Skip to main content

tv   The First 100 Days  FOX News  March 30, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT

11:00 pm
i enjoyed meeting the members of the service. have something to say, nice, mean, it doesn't matter, called the number. 877-225-8587. that's how the time we have left now. >> martha: breaking tonight, as the white house tries to turn the tide, could the dam be breaking for judge gorsuch? brand-new information tonight on the vote count on the democrat side, as senator mccain says he is trying to push the nuclear option off the table. again he get to eight yeses from the democrats? that is just one of several big questions that are squirreling n day 70. ♪ good evening, everybody. i am martha maccallum, welcome to "the first 100 days." also, the president back on twitter this evening. he is looking for a won. he is pushing to get back on board with health care. to turn the wheels on hugely
11:01 pm
popular tax reform. if mark meadows, he writes, "if @repmarkmeadows, @jim_jordan and raul_labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform." and then, another one... "where are @repmarkmeadows, @jim_jordan and @raul-labrador? #repealandreplace #obamacare." so, more to come on that. first, the white house intends to get on offense on this russia story. pushing congress to review new classified executive information that may put the new former obama administration on the hot seat, they think. until today, the only member of congress to see that materialist avenue nest, the chairman of the intel committee. now, the white house wants to open it up to other republicans and democrats to take a look for themselves. >> we want them to look into this. there is a belief that the president has maintained that there was surveillance that occurred during the 2016 election. that was improper and we want people to look into this and
11:02 pm
take the appropriate legal responsible steps to both understand that an address it for it for you >> martha: that offer was greeted with a heavy m democrats. watch this. >> there is no question that there is a cloud over the investigation. i am more than perplexed by how these materials have been put forward. why all the cloak and dagger stuff? >> martha: ed henry is here with more on this in our studio from new york. a lot on the plate here. >> that is right. the senate intelligence committee hearing kicked off with lofty views to keep product out my politics out of it. probably too late for that. first off, "newsweek" had an op-ed declaring that russia was trying to meddle in the electio election. clearly, raising questions about why the obama white house stopped james comey if democrats
11:03 pm
were so offended by a rush attacking our democracy. remember, trump has claimed that -- that got some credence from republican devin nunes, singing unnamed whistleblower revealed there had been surveillance of team trump and some names had been unmasked in violation of federal law. though democrats like adam schiff are skeptical, given that fox news has not confirmed two trump white house staffers on the ground on march 21st. then, a murkier story about a belarusian american businessman known as source d and that russian dossier of negative information about the president. "the washington post" report -- the alleged dirt on him was fabricated. >> of the stuff about me is literally, completely false in every way, shape, form. >> do you know this former british intelligence officer? >> i have never met him.
11:04 pm
>> breaking tonight, "the wall street journal" is reporting that mike flynn, general flynn, has offered to be interviewed by the senate and house committees, as well as the fbi, and this whole probe in exchange for immunity from prosecution. what is interested is that we are learning from the journal that so far, those congressional committees and the fbi have not accepted his offer of a deal. so, that suggests maybe they do not believe he has enough information that would put someone above him in trouble. >> martha: thank you very much. ed henry with the latest. here with more, karl rove is with us, former senior advisor to president george w. bush. juan williams, cohost of "the five." welcome. good to have you here tonight. a lot of intrigue in this news that just broke a few moments ago, which ed was talking about. mike flynn saying that he will testify but he would like immunity. what does that tell you?
11:05 pm
>> that tells me his lawyers have told him, you either have exposure or if you don't have exposure, let's get some suspenders and bells on you nonetheless. i thought it was an unusual gesture on his part, it was okay for him just step forward and say he will testify, but the request for immunity i thought was really troubling. >> martha: it looks as if, if he testifies, he is either going to have immunity or he could plead the fifth. that is how this is going to go. juan, what is your thought on what mike flynn is looking for here? >> we have seen a pattern, just to reiterate what karl said, this is troubling in terms of the idea of his involvement and his exposure. i think that this means that there is some. secondly, i think it is a part of a larger pattern in which we
11:06 pm
have seen paul manafort, carter page, offering to testify before the house intelligence committee and we know that that is part of the effort that devin nunes was caught up in, apparently led by the white house, to share information with nunes, to get information before the committee. apparently, to try to, i would say, derail the committee. but possibly to throw up smoke in defense of the trump campaign. >> martha: when you get to the bottom of this, karl, there are two things in play. one, is there any proof at all that the trump administration or anyone prior to that during the campaign had relationships with anyone in russia where they were trying to aid them in their effort to manipulate the election? the other side come i the obama administration look for ways, oe they were completely shocked, as were many people in the country, looking for ways to undermine the trump administration on their way out the door by
11:07 pm
surveilling people when they shouldn't have been surveilling them and unmasking their names to reveal them to try to basically throw renters into the wheels of this new administration. >> we don't have any evidence of collusion between people in the trump campaign and the russians. democrats, like adam schiff, keep suggesting there might be. but i think we need to let the senate investigation go forward. the senate intelligence committee investigation. so far, no evidence of collusion whatsoever. on the second question, there is an important distinction. what we do think we know is according to multiple reporting, there was surveillance of people who were not russians late in the campaign and after the campaign. foreign officials who were subject to foreign intelligence surveillance act warrants and in those conversations, swept up not russians, several confirmations that it's not russians, they talked about their contact with people in the trump campaign and the trump
11:08 pm
transition. their attempts to develop relationships with them. let me tell you, having been through this myself in 2000- 2000-2001, after the election, both sides, during the campaign, are the object of people trying to develop relationships and after the campaign, everyone is trying to climb over the walls. what we do know, the names of the people in the trump transition and the trump campaign that were contacted by these foreign officials are unmasked in the documents. that is really troubling. under the federal law, that is an offense, if you unmasked the name of a u.s. official or u.s. individual who is not the subject of a warrant, not the subject of surveillance, that incidental contact, you can go to jail for ten years. somebody unmasked a lot of those names. >> i just wanted to pick guard on what karl is saying. i think, from what i am hearing, this may have been a conversation among russians, for example, the unmasking -- >> not among russians.
11:09 pm
>> it could be. >> the point is, it was a legal warrant for the surveillance, some unintentional collection, trapping of american names or voices and at the unmasking as we are hearing, i think it is really secondary. but i don't think there is any question it was unintentional. you have to look at it and you can figure out, deduce, who these people were. let me finish. i think that -- i don't think it was intentional. i don't think that is the real issue. the real issue at hand was that the obama administration trying to protect the idea that russia interfered in the democratic process. dick cheney said recently, this was an act equivalent to war against the united states. that is how serious this was. >> martha: karl. >> there is absolutely no disagreement on my part that the russians tried to interfere in the election. the question is, are the democratic charges of collusion between the trump campaign and russia, has there been any
11:10 pm
evidence? the answer is no. juan, don't be so quick to pass over unmasking those names. it takes a deliberate act. would not come through the nsa, that david gets masked automatically. it takes a special -- >> martha: we know there was a concerted effort. >> that's right. it had to be intentional, it was likely not to have been done the essay, likely to have been done done -- >> you go to jail for ten years for that. >> the magnitude of russia interfering in our democratic -- >> martha: they are still going at it. also, tonight, breaking and the last for hours, two democratic senators now say that they will support president trump supreme court nominee, dr. charles krauthammer here to tell us, the democrats will suffer a political debacle of epic proportions. also, the latest battle over sanctuary city including public
11:11 pm
naming and shaming of me of me municipalities and cities. what do you think about that? a story largely missed earlier this week, president trump held a very important meeting with police leaders from across the country. now, those leaders are here to explain what the president is doing to bring law & order back to the nation.
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
so you're having a party? how nice. i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on. the biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] par-tay! xfinity watchathon week starts april 3.
11:15 pm
get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand. >> martha: judge neil gorsuch's chances to serve from the highest court in the land looking slightly rosier this evening, as two democratic senators announced late today, west virginia's joe manchin at north dakota's heidi heitkamp, that they will vote for president trump supreme court fake. basically saying that it is part of a roll and they believe they should follow through on that. they are both up for reelection and they both represent estates where donald trump won handily. missouri's claire mccaskill, a similar situation on her hands, and she is sending a bit of a warning to her fellow democrats about how to proceed. >> let's assume for purposes of this discussion that we turn down or such. so, they pick another one up for the lights, and we say, no, this is worse. they won't let us do that too long.
11:16 pm
god forbid -- or kennedy retires. or breyer has a stroke. or is no longer able to serve. then, we are not talking about antonin scalia. we are talking about antonin scalia for someone on the court who shares our values. >> martha: dr. charles krauthammer joins us now. good evening to you. good to have you here tonight. what do you make of how this is going? >> i think claire mccaskill should be a pundit. her analysis is exactly right. i think she is mourning her party, they are a little bit heady because of the victory of sorts that they have had on health care and they are feeling their oats. they don't have a lot of oats. gorsuch is going to be on the supreme court, no matter what. the only question is, will it
11:17 pm
require 51 or 60 votes. it would make no sense at all for democrats to force mitch mcconnell to abolish the filibuster if the democrats do not produce the votes for closure, meaning ending the debate. you've got to have a democrats who agree not to support core gorsuch, but simply to end the filibuster. if they don't produce that, they will get an abolition of the filibuster. the reason this is all important, the debates now come the argument now, the tussle now is not about gorsuch. everyone knows he is going on the court. it's about the next nominee. if the democrats force the hand of mcconnell on this boat, abolish the filibuster, and feeding only 51 next time around, when you might even have a liberal seat going up, then, it if it is only 51, the
11:18 pm
republicans would be tempted to go for a far more hard edged conservative than gorsuch is. at that will be a self-inflicted wound by the democrats. >> martha: indeed. i also want to put up a tweet from president trump earlier today. he really went after the freedom caucus. he says... "the freedom caucus will hurt the entire republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. we must fight them, & dems, in 2018!" what do you think of the message he sent them today? >> the kind of thing you do when you are deadlocked in a real estate deal and you want to scare the pgb's out of the other side. it doesn't work in politics. these guys in the freedom caucus are in very secure receipts. they are also ideologically, philosophically serious people who believe and they oppose the president on principle. it was not a political move. in fact, it would have been a
11:19 pm
lot easier to go with the presidents. this is not going to move them. unless the president is willing to go entirely over to the democratic side, meaning to go for a repair of obamacare, improvement, perhaps even to a single-payer system, there is no way he is going to get enough democrats to allow him to get a health care reform. his only plate is republicans and he is not that far away, at least paul ryan is not, and getting them to sign up. this is going to make it harder, rather than easier. >> martha: here is paul ryan on this whole idea earlier today. let's watch. >> if we don't do this, he will work with democrats to try and change obamacare. that is hardly a conservative thing. if this replicant congress allows us to do it, i worry
11:20 pm
we will push the president into working with democrats. >> martha: he says, i know you have your principles, members of the freedom caucus, but this is the most conservative deal we will get. it will get adjusted in the senate but this is it. >> i think ryan is right. it is the most conservative deal. it is possible you could tweak it slightly. i think the freedom caucus ought to decide, allow this to go through, toss it over to the senate. it is likely that the democrats will kill it in the senate, in which case, you have a good national debate in the democrats are going to have to defend themselves, particularly in september when obamacare increases, the spike in the premiums is going to happen. you are going to have a great diminution of nostalgia for obamacare that you have now. i think tactically, the president has nowhere to go on this. chuck schumer sent the president
11:21 pm
a letter saying we would love to work with you, first, you have to say you are not repealing obamacare. of course, a way to humiliate him. >> martha: good luck with that. always good to see you. thank you very much. >> my pleasure. >> martha: tonight, some revolting reaction to the pences rule for their own personal happy marriage, as the vice president and his wife find themselves on the receiving end of tweet like this. there is more where that came from. we will debate their marriage and the reaction to it coming up ahead. plus, the battle of her sanctuary cities intensifies as i.c.e. releases its second public reform naming and shaming jurisdictions that fail to jurisdictions that fail to liberty mutual stood with us
11:22 pm
when a fire destroyed everything in our living room. we replaced it all without touching our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that. no. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance
11:23 pm
various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go!
11:24 pm
woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here.
11:25 pm
♪ speed when developing tonight, the trump ministries and using a public forum to take aim at sanctuary cities, as u.s. immigration center and customs enforcement begins publishing something that the president promised he would do. a weekly report that lists and names and james, you could say, jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal authorities
11:26 pm
and federal law. some cities reacting to the presidents push with legal action, seattle has filed a federal lawsuit against the trump administration. gregg jarrett has a story for us to dine from new york. >> cities across the united states standing up against the federal government, arguing it is their right to decide which illegal immigrants get deported, which get to stay, and other federal government. the white house disagrees. the department of homeland security is shaming uncooperative communities by publicly dispersing which cities are the worst violators, those refusing to honor a detainer, which means the holding inmates for 48 hours to give i.c.e. time to pick them up created one week alone, i.c.e. tried to deport at least 3,000 illegal immigrants arrested for or convicted of crimes, while the top ten sanctuary cities, they released almost 600 criminal illegal immigrants. among the worst, los angeles
11:27 pm
releasing 162 undocumented inmates. new york city, bakersfield, california, clark county nevada, las vegas and san diego. now, the crimes included, assault, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, dui, drug possession, but the mayor of los angeles defended letting them out. >> we want i.c.e. to be focused on the violent criminals, not on the grandmother who has overstayed our welcome or has too many parking tickets. >> some cities like new york, los angeles, san francisco, have a blink and policy not to honor a i.c.e detainer. mack regardless of the crime. others say it won't honor and unless it is murder. others require a request -- seattle claimed that the feds are commandeering local law enforcement in violation of the tenth amendment. the feds say, we are not
11:28 pm
commandeering anybody, we are simply trying to get the cities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as the statutory law passed by congress demands. martha. >> martha: thank you very much. here with more, david wohl and matt bennett. welcome, gentleman. good to have you both here tonight. david, let me start with puke. i know president trump means business. he wants to follow through with this. >> absolutely. these mayors, by the way, have decided to prioritize protecting criminal aliens over protecting the innocent citizens that they pray on. if you remember, we aired the exclusive story about my client whose fiance was killed by criminal alien who did and deported five times, a rap sheet a mile long. the reality was, he did nothing about it. this mayor, instead of reacting in a way a responsible mayor should react, he wrapped up his rhetoric about sanctuary cities, protecting the criminal aliens
11:29 pm
and making l.a. into a sanctuary city and ramped up its effort to obstruct the federal authorities and deporting them. just stunning. this is going on within cities all across the country, and l.a., probably the worst i have seen. the reality is, the tenth amendment lawsuit that was brought, that is basically means that power is not specifically delegated to federal authorities, left to the states, but immigration is delegated to the federal authorities. that is the stunning part about it. this is going to be a huge loss to the states in the end. >> martha: it seems to mean that the argument is always -- we just heard it from eric garcetti, the mayor of los angeles -- they want to kick grandmothers out of the house. when you look at the list of what they are documenting in terms of the crimes being committed, it is not that. it is burglary, theft, assault, it seems along those lines. i don't understand why there seems to be such a divide over what is actually being discussed here. >> a good question. i think, with all due respect to
11:30 pm
the mayor, i don't think that is the strongest argument against what attorney general sessions of the federal government is doing. rather, don't believe the mayor or me, listen to law enforcemen enforcement. the international association of chiefs of police and the fraternal order of police, they are saying that do not take money away from the cities, do not impose these kinds of rules --dash go >> martha: but he doesn't have to be taken away if they follow the law. >> there's another point. if the law is enforced this way, they would get much less cooperation in the latino and hispanic communities. >> martha: that is why they disputed. >> that is fine for you to say it is not true but that is with the chiefs say. i will believe the chiefs over you, with all due respect. >> here's the problem no one knows about it. the chief of l.a.p.d. serves at the well of the mayor. if the mayor fires him, he will be fired. also, there is a u visa, it is
11:31 pm
called come available to victims of crimes, witnesses of crimes, it should be given to them to protect them from deportation if they cooperate. that is available, not ever talk about, that is the reality. by the way, jeff sessions, if he is real about this, there will be an effort to defund it cities, hundreds of millions of dollars. my guess is, that is what it will take to get them -- >> martha: people who live in these communities, sample are illegal immigrants, some who are illegal, who want their communities to be safe from people like this, people who do these kinds of things. that makes it a tougher argument, doesn't it? >> there is a saying that i heard in law school, hard cases make bad law. of course there will be people who commit terrible crimes and do terrible things. that happens everywhere, dozens of times a day. >> martha: you could marry that population by having people who are criminal illegal aliens not here. >> law enforcement says is is
11:32 pm
more infective for them to operate the way they always have come to get cooperation from these communities. making their cities less safe -- >> martha: got to leave it here. >> my client is now 6 feet under because of the lack of cooperation from the federal government. >> martha: that is tragic. very similar to kate steinle, a cage we have been following. thank you, gentlemen. still ahead, there are some brand-new developments in another very rough case. the rockville case, as the defensive for one of the suspects forces and emergency bond hearing today. we will tell you what happened with jose montano today when we come back. plus, a critical meeting between the president and police leaders, as the law & order president, as he has called himself, gets down to business. a story you haven't heard. to stick around for this. there fraternal order of police president chuck canterbury was in that room. he will join us and tell us what
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
♪ >> martha: president trump making a sharp departure from the obama era. he met with law enforcement leaders and basically doubled down on his campaign promise to restore federal support for police that was largely withheld, some would say, or the tone was very different, and the last administration. here he is. >> we will work every day to remove the gang members, drug dealers, and violent criminals from your communities. we already are. my highest duty as president is the security of our people, the security of our nation. >> martha: chuck canterbury is the national president of the fraternal order of police, the nation's largest police union, and he was among the officials whom you saw around the table with the president. good to have you here tonight. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> martha: what would you say is the biggest difference that you see under president trump with regard to these issues? >> i think it is the whole tone
11:38 pm
that he takes. he wants to support the police officers on the street who have an impact on crime. he is a true believer that we need to get back to the policing strategies that work to me '90s, when police officers were on their beach, they knew their neighborhoods. he understands there is a backing problem. he also wants us to work in a collaborative effort with the federal government, instead of adversarial role that we sometimes saw under the justice department with attorney general holder. he wants to get into a collaborative type mode. we are supportive of that. >> martha: one of the things that is changing is that some of the heavy equipment, some of the military equipment that is no longer used by the military, pushed to local law enforcement, after ferguson and some of the riots in some of the backlash that we saw during that. -- they clawed back that, they that are
11:39 pm
present at the wrong front for that local police. that equipment is going to come back. is that able good thing or a bd thing? >> it is a good thing in many respects. first of all, all of this equipment is demilitarized. there are no offensive weapons involved, the humvees in the bearcats are not armed vehicles, they are armored vehicles. you can ask the people in san bernardino, the people that came out of the pulse club at orlando, the people that were saved from the floods in new orleans three or four weeks ago, that received with this equipment, with equipment that has been already paid for. it saves taxpayers money, it is vital equipment, and it provides that equipment to state and local agencies that couldn't afford it for you >> martha: thank you very much. good to have you here tonight. thanks for coming in. here now, gary mccarthy come
11:40 pm
this former of the chicago police department. and a professor at st. john's -- at john hopkins, excuse me. you listen to the debate and discussion that is going on. gary, let me start with you. do you think these policies are going to make the job of police officers across the country easier? >> absolutely. unfortunately, there was a lot of political knee-jerk reaction that happened in the last administration at much of it really to the detriment of law enforcement. i can tell you this, just like chuck said, those bearcats, we use them and chicago. two years ago, when we had an active shooter situation, i had a captain who was shot in the head and the shoulder. fortunately, he survived. i also had a detective who was shot in the leg. an active scene with a hot zone. we used those armored vehicles to remove people from inside the hot zone. having said that, we all looked
11:41 pm
at what happened in ferguson and certainly, i was a very vocal critic of the way it was handled. you don't put s.w.a.t. officers on the front line at a protest. you don't put an officer on top of a bearcat, pointing a rifle into a crowd. because we can turn a protest into a riot. it doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater. it means you put standards on how you use it and make sure that they use it in that fashion. we need that equipment, especially talking about terrorism. those guys don't bring 22 revolvers to terroristic scenes. >> martha: you are shaking your head. what are you thinking? >> what i am thinking, my first thought, we are talking about militarization of police officers in our own country. the truth of the matter is that when you look at the statistics, individuals who are harmed by police officers, it is 35%, on average, 35 people who are killed, whereas with police officers, it is only on average
11:42 pm
27. the question is, who are we looking to protect? i, too, was on the ground in baltimore. i was there during the baltimore uprising due to the death of freddie gray. quite frankly, when you have a military like equipment, it only agitates the situation, it only makes it worse. that is not what we want to do. obama, what president obama did, what he removed, we wanted to start build relationships with police and the communities. to bring this back out completely negates that. >> martha: here is one of the issues they want to ask you about. a lot of people in places like chicago and other cities, the crime rate has risen, who really are happy that there is an increased law enforcement presence on their streets, because there was a pullback. a lot of officers claim that after black lives matter movement and after a lot of what happened, a horrific situation in many ways, it made them pull back. that is not good for people who live in these communities.
11:43 pm
do you agree? >> it is not good for people who live in the community, but in the same respect, the ways in which we stop crime is not to militarize the police, it is to have tougher gun control laws us, jobs for youth. a set of by gone, they are able to have a job. and chicago, it is easier to get a gun then it is to get a job. that should not be the case. we cannot fix broken cities through the implementation of broker national policies. that is the truth of the matter. >> martha: last thought from you. go ahead. >> they are not uprisings, those were riots. >> they were uprisings. >> they were riots. criminal activity. using the equipment doesn't mean it is used against civilians, it is being used to protect police officers, which i don't think is a bad thing. >> in your own city, the department of justice found that you guys do not have good tactics. they found that you guys resort to deadly violence. quite frankly --dash go >> i have already addressed that. don't talk about that.
11:44 pm
you don't know what you are talking about. >> i do know what i am talking about. i do know that look juan mcdonald was killed. >> martha: we'll have you back. thank you very much. other news breaking tonight, and emergency bond hearing today for one of the suspects and the rockville high school rape case, after his defense team claimed to have new evidence that shows that he is innocent. we have the details breaking this evening inside the courtroom. we'll take you there life. plus, after a profile piece revealed that vice president mike pence and his wife have rules, shall we say, or things they try to follow in their own marriage, to stay together, they were mocked for the arrangement that has produced a 32 year long union. jessica tarlov and lisa boothe coming ♪ energy is amazing. how we use it is only limited by our imagination.
11:45 pm
and at southern company we're building the future of energy, for you.
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
>> martha: vice president mike pence and his wife, karen, have been married for 32 years. but if their secret? it "washington post" piece it sought to find the answer. it revealed among other things, one of the things, he said, i don't go out for dinner with another woman alone and when i am at an event where there is alcohol, i prefer to have my wife with me. i don't go to that if she is not with me. instead of celebrating the ground rules that have led to
11:49 pm
over three decades of marital bliss, the twitter universe probably weighed in with disgus disgust. "so, the g.o.p. is up in arms of her sharia law, cat, mike pence won't have a business meal with a wife that -- woman that is not his wife." joining me with more, lisa boothe and jessica tarlov. mollie hemingway work a great piece of miss the federalist today. i just want to share with you what she said. she said mike pence is not a monster for not dining privately with women who are not his wife. what about not boozing it up at parties unless she is around? not only is he not a monster, he sounds like he is a smart man who understands that infidelity is something that threatens every marriage and must be guarded against. he is safeguarding his marriage. >> i agree with her, i think that every couple should work
11:50 pm
out what works best for them. i think if you can make it 32 years with someone, i have maximum made it three years and it was exhausting. [laughter] we'll get there. i eat along with man all the time who are not my boyfriend. i think there is, not to be too liberal about this, or too extreme, there is a larger point here about men in powerful positions, not necessarily -- there was a harvard business study that sum of 64% of men in executive positions were opposed to mentoring women in junior positions. >> martha: that is a one-on-one thing. there's no reason why he wouldn't be mentoring -- there's a lot of women at the white house. >> business meetings, dinners- >> i think the fact that they have been married for 32 years and the probability of our divorce is 40-50%, may be more americans should be paying attention to people who have
11:51 pm
successful marriages. it sounds like they want to avoid the pitfalls, tapestry a lot of politicians. there's a lot of distance from their wives, clearly, he is an amounts about respect for her and they have a relationship built on trust. their faith, as well, christianity. to compare this to sharia law is absurd. we are talking about countries that have sharia law where spousal rape is okay. if you read the profile piece, water talks about about is the fact that karen pence, she sits in on meetings, she goes to these foreign trips with him, as well, she is his warrior, she is his gut check. if you read the profile piece, she is a very strong woman that he relies upon immensely in her decision-making and discernment. >> martha: they pulled out this one bit about dining and going out. he was funny about this going out thing at one point, he said, if i will have a drink in my hand come i want to be with the most beautiful brunette i know. >> there are so much more in this piece. of the twitter universe we live
11:52 pm
in, thi which unto them same, we believe that we need to be together as much as possible. >> a fantastic thing. you want to hear that from everybody. certainly, politicians are supposed to be role models. >> so many of them are. [laughter] >> i also think it is kind of sad, you have this great profile piece about what a remarkable women she is and how influential she is in his life, professionally and in his personal life, yet, this one tweet get so much attention. also, my parents have been married 37 years, also a relationship built on faith and trust. i think -- >> martha: congratulations. >> it is so sad that this tweet is what caught a storm on there, as you mention, so much more to the piece. >> martha: they have a very christian relationship. >> that's a big element in this. >> martha: not necessarily what everyone else does. you have to respect them. don't trash them all over
11:53 pm
twitter. >> my parents, 34 years, mom and dad, amazing job. >> we'll get there one day.
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any.
11:56 pm
so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack!
11:57 pm
call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. >> martha: important developments to make a set of rockville, maryland, which we have been keeping a close eye on. one of the suspects in the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl was granted a bond review hearing today. his defense team seeking an emergency release after they say new evidence proved his innocence. doug mckelway joins us with what went down in the courtroom. >> good evening. we are onto montgomery school headquarters, where a small protest is underway right now. just a few miles come or earlier today, a circuit court judge denied the defense's request to release one of the suspects in my case, 17-year-old jose montano, to release him under supervision. here is the state's attorney, john mccarthy. >> other than the fact of the
11:58 pm
bond review was denied, the defendant is being held on a "no" bond or status. i have no additional comment to make about this case at this time. >> that after defense attorneys came into possession of a series of text messages between montano and his 14-year-old accuser, that resent the day before the alleged rape. the text messages, with the defense maintains casts serious doubt on the prosecutor's case. >> she lied to the detective and left material information out. why would you believe anything after that? >> today's hearing, prosecutors introduce their own view evidence from conduct all my contacts between montano and the other defendants.
11:59 pm
one exchange, "once she is, you come in and threaten her with telling a teacher, so she will put out." the prosecution claims that on the text messages between the two defendants claims to show them flashing getting signs, which they vehemently denied prior >> my client completely denies being associated with a getting in anyway. >> in the end, faced with a request to release montano, the judge said he was not persuaded. the encounter began in the hallway the day of the rape and not the day before was text messaging. he also said that the invitation was for one defendant, not both of them. back to you. >> martha: doug mckelway on that. before we leave you tonight, on this day in 1981, 36 years ago, president ronald reagan was shot and nearly assassinated. john hinckley, jr., shot the 40th president in these moments that none of us will ever forget, as he left the washington hilton. reagan was rushed to the e.r. at george washington university hospital. once there, the head of trauma, treated the president on that fateful day. he says in the middle of all of that, the president managed to crack a joke. and that is our quote of the evening.
12:00 am
"we need to come to the operating room, he looked up at me and said, i hope you are all republicans, and i said, today, we are all republicans, mr. president." good night, everybody. ♪ >> tom: welcome to "red eye," hello everyone, i am tom shillue. let's check in with tvs at andy levy at this before. >> coming up on the big show, donald trump tells the freedom caucus they need to get on the team. the president himself will be here to explain why. plus, vice president mike pence won't have dinner along with a woman other than his wife. that's actually not bad rule, responded hillary clinton. finally, a doomsday vault in norway will protect copies of the world's most important


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on