This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 19, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: You got me all misty right at the get- go, Bret. Thank you, Bret.

All right, everybody. In the wake of one of the biggest scandals involving money and power and privilege at the most prestigious American universities, questions are now being raised about whether everyone is kind of getting scammed.

Those who play by the rules and get into college off and just see the costs go up and up every year. And they graduate with a mountain of debt that can hold them back in every way.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum. And tonight, this is “The Story.”

The president has proposed one answer. New limits on the amount of money that families can borrow for college. But a prior president's head of the Office of Management and Budget is a cost cutter from way back. He earned the nickname, The Blade, in his days in the Bush White House. He is now the president at Purdue University. He has frozen tuition costs during his tenure. He gives students a very unique way to pay off their debt after they leave. He's even brought Amazon to campus which has dramatically lowered exorbitant textbook costs by 30 percent.

Earlier, I spoke with the man at the Wall Street Journal called, the most innovative university president in America today. Former governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, I asked him about what he is doing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MITCH DANIELS, PRESIDENT, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: We decided a few years ago at honor, when I arrived, I just asked the question, "Why don't we start trying to adjust our spending to our student's families budgets and not expecting them to adjust their budgets that are spending?"

So far, so good, we've just finished our sixth -- we're finishing our sixth year of no tuition increase. We've promised, at least, two more. And over that time, we have reduced the cost of room board and books.

So, it will be less expensive to attend Purdue in 2021 in nominal unadjusted dollars than it was in 2012. Consequently, student debt is falling and a record percentage of our students left last year with zero debt.

MACCALLUM: That's amazing.

DANIELS: That's the starting point on this very serious problem you're talking about.

MACCALLUM: You know, and you're doing something called an Income Share Agreement after students leave. How does that work?

DANIELS: Think of it as equity, not debt. We wanted an alternative to debt. An Income Share Agreement is simply a contract in which the student after leaving for a fixed number of years at a fixed percentage, three percent, five percent, six percent of whatever their income is, pays back the investor that way.

We, Purdue, put up the first money because we believe in being accountable. And we believe and we know that our students are going to do well. But the essence of an Income Share Agreement is it's not debt and the risk shifts entirely from the student. The risk of a slow start to a career, for instance, shifts entirely from the student to the investor.

MACCALLUM: That's amazing. And you say if the student is not making -- if they're making less than $20,000 a year, then they don't pay anything back at that point, correct?

DANIELS: That's right, they don't pay anything. And on the other end, if a student that gets off to a fast start in the career, there's a -- there's a limit, an upper limit on what they would ever be expected to pay.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

DANIELS: But the essence is it's a voluntary agreement. Unlike debt, which just piles up whether you're doing well or not doing well. Your payment is an amount, a percentage you've agreed you could afford, and it fluctuates with your income.

MACCALLUM: You know, you've said some very strong things about the way that other universities are running things. And that it -- you know, you describe it as basically a racket that -- you know, you're -- you can just keep charging more and more and more. And you made some comparisons to the way that healthcare works. Can you explain that?

DANIELS: Right. Well, sometimes maybe I get a little sarcastic. It's not a racket, it's an extraordinarily important asset to America or higher ed institutions are still an area of competitive advantage.

But there are comparisons to healthcare. I think there -- which is the business I was in for a very long time. And there -- to me they're inescapable. You have a product which is deemed a necessity. Just got to have that college degree.

You have a total pricing power, the buyer cannot tell what a high-quality education is. And, in fact, buyers in the past of -- in the absence of any other evidence have used the sticker price as a proxy.

MACCALLUM: Right.

DANIELS: If College A cost more, it must be better -- there's no evidence of that. And finally, we -- if you flawed a marketplace with third-party subsidies and that either immunize or, at least, insulate customers from the real cost of what they're buying, then they tend to over-consume it.

And so, we've seen it in healthcare, we've seen it in education. It's not an accident that the only things that have gone up faster in the American economy for the last two or three decades -- faster than healthcare, are college tuition, college room and board, and college books.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Incredible. Puts up 500 percent over the last several years and -- you know, I don't know if you're that popular at the president of university conferences that you go to when you're driving costs down, sir. But you're doing some very interesting things that I hope they're listening to.

DANIELS: Well, we don't prescribe what we're doing at Purdue for anyone else. We were -- we were put here as a land-grant school to open up and democratize higher ed. We believe being affordable and accessible is central to our mission.

But what is -- what's working very well for us, record applications and so forth but we don't free, we don't preach or prescribe.

MACCALLUM: Fantastic, good for you. Well, former governor, of course, of Indiana and now president of Purdue University, Mitch Daniels. Thank you very much, sir. Great having you here tonight.

DANIELS: Thank you, Martha.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: So, joining me now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar, and Fox News contributor. And Juan Williams, Fox News political analyst and co-host of "THE FIVE". Gentlemen, welcome. Great to have you here.

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

MACCALLUM: You know, this is a major issue. It's several times credit card debt in this country. And, you know, people are starting to pay more attention to this. Juan, what did you think of what Mitch Daniels approach? You know, I said they called him the blade in the Bush administration. He's a good cost cutter, and he's doing -- he's really I think is setting an example that a lot of other universities are going to have to take a look at.

JUAN WILLIAMS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, I think he's innovative and I -- you know, hats off to him. That's the kind of thinking that we need from our educators and especially in higher ed. Because the costs are becoming prohibitive for so many families.

But I would particularly point out to working in poor families. It's almost to the point where given the scandals that you reference at the top of the broadcast, Martha, that people feel they can't get in the game unless they are cheating. And that is just corruption at a level that affects us as a society. Not just the educational product which is so important.

What I think it affects the way that we view each other and whether or not we can trust our institutions.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you know, it is sort of -- it's definitely a seller's market mark.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And you know, you get into it, your turnover, your hard-earned money is why in every year the cost goes up and it's like, "Oh, well, college is very expensive, you know, and we're building all these new buildings and all of that." What's your take?

Well, I agree 100 percent with Juan. And look, what's at stake here is the American dream, literally. And I hope that this is an issue that we can take on in a bipartisan way, the way liberals, and conservatives, and Trump administration, and Democrats came together on criminal justice reform. Because the stakes are so high, particularly, for disadvantaged communities in this country.

And the problem we're facing is what -- is that tuition for room and board, and tuition in colleges has increased since 1985 at four times the rate of regular inflation. So that put --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, you know what I can't get?

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I mean, now, everybody -- things that used to be doubles are quads.

THIESSEN: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: So -- you know, you show up with your kids and all their stuff, "Oh, well, you're going to be? It's a quad. I mean, it's incredible. It's like it's shrinking, I can't figure it out.

You know, but I want to play something that Tucker Carlson said last night. He did a big piece on this last night. And he's talking about the down the road impact that this debt burden puts on people. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Unable to afford homes, millennials are getting married later and less often. They're also having fewer kids. It's not because they don't want children. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who want children has not changed in 25 years. And yet, fewer children are being born. Thanks in part to rising debt levels, America's middle class cannot replace itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Juan, what do you think about that?

WILLIAMS: I think that's right. And you know what's interesting to me is this is part of a dialogue that Tucker has started about exactly, are we serving the American middle class as a society? Are we looking out for that middle class and preserving what Marc called the American dream? And I think that's the critical question.

I mean, just emphasize something here. I noticed that when we talk about a lot of the money from the federal government for student loans, a surprising amount, Martha, goes to people who are going to these schools that pop up online.

Because they want to be a nurse, or they want to learn how to be a mechanic. And the schools are not prepared to help them with remediation from the fact that they didn't get a good education, sufficient education on the elementary and secondary level to complete it.

So, they leave school, they're not the nurse, they're not the mechanic, but they have the debt.

MACCALLUM: That's terrible.

WILLIAMS: And that is crippling.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And know, I could agree more. And that actually brings me to my next topic which is the outrage that was expressed by Alexandria Ocacio- Cortez and Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City. Because only seven, I believe, it was African American students were accepted to Stuyvesant.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, cities across America now have these charter schools, these are long -- you know, these are honored institutions in New York City that have been here a long time -- very, very hard to get into.

But Marc Thiessen, you know, what is the problem here? Why do you think it is that only seven children got -- black children got the spots that were more than 800 spots?

THIESSEN: Yes, that's less than one percent. I mean it's an outrage and it's an indictment of the system. The fact that -- the fact them -- but the fact of the matter is what people don't understand is that unlike these colleges where you have, you know, there's a discretion in who gets in and you can buy-off your way.

To get into Stuyvesant, there's only one way to get into Stuyvesant. You have to ace an entrance exam. That's in it. So, it's purely based on merit. And so, the problem is, is that this New York City public school system is failing black and Hispanic children to the point that they are not able to ace that exam, to the point that they can get into Stuyvesant. So, it's an indictment of the education system in New York.

And so, Mayor de Blasio, what he wants to do is he wants to scrap the entrance exam.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

THIESSEN: Lowering the standards and getting rid of the merit-based system is not the right way to do it. What we have to do is reform the public school system in New York, so that good -- so that underprivileged kids can get. So, you have parental choice in education.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

THIESSEN: So, they can go to the same schools as the rich kids. So, we have more public charter schools.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Now, you make great points. I got to go but I want to give one last crack at that before we do, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Yes. So, I'm the kid who grew up in Brooklyn. I got into some of these selective schools. And I'm just so pleased to hear Marc say what he said. Because I think there's an opportunity here for people who will care about education and say, what's going on in some of these schools is wrong.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

THIESSEN: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And it's not to be said, "Oh, we're going to hurt the rich families and they're going to leave the public schools." Hey look, I think it's two-thirds of the kids in New York City public schools are minority kids.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And you can see that data can't compete at the highest level. Something's very wrong, folks.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And Mayor de Blasio had a $700 million program to reform the school system.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And it resulted in only 25 percent of those schools making the measure that would put them off the list of the worst schools. So, I mean throwing money at the problem is not necessarily the answer as we have seen.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Yes. We need Mitch Daniels. We need Mitch Daniels for the public school. There we go.

THIESSEN: Let's send him to New York.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I think you're right. Thank you, guys. Great to see you both.

WILLIAMS: Nice to see you.

THIESSEN: Take care.

MACCALLUM: So, breaking tonight, Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion may have just netted a high-level Obama administration official in its net. Ken Starr, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, reports that Robert Mueller may have netted a high-level official from the Obama administration in his investigation into Russian collusion. Greg Craig, former White House Counsel to President Obama is listed as having engaged potentially in unregistered overseas lobbying on behalf of the Russia-backed leader in Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych back into 2012.

That is similar to the charges that landed Paul Manafort in prison although his charges were far broader than the ones that were aware of right now with regard to Greg Craig. So this as there are some big exits from the Mueller team that raised a lot of questions and also a trove of just- released documents on the Michael Cohen warrant that showed that the investigation started far truer than we knew.

Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge joins us now with THE STORY from Washington. Hi Catherine!

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Martha, and good evening. These heavily redacted court records show the investigation into Michael Cohen began nearly a year before the FBI raided his New York business and dwellings in April 2018.

The special counsel requested and obtained multiple warrants for Cohen's e- mails that cover correspondence during the presidential election. The filing runs into the hundreds of pages and 19 are completely blacked out or redacted with the heading "illegal campaign contribution scheme" underlying how the President's greatest legal exposure may be in the Southern District of New York and totally unrelated to Russia collusion.

Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress as well as multiple financial crimes including Campaign Finance Violations after two women were paid to remain silent about alleged affairs prior to the presidential election. President Trump denies their allegations.

The unsealed records today show federal investigators also wanted historical and future location data for Cohen's iPhones to confirm from where he sent and received e-mails. In April 2018, the FBI sought and obtained authority to use what's called an electronic technique known as triggerfish.

The April 2018 timeline may be significant because Cohen testified that he was instructed not to discuss conversations that occurred after the FBI raid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY, DONALD TRUMP: Unfortunately, this topic is actually something that's being investigated right now by the Southern District of New York. And I've been asked by them not to discuss and not to talk about these issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Separately, the Special Counsel's Office confirms another senior prosecutor has concluded her assignment the Zainab Ahmad joins Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann whose departure was confirmed last week. Congressional transcripts show that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr briefed both prosecutors on the anti-Trump dossier before the 2016 election.

When we first broke this story last month, Fox News asked the FBI Justice Department and Special Counsel's Office whether the Ohr meetings were consistent with or in conflict with existing policies including chain of custody for evidence. The Special Counsel's Office was also asked whether Weissmann and Ahmad fully disclosed their contacts with Ohr over the dossier. The FBI and Special Counsel declined to comment. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Catherine, thank you very much. Here now with more tonight Ken Starr, former Independent Counsel under President Bill Clinton, Fox News Contributor and author of Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. Ken, good to see you tonight.

You know, on that last issue that Catherine just brought up, the question of the fact that Andrew Weissmann and this other individual both were in contact with Bruce Ohr who gave them information on the dossier about -- that was written by -- put together by Christopher Steele, way before this investigation even began. What do you think about that?

KEN STARR, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, these are important leads. There's so much, Martha, that we just do not know, and I think the American people deserve answers. And they deserve answers sooner rather than later.

Now, the good news is there are checks and there are balances. I think that Senator Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to be exploring this. The Inspector General at the DOJ is exploring these things. But we have to maintain our patience but there is a lot that we do not know and we deserve to find out.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, you know, Bruce Ohr has said, you know, that he wasn't involved in that investigation. We know that his wife worked for a Fusion GPS. So the fact that he's showing these documents and this information from the dossier to these individuals before the investigation even got underway I think it is something that we need to keep a close eye on.

I want to ask you another reason and this is about Rod Rosenstein because I thought this was very interesting today. We learned that he will not be leaving. Originally, he was going to leave the Department of Justice in the Deputy Attorney General position mid-March. But now he's going to stick around. And the word is that he is sticking around to absorb the punches from the Mueller investigation if need be. What do you make of that?

STARR: Well, I make a couple of things of it. One is that it's a very wise move by Bill Barr to allow Rod Rosenstein to stay in place. It also sends a signal to Congress hey, the independence of the investigation which appears to be winding up is going to be assiduously protected. Be of good cheer.

Don't think that I, Bill Barr, the very able Attorney General have come in sort of a wrecking ball. So rest easy. Allow the process to run. And when you think of the alternative, if Bill Barr come in and said Rod, it's time for you to pack up. There are all kinds of questions about you and some suspicions and so forth.

MACCALLUM: Including a suspicion that he you know, suggested that he would wear a wire and talked to the president. So I mean, you know, there's a lot -- there's a lot there. But I think --

STARR: There's a lot --

MACCALLUM: You make a great point. I mean, you know, do you see it in some way as Barr sort of stepping away from this picture and you know, allowing them to sort of continue to do their thing, and will that be something that is well received by people who do think that this is you know, witch-hunt, hoax, whatever word you want to use?

STARR: Maybe not. But what Bill Barr is doing as I see it is that he's protecting the Justice Department. Think about the alternative. If he sacked Rod Rosenstein, there would be an oversight hearing right away who's going to be the next Deputy Attorney General. I realize there's conversation about that. I think it's a very smart move, but not everybody is going to be happy about that.

MACCALLUM: We mentioned at the -- in the intro here that Greg Craig who is a long time you know, Washington official, worked in the Obama administration as you well know, is also popping up in these documents as someone who is perhaps stepped out of line with the FARA rules which is that you have to register as a foreign -- that if you're working for a foreign government.

In this case they -- according to the documents, he was doing some work for Viktor Yanukovych who was the sort of Russian backed President of Ukraine, same person that Paul Manafort was also doing some work for. What do you see there?

STARR: Well, we'll see what happens. And I wish no one ill. But it is a reminder the rules are the rules, the law is the law. You don't lie to Congress, you don't want -- Michael Cohen. You don't lie to the FBI, General Flynn. And if you're supposed to register, you need to register. And there are serious penalties attached.

This law apparently just was honored basically only in the breach. It came to light by virtue of the Paul Manafort prosecution. So now there's going to be you know what to pay by virtue of a lot of people in Washington ignoring the law.

MACCALLUM: Ken Starr, always good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

STARR: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, is it wrong to suggest that someone might be too old to be president. Is that ageism? Is that fair? Bernie and Biden are topping the polls. They're 77 and 76 respectively which would put either man in their 80s in their first term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: If I were to run, I think they judge me on my vitality. Can I still run up the steps of Air Force Two, am I still in good shape, am I -- do I have all my faculties? Am I -- am I energetic? I think it's totally legitimate for people to ask those questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: 2020 presidential candidate John Delaney just ran up the stairs and he is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Here's the very latest breaking news on whether or not Joe Biden is going to run. So he reportedly reached out to multiple supporters late today asking to secure donations in the effort to launch a presidential bid.

This as some suggests that Biden and potential rival Bernie Sanders could potentially be too old to be president. That is the headline today in one of the opinion pieces in the Washington Post. And I should mention that it was written by a guy who's the same age as them and he says that they -- that they're too old.

So that's his opinion. But should age be fair game in politics especially when the older candidates are leading in the polls? Joe Biden is 76. He's ahead of the pack with 28 percent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 77, trails with 20 percent, and now another candidate vying for the presidency 2020 Democrat John Delaney also a former Maryland congressman. Sir, good to have you with us today.

JOHN DELANEY, D-MD, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Thanks for having me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know, what do you think about that? Do you think that's right? You know, we live in this age where you know, you can't talk about gender, you can't talk about -- you know, is it OK to say someone is too old.

DELANEY: I don't think any of these people are too old to be the president, I mean, I don't think the president should be whoever the American people want to be their leader. Right? That's really the criteria, that's all that matters.

I don't think people should be telling the American people that, you know, someone based on their age is unqualified to be the president, that's up for the American people to decide.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, I think that ageism, you know, when you look at some of these people, you know, I mean, for instance, the chairman of this company jested the biggest deal of his life and he is in a later age group than they are. I think age is a number, you know. I mean, I think some people are very old when they're 60. And some people don't get old until they're 90.

(CROSSTALK)

DELANEY: It's a stupid conversation to have.

MACCALLUM: OK. So, but you're going to hear it though.

DELANEY: Right. I mean, it's something the American people --

MACCALLUM: You're going to hear a lot of it because people look at though, Reagan, they look at all of the people who, you know, also were in their like 70s and they say this is a factor, perhaps for somebody shouldn't be able to run but I think you're right, I think the American people are going to decide that.

I want to get a quick thought from you. Let's talk about some of the younger people who are also running, like you. Cory Booker is out there and here's what he wanted to emphatically make clear that he is not a socialist. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: I am for capitalism, I'm tired of companies engaging in socialism where they outsource --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. All right. That's --

BOOKER: -- where they outsource their cost. I'm a capitalist, monopolies are not capitalism, I'm not a socialist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got people in the party who are.

BOOKER: I'm a Democrat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Why is this a conversation in America?

DELANEY: Right. Well, it's crazy. I mean, listen, I'm a capitalist. I was an entrepreneur before I ran for office, I started two companies and took them public on the New York Stock Exchange, I was the youngest CEO on the New York Stock Exchange when I took my first company public, I created thousands of jobs, I financed thousands of companies all over the country.

So, I believe in the power of capitalism and its ability to create jobs and innovate but I also believe in strong social programs. And in many ways, the genius of America is that we allow capitalism to do its magic but we moderated it with societal infrastructure, regulation and tax --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That sounds like Elizabeth Warren, she wants like a controlled kind of capitalism.

DELANEY: Well, but in real -- look at we've had. We have had a free market economy and we have had things like public education, infrastructure that was paid for by taxpayers, Medicare, social security.

So, in many ways it's a false choice. Of course, we are a capitalist country but we also historically have had great social programs that lift people up.

I mean, my parents didn't go to college, right? I grew up in a time when the infrastructure in society supported people like me in pursuing my dreams, right? In --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, don't you think that those programs have become ineffective --

DELANEY: They're outdated. Yes, they have to be updated, that's been our great tragedies as a society.

MACCALLUM: No other candidate is going to say that, nobody is going to talk about taking away anything or changing any of those benefits or programs --

(CROSSTALK)

DELANEY: But we have to update them. Look, every kid in this country should start at pre-k, right? It's been proven to be the best investment we make, right? That should be part of basic public education, that would change the trajectory of kids' lives.

They should have something after high school, career and technical training, maybe, you know, community college to give them a shot. We haven't updated the basic institutions of our society to allow people to pursue their dreams and have the kind of opportunities I've had.

You know, this generation of Americans is going to be the first one that doesn't do better than their parents. Think about that. The first one.

MACCALLUM: It's heartbreaking.

DELANEY: Yes.

MACCALLUM: It's heartbreaking.

DELANEY: And do what we're going to do is get back to our model.

MACCALLUM: You know, we'll see how you do, everybody is talking about, you know, having 24 Supreme Court justice -- members of the Supreme Court justice and abandoning the Electoral College, are you in favor of either of those things?

DELANEY: Listen, I would love to get rid of the Electoral College but I don't think it's the right way but it's not changing. Right? I think to some extent it's a total waste of time to talk about it.

Like if I was starting from scratch, might I would do it differently --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: We'll talk about.

DELANEY: -- of course. But that's -- I'd rather talk about improving public education, creating a better healthcare system, lowering drug prices, investing in infrastructure, doing things that matter to the American people.

MACCALLUM: All right.

DELANEY: We talk about something must happen.

MACCALLUM: We'll see. We'll how you do. John, thank you.

DELANEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight. So still ahead, Congressman Devin Nunes on the fallout from his bombshell $250 million lawsuit against Twitter for targeting conservatives. We'll watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: How is it that every day there's conservatives that are being banned? So, you know, look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact to the matter is, people could not see my tweets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: The case of billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein may be more than a decade old but it continues to produce jaw-dropping new headlines.

Epstein stands accused of sexually assaulting more than 30 under aged girls from 2001 to 2006. Now those charges could have sent him to prison for life but instead, he got a 13-month sentence.

At the time it was suggested that that deal could be partially attributed to the fact that he was a valuable informant against two hedge funds at Bear Stearns at the height of the '08 crisis, financial crisis.

But now a Fox Business investigation says otherwise. Charles Gasparino is a Fox senior business correspondent who helped investigate this case. Charlie, good to see you tonight.

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX BUSINESS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for having me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, what did you learn here?

GASPARINO: I mean, what's fascinating about this case, it has it all, right? he's had his high-profile lawyers, Alan Dershowitz is involved, Jeffrey Epstein a billionaire, you know, it involves Wall Street. But it happened 10 years ago.

So, you know, it's interesting that we're still hearing about this, because what we're getting now is more victims coming forward or alleged victims, I should say. The case possibly be reopened? Because he only served 13 months in jail.

The U.S. attorney at that time, his name is Alex Acosta. You might know that name. He's the head of Department of Labor -- might have screwed up in the way he handled the case, a judge essentially came out and said that. We have this all in the piece.

And lo and behold there's now new questions we've uncovered it about what are the reasons why people thought he got off so lightly. And that was that he helped -- he helped the government to prosecute Wall Street cases.

What we found and we spoke to many people on this, about a dozen, we spoke to his lawyers. I spoke to the former U.S. attorneys, we have people on the record is that Jeffrey Epstein never helped in the prosecution of Wall Street.

So that raises the question, why did he get just 13 months in jail, it was actually 15 months that he -- excuse me, 18 months and it was cut down for good behavior on 13. Why did that happen? And people are going to demand answers to that.

And I'll tell you, there are two rationales to this, Martha, and we kind of address this in the story. One rationale is that the U.S. attorney at that time, again, Mr. Acosta, we've reached out to him, he had no comment but he basically caved. He saw the high-profile legal team, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, you name it, a lot of top lawyers and he said listen, I don't want to go against them, let's just cut a deal right now, he blinked.

The other thing is, and you have to, and I know I'm going to get a little bit of pushback on this is that they really didn't have the case. That the alleged victims were not good witnesses, that you know, he pleaded guilty, I believe to one count of prostitution and one count of child prostitution even though there are many, many more allegations and that they just did not stand up in --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, there is one suggestion that he pleaded guilty to a case where a girl was 16 years old and that many of the people who the young girls who accused him were, you know, 13, 14, even younger than that and that, you know, he got a sweet deal for some reason.

GASPARINO: Right.

MACCALLUM: That these women now want to reopen these cases as you know.

GASPARINO: Right. And we are going to find that out very shortly. Brian Llenas, one of my colleagues, he's a Fox News reporter, is all over this. He's probably going to get the next batch of documents that are going to be released.

MACCALLUM: Great.

GASPARINO: There's going to be more documents being released. And the fact that it wasn't his help in Wall Street is going to raise this issue. because, you know, Martha, think about it, that was a plausible sort of rationale, right?

MACCALLUM: Yes. I remember.

GASPARINO: You gave us a lot of stuff to put bad guys, you know, going after bad guys and we gave you a lesser sentence -- if that's not the case, what the hell is it?

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right. Good reporting. Thanks, Charlie. We'll see you soon.

GASPARINO: You got it.

MACCALLUM: So, he is the American who went to fight for the Taliban and is now set to be released from prison in a matter of weeks pledging to continue to spread violent extremism upon his released.

Pete Hegseth and the case of John Walker Lindh, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: He is known as the American Taliban fighter captured in Afghanistan months after September 11th, and now, John Walker Lindh is set to be released from prison this May. Despite reports that he has made a pro-ISIS comments behind bars and has yet to denounce radical Islam.

Trace Gallagher in our West Coast newsroom with the incredible back story of this young man. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, not only has John Walker Lindh said he will continue advocate for global jihad, authorities say that he continues to write and translate violent extremist texts.

In 2016, the National Counterterrorism Center says that Lindh remains as radicalized as he was in 2001. It was November 2001 less than two months after 9/11 that Lindh, along with a group of Taliban fighters was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Just hours later, Lindh's fellow prisoners staged in uprising that killed 500 including CIA operations officer Johnny Michael Spann.

In 2002, Lindh was convicted of supporting the Taliban and sentence to 20 years, though, some thought the sentence was too lenient and that the American Taliban should have been prosecuted for treason.

Here's then at U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: John Walker Lindh chose to train with Al Qaeda, chose to fight with the Taliban, chose to be led by Osama bin Laden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Lindh who grew up in Northern California and dropped out of high school to head to the Middle East has over the past 17 years filed two lawsuits against the Bureau of Prisons so that he could continue practicing the tenets of Islam, including community prayer and a specific closing request.

And because Lindh has refused to denounce radical Islamic ideology, experts believe once he is released, he will be a security concern.

John Walker Lindh acquired Irish citizenship in prison and plans to move to Ireland once he is freed. A spokesperson for Ireland's Department of Justice says if Lindh has a passport, he will be allowed into the country. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Trace. Here now Pete Hegseth, co-host of Fox & Friends weekend, also in Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran who served as a prison guard at Guantanamo Bay. Pete, good to see you tonight.

PETE HEGSETH, HOST: Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: A lot of questions obviously. I mean, you know, he's out in less than 20 years if he is going to be out this May, how did he acquire Irish citizenship in prison, and you know, obviously, he is still is a concern, he's still a national security concern.

HEGSETH: First of all, what are the Irish doing, why in the world would you take this man in? You say he has a passport so you have to let him in, are you not an ally as part of western civilization, a recognition that radical Islam is at war with us?

And if we -- if we -- if we captured him and put him in prison and he still hold allegiance to Al Qaeda and ISIS than we are as foolish as we were on September 10th, 2001 as a government, as a country, and as a civilization.

We are in a long war against Islamism, violent and political in scope. They see this as warfare and we see it as lawfare, and we are foolish as a result.

If we can't put this guy away for life, trial him for treason or execute him eventually, we are welcoming even more in the future from him because he will go back as a celebrity to our enemies.

MACCALLUM: I mean, what does this say about the ability to accurately prosecute people who were involved on what happened on September 11th or sympathizers as he clearly was with that.

You know, you look at what's going on in Guantanamo Bay, it's like, you know, there is nothing. Right? There's no -- none of these cases have moved forward after all of these years. So, how did -- you know, what are your thoughts on that having served down there?

HEGSETH: Listen, we are fighting by old rules of war, I really believe that. We are fighting by an antiquated system of law where our enemies use to wear uniforms and play by some semblance of law, rules of law, recognizing prisoners of war.

Of course, radical Islamists do none of that. They chop off heads, they execute, they use women and children as shields, they murder our people in 10 seconds, yet, we afford them Geneva rights, yet, we give them better healthcare than a lot of my guys and food than my guys got at Guantanamo Bay when they are guards, and I'm not joking about that.

I was down there and I saw it. We bend over backwards while they knife us in the throat. And either we get serious about this which I don't think we are generally as a country. I mean, the left today is more obsessed about global climate change than they are about the threat of radical Islam.

So, I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't believe my government is effectively taking this seriously except the Trump administration which I know is taking it seriously. But still, our systems are dump up by lawyers --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HEGSETH: -- who defend these dirtbags --

MACCALLUM: I mean --

HEGSETH: -- and give them rights under our Constitution who should never be afforded.

MACCALLUM: I remember when Johnny Michael Spann was killed in that horrific outburst that happened at that prison that they were being held at and I can't believe that I'm living to see the day when John Walker Lindh is going to walk out of that prison. It seems like yesterday. Pete --

(CROSSTALK)

HEGSETH: It's a microcosm of what we face as platoon leaders or guys on the ground when you would release people because it was CSI in combat and you didn't have the evidence so you release them and you know they're coming back to the battlefield. This is the same thing on a bigger scale and it boils the blood of guys that have been there.

MACCALLUM: Pete, thank you. Pete Hegseth.

HEGSETH: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next here on “The Story,” Congressman Devin Nunes with his multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Twitter, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Top Republican on the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes slapping Twitter with a massive lawsuit. The California congressman wants $250 million accusing the social media giant of silencing conservative users and allowing fake accounts to slander him.

Congressman Nunes joins me now. Sir, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.

NUNES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: How did you arrive at the $250 million number in terms of damages?

NUNES: Well, Twitter is a big company, they have an army of lawyers. This could take a very long time. And I should say that this is only the first of many. We started with Twitter because they are a perpetrator of this of the fake news but we're also going after numerous other media organizations in the coming weeks.

MACCALLUM: All right. Here is Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter talking about bias. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK DORSEY, CEO, TWITTER: Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not, period. We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias which I fully admit is more left -- is more left-leaning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about that?

NUNES: Well, look, I don't care if they have bias or don't have bias. I mean, I believe they do. We won't know that until we get to the discovery process. And that would be the easiest way to go about this.

If they want to -- we're trying to get to discovery if they can show that they are not being biased I'll be glad to drop the lawsuit. But the fact of the matter is they have been very biased in my opinion.

And the point that we're trying to make here is they're content developers. So, they are regulating so much. They're the main way that people get their news in this country. It's how a lot of the journalists spread their news around. It's everybody is on Twitter today.

So, just the fact that they're saying we don't have bias, they are admitting there that they are content developers and that's really what this case is all about.

MACCALLUM: All right. But, you know, some of the accounts you are looking at was Devin Nunes mom, Devin Nunes cow. That the suggestion is that you are a person in the public forum and that when there are, you know, sort of hyperbole things that are put out there that that's the way it goes when you put yourself in public office.

Here is Judge Napolitano talking about your case. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: You know, that's horrible and if it happened to me, I'd be furious.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it's not illegal.

NAPOLITANO: It's not illegal. They are not the government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Your thoughts.

NUNES: Yes, so what we're talking about here is defamation and so if it's with reckless disregard for the truth and with malice, it doesn't matter if you're in the public figure or not.

What I would say, Martha, is let's just switch roles here. If somebody multiple people had said that you had done a lot of really bad things and it started impacting your contract with Fox, you're a public figure, I'm a public figure.

Essentially what they're saying is it doesn't matter, you and I -- you nor I have any recourse at all. And so, I don't think that's right. And look, we want to get to the discovery process. There is no question that, you know, not only I've been defamed, it's been multiple times, hundreds and thousands of times.

MACCALLUM: Well, as you point out you have to prove actual malice and an awareness that the -- that it was false. And you know, there have been cases like this before. And you know, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think everybody recognizes that these organizations, these social media organizations have an enormous amount of power in modern society.

So, it's the goal of your suit to sort of, you know, open up the conversation and to push back at them to sort of create a system where's a there is a little bit more accountability on their part. Is that your goal?

NUNES: Yes. Well, there is a few things. Either they are going to admit that they're content developers or they need to stop being content developers and just be an actual public square so I can exercise my first amendment rights.

Secondly, the people that they are allowing to defame me, they are political operatives. We have no idea if they're associated with anything to do with the Russia investigation that we led because a lot of what they were doing was trying to obstruct our investigation into what Russia did in the 2016 election.

So, we want the find out exactly who these people are that have defamed and slandered me --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I get it.

NUNES: -- on massive scales never seen before.

MACCALLUM: We're going to follow up. We've got to leave it there. Thank you, Devin Nunes. Good to see you tonight. That's “The Story” for tonight. "Tucker" is up next. We'll see you tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.