrel, welcome, good to have you here tonight, sir. Thank you for being with us.

FARREL WARD, RETIRED EXTER CALIFORNIA POLICE SERGEANT: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: I just cannot even imagine. I read about how you spent a lot of times side-by-side. You've never suspected him of anything like this. What was it like when you saw his picture and realized how close you had been to him all those years?

WARD: I was devastated. I just couldn't believe that one of our guys could do something like that.

MACCALLUM: Tell me what he was like or what he is like.

WARD: Pardon me?

MACCALLUM: Tell me what he is like, and what he was like then that led you to not suspect anything at all?

WARD: Well, he was a nice guy, but he's just off -- kind of by himself. He was educated -- educated person, but he did not have no common sense. He didn't like to joke around, play around, or anything. He's just kind of standoffish type guy.

MACCALLUM: So, you say that, you know, he was around you, he was in your house, around your family, what is it like when you hear about these murders and these rapes and you realize that it could have happened to anyone of you?

WARD: Yes, very much could. I had him in my house, we drank tea. He's even had dinner with me, because when we worked together, the person lives out of town and I'd usually invite him to my house because my wife cooked every night. And I would have one of the guys come have dinner with me at nighttime. So, I had my wife and my daughter there. And, never thought for a moment that something like this would happen.

MACCALLUM: Is there anything looking back, Farrel, that you think about when you think about things that he said or did that maybe shed some light on what was going on?

WARD: There was nothing. I couldn't believe it when I saw him on TV. But there was no indication whatsoever that this guy had any dark side to him whatsoever. He was just another policeman. Just like any of the other guys.

MACCALLUM: During that period, did you talk about this killer that was on the loose with him?

WARD: Well, yeah, we've talked about the killer where he killed the college professor. He tried to kidnap his 14-year-old daughter and the father came into the room to help his daughter and he was shot dead right there in front of his daughter.

MACCALLUM: And you talk to him about that, that crime at the time?

WARD: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And what was his reaction?

WARD: Not just him. He just didn't know who the sick guy was that would do something like that, just like the other policeman said that we talked about different things. And my senior P.D., they investigated it and he answered in. And then, the next week the police department put guys in different neighborhoods, the police officer drop them off in different parts of the city. And at night, there was a policeman that found him in the backyard.

And he -- they teach us in our training to hold your flashlight away from your body. So, he was holding out his flashlight and this guy shot directly into his flashlight and just blew it all apart. And, luckily, it didn't kill the police officer. And this guy just jumped directly over the fence, 6-foot fence, and he disappeared. And, at the time, I was a K-9 officer, so if I see a police called me out to help search the residential area and the backyards. And we could not locate the guy anywhere. He was gone.

MACCALLUM: Wow. Oh, my gosh. It's chilling. Farrel Ward, thank you very much, sir. Thanks for sharing your story. We're glad that he's finally in custody. It's an amazing story that you tell. Thank you, sir.

WARD: Thank you, for having me.

MACCALLUM: Our pleasure. So, coming up next on The Story, former Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on why she's refusing to comply completely with senate investigators who are looking into Russian involvement in her campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL STEIN, FORMER GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's not like there's some, you know, special golden goose that we're protecting here or some vulnerable conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Tonight, 2016 Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, says that she will not hand over certain documents relating to her campaign's conversations with, quote, Russian persons, despite a request for all of the documents from the same senate intel committee that is doing the entire Russia investigation. She's here exclusively to explain why in moments. But first, Trace Gallagher in our west coast newsroom with the back story. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. The senate intel committee is asking Jill Stein for documents in six different categories pertaining to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Stein has submitted material related to four of those categories including information about her 2014 trip to Moscow where she was photographed with Vladimir Putin, and future national security advisor Michael Flynn.

The intel committee also wanted communications between the Stein campaign and former British spy Christopher Steele, who authored the Steele Dossier which is filled with salacious but unverified information about Donald Trump's ties to the Kremlin. Stein's lawyer says they have no documents related to Steele. But Stein is refusing to hand over documents involving her communications with Russian persons or communications related to her campaign's policy discussions about Russia. She told CNN it's not like she's protecting some, quote, golden goose. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL STEIN, FORMER GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're standing up on a principle, and that is the principle that's part of the first amendment, our right to, basically, freedom of association, and that needs to be protected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: But critics point out that this is the same woman who in December of 2016, pushed for a vote recounts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and protested in front of Trump Tower, accusing the president- elect of obstructing the legal process to ensure we have a voting system we can trust. Watch again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEIN: Here, today, to stand up for exactly that, for a vote that is accurate, secure, and fair, and just, in which every vote counts and every vote is counted. This, in fact, is what makes America great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Trump called the recount a Jill Stein scam to raise money, and she did raise a reported $7 million. Fox News has reported that $1 million of that went to consultants, staff and administrative costs. Jill Stein claims every dollar went towards cost associated with the recounts. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. So, joining me now, exclusively, Jill Stein, former Green Party presidential candidate. Jill, welcome. Good to have you with us tonight.

STEIN: Great to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, I guess, the first question is, you know, in this era where we're investigating everything Russia, you said you've turned over four of the categories that they asked you for, why not be fully transparent and hand over everything that you have if you have nothing to fear?

STEIN: Right. So remember, we're not using the fifth amendment here. When you take the fifth is because you have something that could be used to incriminate you, something that exposes guilt, there's none of that here. We're turning over everything relevant to the question of Russian interference. That is all communications with Russian government, Russian media, Russian business, although we have no communications of Russian business. We have opposition research, and Fusion GPS, and all of that, and WikiLeaks, no communications--

MACCALLUM: So, what are you not turning over?

STEIN: So, the only thing we're not turning over is what the constitution says the government should never ask of us. So, our founders were very smart and they set up some amendment that is our civil liberties and they said government cannot intrude.

MACCALLUM: Were these personal, are they friends of yours? So, is it personal emails with Russians--

STEIN: What I'm saying -- you know, you might have been born in Russia and might not know it. So, the point we're making is that there's no way to know who has Russian background. And furthermore, it was like, we don't want to get in a situation like before the second world war where went through everybody's Japanese background -- we don't want to criminalize--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I know your attorney had said this, that the request was undefined and overbroad, which I think are words that the people who are under investigation on the Trump side would be very sympathetic too. I think they feel very much the same way. And you saw the picture. You were at that R.T. dinner with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin. He got, you know, embroiled in this investigation in part because he went over there and he was paid to be part of that dinner. You were not paid?

STEIN: He was paid. No, and I was offered to have my expenses covered, and we didn't know. We didn't want anything that would create obligations.

MACCALLUM: You said that it was a nothing dinner. That Michael Flynn and Putin exchanged like four words the whole time, right? Are you surprised that he's under so much scrutiny for what appeared to be these passing meetings that you witnessed? Does it amaze you that he's still waiting to be sentenced?

STEIN: So, certainly, there was nothing that happened that I was witness to at the dinner table. There was no conversation between the Russians and those who didn't speak Russian. The Russians only spoke Russian, and nobody was even introduced. So, nobody knew who anybody was. At least I didn't. So, you know, there was nothing incriminating there. But, on the other hand, you know, I think Michael Flynn was paid, but then he was also paid a whole lot more from Turkey and acting as a lobbyist, and disguise that fact. So, there's a whole other set of circumstances. But, certainly, from what I was able to witness it was a nothing burger dinner.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

STEIN: I was there for --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: He said the whole thing was a nothing burger. He says as an incoming official to a new administration he has every right to have a discussion with the ambassador about the future of the country. And it sounds like you agree. Jill, thank you. I've got to run. Thank you. Quick break, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Quote of the night from French President Macron, whose choice of English words to describe the wife of Australian Prime Minister Turnbull led to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMANUEL MACRON, PRESIDENT OF FRANCE: We want to thank you and your delicious wife for your warm welcome. It's a perfect --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: She's delicious.

END

<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.>