Outnumbered is a BBC1 sitcom which follows the daily chaos of family life with two parents and three young children locked in an unequal contest. Viewers witness an honest portrayal of the well-meaning parental incompetence that happens in most homes, as a beleaguered mum and dad attempt to raise their kids with the minimum of emotional damage for all concerned.
Outnumbered explores the everyday problems of fibbing, that scary first day at secondary school, and nits. The dad, Pete, works in an inner city school, where a typical school holiday sees five arrested, two become pregnant and one pupil shot. Meanwhile, Sue, the mum, is a part-time PA with a very demanding boss.
Other topics explored include racism, child abuse, new-age weirdness, weak bladders, death and heaven, bird flu, contagious diseases, bullying, obesity, parental competition, romantic nights in, divorce, journalism, running away, atoms, underage drinking, gin, corn-fed organic chickens, Nazis and ratbags!
Hugh Dennis (Mock The Week, My Hero, The Now Show), Claire Skinner (Sense And Sensibility, Life Begins) and Samantha Bond (Die Another Day) are the adult stars, however the scene stealers are the kids, Tyger Drew-Honey (The Armstrong and Miller Show), Daniel Roche and Ramona Marquez.
The comedy is written, produced and directed by Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton. This show marked the first new collaboration for the writers in eight years - they have previously jointly won the Royal Television Society's Lifetime Achievement Award and were the creators of hit Channel 4 series Drop The Dead Donkey, which ran for six series between 1990 and 1998.
It's a well-known adage: never work with children or animals. But this show Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkin puts three small children at the very centre of the story and allows them to improvise too.
The improvisation was put in place in order to get more believable performances from the child actors and keep the adult actors' reactions more believable too. Hugh Dennis says: "In most sitcoms all the lines for children are written by adults. So they are speaking the words of people 30 years older. And you really want kids to have their own voices, and say their own things."
The series is based, in part, on Jenkin and Hamilton's own experiences of bringing up young families, as Guy, the father of twin daughters, explains: "We'd been talking about doing a comedy half-hour for some time, and since we both have young families that seemed a good place to start. So we began nurturing the idea a while back."
In fact, Andy had written a few scenes for his daughter Isobel, who was seven at the time, in Hat Trick's 2001 BBC sitcom Bedtime which ran to three series. He explains: "Co-star Kevin McNally suggested I didn't show Isobel the script - just give her my thoughts. Isobel customised her lines, and it did look very natural."
Guy continues: "That made us start thinking about the practical possibilities of getting genuine, realistic looking performances out of young children. But we noticed this great dichotomy between the representations of parenting in sitcoms with the complete chaos of real life. You rarely get the feeling that children in sitcoms are real. They tend to be the same type of character - the smartarse who says adult things - and they are rooted to the spot, staring at the camera, because they've been told to stand in one place and say the lines."
"We decided to attempt to do something that hadn't been tried before, bounced some ideas around and we got very keen on this idea of involving improvisation very quickly. It's a very natural evocation of the daily rollercoaster of family life with all the chaos and all the little details, whereas a programme like My Family, for example, is a studio-based sitcom so has to be more formal. Outnumbered is also about the experience of bringing up very young children - which brings with it all sorts of practical problems in terms of getting performances out of the children and the hours they are allowed to work."
Knowing that this would be what would make the project so unusual, and difficult to explain to the commissioning editor at the BBC, Andy and Guy arranged for a sample pilot to be filmed at Guy's house in September 2006, co-funded by the BBC and Hat Trick.
The adults were quite straightforward to cast. Hugh Dennis plays Dad with Claire Skinner as Mum. Andy elaborates: "We were aware of them both and of their strengths, and we thought that they would both have the right mixture of fearlessness and the ability to adapt to what was going on around them. And they've both got great comic timing."
But they knew that the job would offer its own special challenges. Guy explains: "It's a fiendish job for actors in that you've got to be funny - you've got to be real and you've got to respond to what the children do while staying in character and I suppose we were looking for actors who would relish the thought rather than be scared by it."
When it came to casting the children, the casting director avoided stage-school talent, instead undertaking a lengthy audition process which involved lots of game playing, determined to find children who would enjoy the filming process.
So, the three juvenile leads came out at the top of the fairly exhausting casting process: "They're all really interesting to watch and they've all got very interesting, funny personalities - confident, but also excellent actors."
Tyger Drew-Honey, who plays Jake, is also now a regular in Hat Trick's The Armstrong and Miller Sketch Show. Daniel Roche meanwhile has appeared in a number of commercials and has since gone on to star in the latest re-make of Just William. But for the youngest child, Ramona Marquez, Outnumbered was her first acting role. She was spotted by Guy's wife at a birthday party: "She had an interesting personality and was sure of herself without being precocious."
And so a 20-minute pilot was shot and delivered to Lucy Lumsden at the BBC, who quickly commissioned a six-part series, as Andy explains:
"When the BBC saw the pilot, they thought it would sit quite happily in the bedtime slot and decided to run it more as an event across three consecutive nights on two consecutive weeks - so that is what they commissioned. It was a good slot to launch new comedy because it was far away from the feeding frenzy of the mainstream slots."
He adds: "Although it was scheduled after 10pm, there's no swearing or violence or sexual content - I don't know what happened there! But it means the show can be watched by anybody; parents who've been through the experience of struggling and failing to raise kids in a proper way, but kids seem to like it as well and they root for the children, so I think it probably does appeal across the generations."
Despite its unusual scheduling, the first series of Outnumbered was a resounding success. Andy comments: "The scheduling of the first series was inventive and generated a sense of event about the show. However, because all six shows were transmitted inside a fortnight, the series was over before some people got to hear about it. But the audience it did attract - we know from websites and postbags - was hugely passionate about the show."
He adds: "The critical response to the first series was tremendous. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive but, more importantly perhaps, we seemed to strike a real chord with our audience who clearly felt that the show was a funny and realistic portrayal of family chaos that they recognised. The other major reaction was that everyone was very impressed by the naturalness of the kids' performances which made the show feel unique."
Series two however was broadcast in a more traditional weekly format. The writers said at the time: "Obviously, moving to weekly transmission at 9pm gives more time for word-of-mouth to spread and gives us a chance to reach those sections of the population who are heading for bed at 10.35pm - which I suppose includes the young, the old and people who've got a long day tomorrow."
Hugh Dennis observes: "It was fantastic that the first series was a success - but the most common question I was asked after the first series was 'why is it on so late?' and would the next series be once a week rather than spread over two weeks? I think people found it rather difficult to devote that amount of time to it - I am delighted that both those things seem to have been addressed!"
Andy and Guy work by talking a lot and devising storylines. One of them then does the first draft and the other reads it, together editing it line by line.
Guy says: "I'm sure our families will recognise a lot of the scenarios, but only in as much as they are the kind of things that happen on a daily basis in every home in the country with small children. And because there are two of us writing it, we can always claim the other came up with a specific idea - particularly in the scenes which are about people's partners!"
Filming on the series took place over intense four-week periods. Of course, performance regulations mean that children under nine can work a maximum three hours a day in 45-minute chunks: "It was a bit like having Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to work with. Three hours - that's your limit - then you have to whip them away," laughs Guy.
So, there were scripts, but the children did not have to learn any lines. Instead, they were given a verbal outline of whatever situation the characters found themselves in and were then encouraged to express things in their own way - often with surprising results!
Andy adds: "We decided we'd try and create an atmosphere on set in which the children could relax and be themselves. Filming comes with a lot of ritual and paraphernalia, and we tried to get rid of as much of that as possible."
Crew and equipment were kept to a minimum to avoid pressurising them, and a subtle lighting plan was devised, as Andy explains: "This enabled us to follow the action rather than having certain spots where people had to be at certain moments."
And there wasn't a make-up artist: "Being primped and prodded by a stranger before going on set is one of the things that generates tension," Andy explains. Two cameras were used to record the children's performances because each take turned out to be different, and this adds to the documentary feel.
For Hugh, Claire and Samantha, the odd shooting schedule took some getting used to. Even though their lines were entirely scripted, they often had to react to the part-scripted, part-improvised dialogue of the youngsters.
Guy comments: "It was a real assault course for the actors. It was like being a real parent. You don't necessarily know what trouble the kids are going to throw up." And, despite the elements of improvisation, there is a distinct narrative arc running through the series with some quite adult themes.
The father of two young daughters and a veteran of such comedy shows as Mock The Week, My Hero and Radio 4's The Now Show, Hugh Dennis is used to standing in front of a studio audience - but Outnumbered is much more intimate, with no live audience and no laughter track - especially important as there are lots of scenes where everyone is talking over each other.
"In My Hero, I was out for myself and it was all rather one-dimensional, whereas actually families don't really work like that at all - they're sort of chaotic. Children say unexpected things and one moment you're thinking about how you've got to get dinner or you've got to do some marking, and then a child comes in with a knife and you've got to deal with it - you're just kind of spinning from one thing to another."
He laughs: "We would be sitting there with the cameras ready to roll, and Andy and Guy would be over in the corner whispering to the children and you would wonder what on earth they were up to - which means your reaction is completely spontaneous."
"We were based in two semi-detached family homes in Wandsworth - one was used for filming, the other was a big green room where we ate and relaxed between takes. But we were tightly enclosed, the kids wandering around with their chaperones, and it actually felt like a commune - or a very big family."
"Over the course of shooting, you start to feel as if you have responsibility for the children - not to the extent that you would tell them off, but almost!"
Hugh describes the Dad, Pete, as: "Slightly hopeless in some ways. He's a bit confused and life seems to have taken him rather than him dictating the direction in which it goes. I can sort of relate to that, as one of the problems with being a parent is feeling constantly tortured by the idea that you've probably done the wrong thing. Dad is trying his absolute best, but the two parents are struggling and the kids are trying to run rings around them."
Hugh admits that he himself is a bit of a soft touch as a dad: "I find my children very, very entertaining. I'd like to think I'm tougher than the dad I play in this, but I can't be cross with my daughters, which is something my wife gets quite cross with me about!"
Hugh thoroughly enjoyed filming Outnumbered: "It was a very, very happy shoot and for someone like me who is very used to improvising, it was perfect. Andy and Guy are incredibly clever, which makes you feel very confident."
"Each day on set, I had absolutely no idea what the final programme would look like. Normally, when you shoot a sitcom, you're in a studio with six cameras on wheels with red lights, and you know when you're on camera. But, in this case, there were two cameras and I decided just to carry on like I do in real life - which was a great release. It was also a very quick experience, as we shot six episodes in four weeks and there was no time to agonise about anything."
He continues: "Claire was also fantastic and I learnt a lot from her. She manages to convey a huge amount by doing very little things. The mum and dad do the classic thing that parents do - try to present a united front, but, in the heat of the moment, they find themselves going off on their own and then requiring the other one to support them, however ludicrous it might be."
"But what makes it really interesting is that there isn't any obvious strain in their relationship. They're clearly very happy as a couple. They might both be making terrible errors, but, as neither of them are very judgmental, they're not blaming each other. They're in it together, but they're both a bit rubbish - as are most parents in real life - which makes Outnumbered very realistic."
"It's hard enough bringing up children - especially when they ask questions like: 'Is there a God?' I've read parenting books where you're meant to stay calm at all times, which just isn't possible because you're only human."
Hugh admits having occasionally resorted to bribery to get his children to do what he wants, although he has never offered one of his children as much as a fiver, which his character does in the series:
"I feel that that would be a bit of a slippery slope! But I suppose a star chart is a form of bribery. And I have had those moments where a child comes in holding a really dangerous bit of equipment - a power tool, in this case - and I've had to be quite resourceful to make sure they put it down!"
Claire Skinner is a mother and feels that Outnumbered differs from other family comedies in that it is very child-centric: "It's got some lovely, natural performances from the kids and Hugh and my reactions to them are very fresh as we were never quite sure what they were going to do from take to take."
She loved the relaxed atmosphere on set, carefully nurtured by Andy and Guy: "Being on set was all about ensuring the children didn't get bored or fed up. As far as they were concerned, most of the time they were just playing about and having fun. It was great to be surrounded by happy children which made it a really fun shoot."
The little girl, Ramona, plays Karen, who has quite a talent for interrogation: "She came up with some really hilarious lines. She was trying to remember insults and she came out with words like 'ponk' and 'tight bum' which were my two personal favourites! She still makes me laugh whenever I think of her!"
Claire recognised many of the scenarios in the series: "Situations like reloading the dishwasher just after my partner has done it. I think most people will be able to relate to things that happen. The family gets pushed to the ninth degree, and there are some wonderful observations on family life - I know Hugh and I found them very familiar!"
It was the first time Claire had worked with Hugh: "He's a very, very funny man! There were lots of times when I looked at his face and I thought: 'I just can't do this!' He just has funny bones and it made it quite difficult sometimes to keep a straight face, but also made it really good fun to work with him."
Claire finds Outnumbered very appealing: "The way in which the children perform will take viewers by surprise. It's unlike anything else I have ever seen on television. It is such fertile ground and, as long as you keep the children happy and happy to play along, then it could run and run."
Andy and Guy have worked with Samantha Bond - who plays Auntie Angela - before as Guy explains:
"We wanted a big, powerhouse performance from the visiting Auntie. Samantha is a terrific actress, and we thought that she would relish the challenge. She came in and seemed to find it exciting and interesting." Andy laughs: "Well, she's used to dealing with James Bond, so she's good in difficult situations!"
Guy adds: "David Ryall, who plays the grandfather, is a bold and terrific actor, and we've tried often to work with Hattie Morahan who plays Jane - although Andy has worked with her in radio. She came from the lead in Sense And Sensibility to us, and has also done Bike Squad for Hat Trick - which I wrote."
Andy hopes that the show captures family life in a way not seen before, at all its most deliciously chaotic:
"That will principally be down to the performance of the kids who are hiccuping, chewing hair and kicking balls around the kitchen - things you tend not to see kids on TV doing. This is family life as we've all experienced it."
Share this page
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 8, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SANDRA SMITH, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Bret, great to see you and great to have you back. We pick up THE STORY from here. A Fox News alert: we are awaiting what President Trump says will be a major announcement from South Korea. South Korea's national security advisor is expected to come to that podium at any moment. Let's bring in Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts with what to expect here. An unexpected evening and announcement, John.
JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, it's just typical here at the White House, Sandra -- I've got to put it that way. Every day when you're just feeling like you could pack up and go home, some other piece of breaking news happens. We're outside at the west wing portico here. It's a location that you're familiar with when people come out and talk. It's an unfamiliar location for us to broadcast from. And we are expecting that in the next few minutes, Chung Eui-yong, who is the South Korean National Security Advisor will be coming out here to brief us on a couple of things. First of all, he'll give us a sort of a rundown of what happened in the meetings that South Korean officials had with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, earlier this week. And then he will talk about an invitation that Kim Jong Un is issuing to President Trump to meet.
Now, if this were to happen, this would be an extraordinary breakthrough because U.S. presidents have been talking with North Korea, cutting deals with North Korea for nearly 30 years and not once did the American president ever meet with the North Korean leader. So, if there were to be an in-person meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un, that would absolutely be precedent-setting. We don't know if we will learn tonight and we may, whether or not any preparations are being made for a meeting between the two presidents. Certainly, President Trump has said he'd be happy to meet with Kim Jong Un if the conditions were right for that and the conditions would be that the substance of the conversation would be about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea giving up its nuclear program, and not just freezing it.
Because the president said I don't want to freeze it where it is -- which would allow them to start it up from where we are. They would have to freeze it and roll it back, or they would have to get rid of it all together. Then, there's the question of: where would the two leaders meet? Kim Jong Un will be coming to South Korea along the border at Panmunjom -- there's a place called the 'peace house' on the South Korean side of that border. That's where he'll be meeting in late May with Moon Jae-in, the South Korean President. But if Trump were to meet with Kim? Where would it happen? It certainly wouldn't North Korean soil. It might be able to happen on South Korean soil if they played sort of a neutral broker in all of this, or there could be some third location. We don't know any of this, because we do not know if the president will accept his invitation. But we're told that tonight's announcement is going to be very, very big, Sandra. So, keep it here. We'll have it for you very shortly.
SMITH: So, to remind everybody how unexpected this was, very unusual, a lot of things happening tonight. But one was that the president himself walked into that briefing room and said this announcement would be coming. John, can you give us an idea, looking back at the things that this president has said about his willingness to potentially meet with the North Korean leader?
ROBERTS: Well, he has said on several occasions that he would be willing to meet with Kim Jong Un but he would only meet with him, as I said before, if the conditions were right and the conditions would be that any talk between the two leaders would be about the denuclearization of the North Korean Peninsula. You know, President Trump has come in for a lot of criticism on his policies towards North Korea. Saber-rattling, saying my nuclear button is bigger than yours. When we had Jim Mattis, the Defense Secretary, come out and said, we're not looking for the complete annihilation of a country namely North Korea, and there has been a lot of extraordinarily tough talk from this president, from this administration toward North Korea.
But, I'll let you in on something. When I was sitting outside the presidential palace in Hanoi, Vietnam, waiting for President Trump to arrive, my phone rang. And it was the president that was on the phone. We said we talked about a number of things, and talk came around to North Korea. And he said, John, there's a lot of people thinking that I want to start a war. They're accusing me of wanting to start a war with North Korea. He says, I'm trying to avoid a war. So, of all that tough talk and the sanctions has brought us to this point, then you can paint a picture of a very shrewd strategy on the part of President Trump to bring North Korea to this point.
But the president said the other day that the sanctions are biting against North Korea, they're biting very hard. They knew that they were going to take a while to work. And then, we saw that slide opening where North Korea joined in with South Korea in the Olympic game and they marched together in the opening ceremonies. And now, we're moving to the next diplomatic step along the line which is talks between North Korea and South Korea. Talks between the two leaders of North and South Korea and then, maybe, a history-making event. The very first meeting of a U.S. president and a North Korean leader since the Korean War. I mean, that would be extraordinary.
SMITH: And this announcement, John, is coming after hours of meetings today happening in that White House. Just a reminder to everybody tuning in right now, we're expecting the South Korean national security advisor to walk out to those microphones, as you just detailed, John, outside of the west wing portico to make a major announcement. And the Pentagon, according to our reporting, has said that this is going to include an invitation from Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Do we know anything else more, John, about who will accompany him to that microphone to make this announcement?
ROBERTS: You know, he's got a staff, clearly. And on the on the same way that H.R. McMaster who's the National Security Adviser here at the White House, has a staff. But it will be Chung Eui-yong, who's the National Security Advisor, who's been briefing H.R. McMaster and his staff all day on what happened during those meetings with the South Korean officials and Kim Jong Un, and where this is going to go from here. And, again, the White House not saying anything about where this goes from here. But, we're being led to believe by the significance of this announcement, as, you know, previewed to us by the White House, that this could be something very, very big. So, be patient, stay tuned. They'll be out here soon.
SMITH: We will. It was expected at 7:00. We are watching those microphones for this to begin. John Roberts, thank you for that.
ROBERTS: Thank you.
SMITH: Here with more, Congressman Will Hurd, who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security; Lieutenant Colonel Michael Waltz, a Former Counter Terrorism Advisor to Vice President Cheney and a Fox News Contributor; and Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner Commentary Writer. I want to start with you first, Colonel Waltz, if you could weigh in on the president's strategy here to walk into that press briefing room tonight and say a major announcement is coming, it will be delivered by South Korea about North Korea. We're all watching. Colonel?
LT. COL. MICHAEL WALTZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER COUNTER TERRORISM ADVISOR TO VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, you know, I think what this president fully understands is that in order for diplomacy to work, North Korea, and importantly, China, had to believe that there was a credible use of military force. They had to believe that this president would exercise the military option before he allowed North Korea to have a fully capable nuclear arsenal -- capable of striking the United States and its allies. I think North Korea believes this president will go there. I think China believes it. And that's what our diplomats needed; they needed that military stick behind them to actually make diplomacy work.
That said, Martha, I'm incredibly skeptical. We've seen this movie before. We know that the North Korean missile engineers are going to be busy at work. They didn't take off a month during the Olympics. And that the head of our intelligence community has said that he believes they have about -- that we have about a year before that ICBM is capable of reentering the United States. So, I'm very skeptical that the North Koreans are going to use this next year to buy time, drag out talks, and do what they need to do to then cross the finish line and have a fully capable nuclear arsenal. So, I think we need to be very, very skeptical here. We have to accept the olive branch, but we need to be skeptical.
SMITH: I want to bring congressman. Will the president accept this invitation?
REP. WILL HURD, R—TEXAS: I don't know. Who knows? But, talking is better than fighting. But, as Colonel Waltz said, we've seen this before. And so, this is a positive development, but we have to continue to move our forces to be prepared for a ground war. We have to make sure that we continue to keep sanctions in place. Let's not make the same mistake that Obama administration made with the Iran deal by getting rid of the things that brought people to negotiate.
SMITH: Is it fair to say that, congressman, that this president has done more than his predecessors as far as North Korea is concerned?
HURD: I think that's true. One of the things I learned as an undercover officer in the CIA and back alley of places like Pakistan and Afghanistan is be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guys. And that tough rhetoric, making sure people realize we are willing to use our stick has been important in getting people to negotiating table. But we also have to remember the diplomatic effort of making sure China and all of our other allies are putting the noose around North Korea. There are still some more sanctions that can be put on top of North Korea that would stop all fuels from going in to North Korea. That would prevent them from doing any kind of conventional war which we also have to be prepared for. So, there's still more tools in our tool kit. We should be prepared to have talks but the only way a president of the United States should ever go and talk with the leader of North Korea is if they are willing to denuclearize the entire peninsula.
SMITH: And the White House has said such that. Tom, I want to bring you in here as we await this announcement by South Korea on North Korea at the White House. Your expectations at this moment?
TOM ROGAN, COMMENTARY WRITER, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I think we will hear an invitation. South Koreans have facilitated for President Trump to meet Kim Jong-un. I think President Trump will accept it. He will go and do it. I think he wouldn't have announced this afternoon this sort of excitement walking into the press briefing room, unless that had already been agreed upon. But I do agree with the previous two commentators, congressman and the colonel, in terms of the skepticism we need here. I think the best way that the Trump administration can deal with this is to agree to a rapid talk with Kim Jong-un.
I think the timeline, quite frankly, to an ICBM plus warhead capability for the North Koreans is probably a matter of three or four months -- not a year. So, they should have a talk. Trump should say -- President Trump should say to Kim Jong-un, listen, let the IAEA inspectors in there. If you do that, if they can have smack inspections, we will suspend military training, military exercises. But those smack inspections have to have a report back, I think, from the IAEA within a matter of two or three weeks. And in that sense, you get to judge very quickly within a matter of weeks, not months, whether the North Koreans are serious. If they aren't serious, you sanction the Chinese and Russian banks that are hiding behind the scenes pretending they are cooperating with U.N. sanctions. And you also engage in the kind of military --
SMITH: I want to bring your attention to the screen here, because as you can see the national security advisor of South Korea is stepping up to the microphones here. We are going to take a quick pause and bring in our Fox affiliates across the country for this announcement coming from South Korea. Let's pause and bring in those stations.
CHUNG EUI-YONG, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR SOUTH KOREA: I would like to thank President Trump, the vice president, and his wonderful national security team, including my close friend General McMaster. I said to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity brought us to this juncture. I express President Moon Jae-in's personal gratitude for President Trump's leadership.
I told President Trump that in our meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that he is committed to denuclearization. He pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile test. He understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue. And he stressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible. President Trump appreciated the greeting and said he would meet Kim Jong-un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.
The Republic of Korea, along with the United States, Japan, and our many partners around the world remain fully and resolutely committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Along with President Trump, we are optimistic about continuing a diplomatic process to test the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The Republic of Korea, the United States, and our partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of the past and that the pressure will continue until North Korea -- with concrete actions. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any preconditions, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can Kim Jong Un be trusted, sir?
SMITH: That was the national security advisor of South Korea following up on a promise by the president of a major announcement to happen at the top of the 7:00 hour -- and there you have it. He is relaying a message from North Korea. Kim Jong Un has pledged he will refrain from further nuclear tests with the understanding that military exercises will continue to be necessary. Here's the big news on that potential meeting, he said Kim Jong Un has requested to meet with President Donald Trump as soon as possible -- were his words. And he said the president has agreed to do so by May. We're going to dig in to all of this. This is an announcement coming from South Korea after hours of meetings inside of the White House today. And the president came into the press briefing room a short time ago and said there would be a big announcement coming from South Korea on the north. I want to check in with John Roberts. He's outside the White House for us right now. John, did you hear what I heard?
ROBERTS: I heard exactly what you heard. And I thought to myself: we're going on a trip and we're going to be going on a trip very soon, sometime before May is what Chung Eui-yong said that the president has agree that he will meet with Kim Jong-un. It's difficult to overstate the historic nature of this for an American president to agree to one-on-one talks with North Korea's dictator, really is quite extraordinary. I thought it was interesting that Mr. Chung said that it was the president's maximum pressure policies on North Korea that brought them to this point. The talks earlier in the week between South Korean officials and Kim Jong Un and the planned meeting now between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in, which will happen, perhaps, after President Trump speaks directly with him.
And now, the promise of direct talks between the United States and North Korea. The president is under no allusion, though, that this is going to be a real break-through and this is going to lead some real concrete action. Because he has cautioned for years now during the election campaign and as president that North Korea are serial cheaters. And they lead you to believe that they're going down one road and then they're going down another road, and it goes all the way back to 1994 when they signed that first framework agreement between the United States and North Korea to get rid of its nuclear program and then North Korea did nothing but cheat. But, we are at an extraordinary moment in history right now, Sandra. The American president has agreed to meet with the North Korean president, time and place to be determined, but this is going to happen within the next few weeks. Really quite remarkable. Sandra?
SMITH: Important to point out as well that Kim Jong Un has been in power for over six years, John Roberts, and this will be his first meeting with any head of state.
ROBERTS: Yes, which one is going to be first, the meeting between him and President Trump or the meeting between him and President Moon Jae-in. I mean, here's a guy that, you know, doesn't stick his head up above the tree line very often. You know, he's got those big parades that he appears in. That's about it -- you know, through the streets of downtown Pyongyang. But, he's going to have to travel because President Trump is not going to Pyongyang. That's for sure. So, whether or not they do this on South Korean territory and maybe they do it right along the border crossing to Panmunjom, where the meetings are planned between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in at the famous South Korean peace house or somewhere else, maybe a third country, neutral territory. We don't know at this point but those arrangements will be being put into place now that President Trump has agreed that he's going to have a meeting with Kim.
SMITH: John Roberts at the White House for us, thank you.
SMITH: So, you've been watching a major announcement happening on the lawn of the White House there. The national security advisor of South Korea just announcing that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, has requested to meet with our President Donald Trump, and that our president has indeed agreed to that meeting. Kim also pledging, he said, to refrain from further nuclear tests while continuing with military exercises. All right. Thank you so much for joining us. We're going to depart from our affiliates. Please join us on the Fox News Channel for continuing coverage.
Back again with Texas Congressman Will Hurd, Lt. Col. Michael Waltz is also joining us, Fox News contributor, and Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner Commentary Writer. Tom, I want to go to you first on this. Some big questions now that this meeting will actually be taking place. The North Korean leader wanted it as soon as possible, and the president has agreed to meet by May according to South Korea there. Where and what will be discussed?
ROGAN: Yes, I think it would likely be in South Korea. Frankly, I think President Trump should take Kim Jong Un up at his word and have this as soon as possible again for that timeline, to see if Kim Jong Un is being serious. Why not do it next week? The only issue I think if both sides are willing is the secret service. What would they have to say about it? But functionally, again the key here is not going to be word, it's not going to be pledges along the future timeline, it's the urgency of action now.
And so, I think the United States, it will come down to if it is possible, to have that suspension of military training, North Koreans say they don't care about that at the moment, fine, but they're not offering anything apart from talks. When it gets to the meet, can you get those inspectors in in a matter of weeks, two weeks or less? Can you get a verified report? Can you do snap inspections -- the kind of things you haven't seen in Iran? Because if you can't get that, it's the proof he's not serious and it's all a big game as it has been before. But if he is being serious, President Trump deserves huge credit for the biggest diplomatic breakthrough, quite frankly, since the end of the cold war, maybe even before that.
SMITH: Congressman, the sincerity of this meeting will obviously be questioned and speculated on all the way up until May when this actually happened. You have not agreed with this president on all of his policies and strategies, but you do, however, sound like you do agree with what he is doing here. Is it working? Is this a good move?
HURD: I think it is. I've been supportive of the tough rhetoric for quite a while. This is -- and also the work on diplomacy. We've got to commend Secretary Tillerson for the work he's been doing with our partners. A few weeks ago, we had our Canadian foreign minister host a number of key leaders on the fight against North Korea, and that had pressure on the North Korean regime. And the fact that, again, the number of sanctions that have happened -- the fact that China was participating, Russia was participating. These have all been a very big deal. But this doesn't change anything. This doesn't change any kind of military preparations. This doesn't change the fact that we need to continue to move part of our fleet into that region. And we'll see, after these talks happen, whether there's actually --
SMITH: Well, colonel, what do you think about that?
WALTZ: Well, I'm in agreement with both Tom and Congressman Hurd. You know, I think the timeline is what's critical here. I'm happy to hear that this meeting is going to happen as soon as possible, but then it's going to be that follow-on. You know, the working level meetings of getting the U.N. inspectors in. And, you know, we've seen time and time again, we saw this under the Bush administration that once you get down in the details of what they can inspect, where they can inspect, how quickly, what type of notice they can give, and really verify true denuclearization, is where the proof is in the pudding. And then the other piece, I think the deal that really is going to be had here or potentially had here, if, you know, looking at it from a positive standpoint is that Kim Jong Un has said repeatedly he will look at denuclearizing if we remove the threat and the threat U.S. forces on the South Korean Peninsula. I'm not sure we're ready to go there.
SMITH: All right, guys, thanks for covering it for us. Tom, Colonel, and the Congressman, thanks to all of you. On that announcement. Also breaking tonight, Democrats seizing on a new report in The Washington Post suggesting Robert Mueller may have found a smoking gun in his hunt for Russian collusion. According to that report, there was a secret meeting in Seychelles, a remote island off the coast of Africa just before Trump's inauguration. At that meeting, Erik Prince, the founder of the private security company, Blackwater, and a Russian official close to President Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D—CALIFORNIA: The Seychelles meeting was part of an effort to establish a back channel to Russia that the meeting that Erik Prince had with the Russian banker was not happenstance is obviously at odds with what we heard in the testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: But it turns out that may not be the whole story. Leland Vittert is live in Washington with exclusive breaking news tonight. Leland?
LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Evening, Sandra. Talked to Erik Prince a couple of times today. He tells me, he 'never ever represented himself as a member of the Trump transition, didn't set up a back channel, didn't lie to Congress', and Adam Schiff just has his feelings hurt. Plus, as you might remember, he testified about this meeting a couple of months ago, Prince is a Trump donor, founder of Blackwater, and brother to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. He says he went to the Seychelles back in January 2017 for a business meeting with the leader of the United Arab Emirates. And while there, spent 30 minutes with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian businessman with close ties to Moscow.
The Washington Post reports, 'a witness cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller told investigators the meeting was set up in advance so that a representative of the Trump transition could meet with an emissary from Moscow to discuss future relations between the countries.' Prince denies this, saying the circular argument, 'if the left's fantasy of collusion is true, why did the meeting two months after the election matter at all?' and he continued, his meeting with the Russian businessman only touched on U.S. Relations with Russia. Prince said, at that meeting, if Stalin and Roosevelt could come together to defeat Nazi fascism, then Putin and Trump could come together to defeat Islamic fascism.
That Prince claims was the end of the conversation. He says, he hasn't talked to that Kremlin-connected banker since. Today, Democrats pounced on reports that Lebanese-American businessman, George Nader, told the special counsel he was at the meeting referring to prince's earlier testimony. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell told CNN, he never gave the name George Nader if he, meaning Prince, met with George Nader he lied under oath. Not so fast, says Prince. He tells me that he told the committee he met with UAE advisors of which Nader was one at that meeting. Now, back to Adam Schiff, today, he said he wanted Prince to come back and testify about all of this, Sandra. I asked Prince if he would. He said, there's just no need and that Schiff is just grasping at straws and has his feelings hurt because Prince 'scolded the Intel Committee for leaking classified information about him'. Sandra?
SMITH: Leland Vittert, thank you for those breaking details tonight. Here with more, Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent, The Washington Examiner, and a Fox News contributor. Byron, good to see you in the evening rather than mornings, as usual.
BYRON YORK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Thank you, Sandra.
SMITH: Very good to have you here. What can you conclude from what you just heard?
YORK: Well, I think the most important thing to remember is the main question that everybody has been pursuing is did the Donald Trump campaign and Russia collude to influence the 2016 election? Keep that in mind when you remember that this meeting in the Seychelles was in January 2017 -- it was two months after the election. It was not a meeting to try to influence the election. After that, what does it mean? Even if Erik Prince were representing the Trump transition and you just heard Leland report he says he definitely was not. But even if he were, I mean, this would be the incoming administration trying to establish some sort of ties with another country prior to the president's inauguration, which is not all that different from that phone call that Michael Flynn had with Sergey Kislyak who was a Russian ambassador. A lot of experts say, there was nothing wrong with that. So, it's hard to figure exactly what the importance of this meeting is when you remember it happened in January 2017.
SMITH: Byron, how damaging are these leaks that are coming out of this committee right now?
YORK: Well, this is the most dysfunctional, divided committee on Capitol Hill. I think if you go testify before them, it's like going to dinner at the world's most dysfunctional family. They all yell at each other and you're kind of sitting there.
SMITH: Sounds like mine.
YORK: And we have seen a number of leaks. And I think maybe a really low point was reached last week when Hope Hicks, the president's -- one of the president's closest advisors testified and they pushed her -- Democrats pushed her to suggest that she had lied for the president. And after a lot of talks, she said that she had actually told some small white lies on behalf of the president.
BYRON: Like telling a caller he was in a meeting when he wasn't really in a meeting, and that got blown up into a big story: Hope Hicks lies on behalf of President Trump, what about? So, the relations between the two sides of the committee are terrible. And they are, at least Republicans are thinking about wrapping this up some time.
SMITH: Always good to get your take on things, Byron. And thanks for sticking around after that breaking news coming out of the White House at the top of the hour.
BYRON: Thank you, Sandra.
SMITH: Good to see you. Well, after six long years, the DOJ will finally release fast and furious details that the Obama administration kept hidden. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed because of that botched gun- running operation and his brother, Kent, is here with us tonight.
SANDRA SMITH, THE STORY HOST: Breaking tonight, harrowing audio just released by the Broward sheriff's office recounting shear hysteria on February 14th as parents frantically contact 911 for information on the whereabouts of their children while a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas School. Trace Gallagher live on out West Coast newsroom with the latest on this. Trace?
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Sandra, we're going to let the urgency of the calls speak for themselves. I just want to kind of set up the context for you. There were 81, 911 calls made from 2:22 on the afternoon of February 14th to 3:45. Of the 81 calls, the Broward County sheriff is only releasing 10 of them. And if you put those 10 calls together, it's about an hour of audiotape which means there were some long conversations. But only one of the released calls was from inside the school and we're going to play you that. Meantime, the rest are from second and third parties relaying information like these three samples of different parents with kids inside the school. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: My son is in Stoneman Douglas High School. He said he heard noises in class. And he thinks there's a shooting going on at the school. He said shots, shots, shots. Mom, God. There was few shots in her room.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, oh my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: And then there's this call from a man who's talking to a woman with two daughters inside the school. One daughter is in the auditorium. The other is in a classroom crouched under a window. Listen to her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Somebody just entered the room.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Who is it that entered the room?
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Are they the police?
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love you, I love you. (INAUDIBLE)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Is it the police?
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's OK. It's OK.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A police. They said put your hands up.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I love you. I love you. It's going to be fine. Hide somewhere. Can you play dead?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: You can hear the mom in the background talking to her daughter on the phone how panicked she is. And finally, this call from someone inside the school, it's a male but it's unclear if it's a student or a faculty member. Listen close, because he's whispering. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Stoneman Douglas High School is being shot up.
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's being shot up? Are you at the school?
UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't hear you. Are you at the school?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Yeah. That's when the call either hung up or the line dropped off. The media, by the way, is also asking for the other calls to be released as well as surveillance video outside the school, and the Broward County sheriff has agreed to release the video. Now we're waiting for a judge to either say yes or no. But soon we should have video and the remainder of those 911 calls. Sandra.
SMITH: So difficult to listen to those. Trace, thank you. Up next, for years the Obama administration hid documents linked to their botched fast and furious gun-running operation that claimed the life of border patrol agent Brian Terry. Brian's brother, Kent, asked for help and the Trump administration answered. His reaction, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There needs to be accountability. There needs to be justice for my brother. He deserves it. He spent 22 years serving his country as a law enforcement officer, a marine, and that's what he deserves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: Developing tonight, six years after the Obama administration botched fast and furious gun-running scandal. We might finally get some answers on what really happened. The Trump DOJ is now releasing hidden documents that Obama and his former attorney general wanted to keep secret about the ill-fated operation that claimed the life of border patrol agent Brian Terry. Brian's brother, Kent, this past weekend took to twitter with this plea to the president. Sir, it's been seven years. My family asks you reopen Obama's gun scandal that cost my brother his life. I talked to you back on the campaign trail here in Michigan and you offered to reopen the books into this senseless scandal. Within days of that tweet, the administration took action. Kent Terry joins me now. Kent, how did it feel when you learned this news?
KENT TERRY, BROTHER OF SLAIN ICE AGENT: I was relieved, emotionally relieved. It's been a frustrating six years for me and my family. It just felt like a big weight was lifted off our chest today, and our shoulders. And finally -- but it shouldn't have got to this point if the Obama administration had just been honest with us from the get-go, instead of lying to us and misleading us for the last six years. But today was -- it was a start, but we have still got a long road ahead of us.
SMITH: You can still hear the pain in your voice and you and your siblings. We've heard from your sister as well, have been asking for this for so long. And, as you said, you were promised answers a long time ago. And we're reminded of this letter back in 2014 that Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, wrote to you saying as I committed to you in our meeting, holding those responsible for your brother's murder accountable to the fullest extent of the law and ensuring that no operation like fast and furious ever happens again remain top priorities for the department of justice and for me personally. That didn't happen.
TERRY: No, it didn't happen. It was frustrating. Especially after the scandal that came out. And I met with him in person, and he sat there and looked at me straight in the face and said the same things he pretty much wrote in that letter. And I never had hope, really, when I walked out of there the disappointment at our justice system let my family down. And not only that, let my brother down. But today, when I met Mr. Trump, President Trump at the time now, he finally put hope in our justice system, and my family getting answers and accountability.
SMITH: You have said you want answers but you also want accountability. Will -- ultimately there be responsibility as a result of finally seeing these documents?
TERRY: What's that?
SMITH: Do you believe that there will ultimately be accountability now that these documents will be turned over?
TERRY: I hope so. It needs to, just so it doesn't happen again in the future. And lives are not lost by senseless acts like this. I'm not sure why they did it. But the people they've hurt and the hundreds of Mexican civilians that got killed with these weapons along with -- my brother, is just -- the families, they're the ones suffering. And these people that are responsible for this are just sitting back, you know, still collecting a paycheck and living life, while they took somebody else's is just not fair.
SMITH: Kent, obviously, your family is still grieving to this moment. If you could, just leave us off with a thought of your brother tonight.
TERRY: He's -- I think about him daily. There's probably not a second that goes by. Is just that -- he's my hero. And he's just -- he always will be.
SMITH: We're all thinking about your family tonight. We hope you get answers. Thanks for coming on.
TERRY: Thank you.
SMITH: We'll be right back.
SMITH: Fox News alert, this statement just coming in from the president following that big announcement at the top of the hour, President Trump greatly appreciate the nice words of the South Korean delegation and President Moon. He will accept the invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un at a place and time to be determined. We look forward to the denuclearization of North Korea. In the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain, and those words coming in just now from Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary. We'll stay on that for you.
Meanwhile, developing tonight, pressure is being ramped up on evangelical Christians to defend their support for President Trump. As left wing pundits call them hypocrites for supporting the president amid allegations from adult film star Stormy Daniels. Joining me now, Juan Williams, co-host of 'The Five,' and a Fox News political analyst, and Pastor Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, and a Fox News contributor. Good to have both of you here. Pastor, I'll go to you first. What do you make of the evangelicals being called hypocrites in the wake of this -- these allegations?
ROBERT JEFFRESS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's absolutely ludicrous. Look, evangelicals know they're not compromising their beliefs in order to support this great president. And let's be clear, evangelicals still believe in the commandment thou shalt not have sex with a porn star, OK? We're still agreed on that. However, whether this president violated that commandment or not is totally irrelevant to our support of him for two quick reasons. First of all, evangelicals knew they weren't voting for an altar boy when they voted for Donald Trump.
JEFFRESS: We supported him because of his policies and his strong leadership. And tonight you saw another example, the result of that strong leadership in the announcement from North Korea. But, secondly, and, Sandra, this is more important, perhaps, evangelicals understand the concept of sin and forgiveness. Look, we're all sinners. We all need forgiveness. That forgiveness is available through Christ for anyone who asks. And whether the president needs that forgiveness for this particular allegation, whether he's asked for it is between him, his family, and his God.
SMITH: Get in here, Juan.
JUAN WILLIAMS, THE FIVE CO-HOST: Oh, I love Pastor Jeffress. And I want him to make his case.
JEFFRESS: I love Juan.
WILLIAMS: But pastor, I don't see how you can say that this is something people knew about. This story has gotten much bigger in the last two weeks since we had our previous engagement here on The Story. Because now, you have the lawyer for the president, Michael Cohen, saying, oh, you know what? Not only did I pay $130,000 to try to silence the woman, now I'm trying to get an injunction or some kind of arbitration to stop her from talking yet again. Secondly, you have Sarah Sanders at the White House speaking out. And third, Stormy Daniels suing the president, not only suing the president, but saying possibly she has text messages, pictures or property.
SMITH: They're allegations. Go ahead, pastor.
JEFFRESS: What I say to that is, look, even if it's proven to be true, it doesn't matter because.
JEFFRESS: Of what I just said. And Juan, listen, a blue dress was not enough to turn you into a red Republican, and I believe anything Stormy Daniels has will not be enough to turn red Republicans into blue Democrats.
SMITH: But the big question is.
JEFFRESS: This is about the policies and issues.
WILLIAMS: No, it's not. By the way, what did Christ do at the temple? He threw out the money changers. Pastor, you cannot sell your integrity, your Christian values and say, oh, because President Trump is anti-abortion I'll support him no matter what? What happened to the principles? What happened to your love of people of character?
JEFFRESS: We're supporting him because of the principles that he stands for, not because of personal behavior. We all fall short. And when talking about what Christ did, he also caught the woman who was in adultery and said I forgive you and go and sin no more.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. And you know what, she wanted forgiveness. This president, pastor, has never asked for forgiveness. Never acknowledged it.
JEFFRESS: You don't know that Juan.
SMITH: Oh, Juan, we don't know what happened.
WILLIAMS: I'm talking about publicly, Sandra.
SMITH: I have one very important question, pastor, will this support continue.
JEFFRESS: Yeah. You know, I asked the question, what would it cost -- take for evangelicals to walk away from President Trump. I'm his friend. I'll never walk away. But I think his policy changes or if he were found to be in an adulteress relationship now, that would cause many people a problem.
WILLIAMS: But pastor, what about someone like Rob Porter abusing wives in the White House and being excused. That's ongoing behavior that I don't think is Christian.
SMITH: I'm moving on.
WILLIAMS: No, he asked about ongoing bad behavior.
SMITH: I'm getting yelled at. I've got to go. It's great to have both of you. You didn't even need me to facilitate that conversation. Great to have you both. Thank you, pastor, thank you, Juan. On this international women's day, there are new questions about some women's group association with nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan. The Story right after this.
SMITH: On this International Women's Day, the women's march group is being forced to answer for their co-president, Tamika Mallory, attending a sermon by the minister, Louis Farrakhan, a controversial leader of Nation of Islam known for hateful rhetoric against Jews.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Israel practiced dirty religion, taking the land from the Palestinians, using, lying, thieving and murder in the name of God as a shield for their dirty practice.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You are the synagogue of Satan.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: And you have wrapped your tentacles around a U.S. government, and you're deceiving and sending this nation to hell.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that satanic Jew.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: Here now Lisa Boothe, a senior fellow at Independent Women's Day, Jessica Tarlov is author of 'America in the Age of Trump.' Both are Fox News contributors. Good to have both of you here.
JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
SMITH: Evening of a lot going on. I know you both have strong feelings on this. Let's start with you first, Jessica.
TARLOV: I'm appalled by that, as I think most of America is. And I certainly think that it would be good for the leaders of the women's march, two of them have been long time supporters of Louis Farrakhan to speak out against this. I also wanted to mention that it's not just about the antisemitism, the misogyny that has come out of Louis Farrakhan's mouth is something that has no place, certainly, in a conversation about women's empowerment. I think that it's terrible and it's certainly if we're going to be no tolerance of that kind of hateful language, which I think should be the case on both sides of the aisle here. I think something has got to be done.
SMITH: Anything about this surprise you, Lisa?
LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No. I mean, it doesn't surprise me. The women's march has been associated with individuals that are part of the fringe element of society. People like Linda Sarsour who has been connected to known terrorists. So I think it's unsurprising that again they're embracing an individual that is part of the fringe element of society. But I think the bigger issue here is the fact that the left has also been largely silent. You've got representatives like Danny Davis who has tried to essentially defend this individual who has said that Hitler was a very good man. It should be pretty easy to condemn that sort of rhetoric. And I think it also represents the gross double standard of the media. How many times did President Trump and Republicans have to denounce David Duke, someone that they had no association with. And then, you have President Obama, when he was a senator, photographed with this guy. And members of congress having relationships with this guy and not having to condemn him. And I think that's why the Republican.
BOOTHE: That are asking for seven different members on the left to resign.
TARLOV: It's not just seven members on the left. So those seven members are members of the congressional black caucus. So you're acting as if the Democratic Party has Louis Farrakhan as one of our icon. That's actually not the case if you've spent some time on twitter today looking.
TARLOV: It's a specific group that has an issue with Louis Farrakhan. This is not widespread throughout the party. And if you look at twitter today, you will see.
TARLOV: I just did.
SMITH: She responded on twitter basically denouncing antisemitism. She didn't even mention specifically Farrakhan.
TARLOV: It's problematic. And I think it's going to blow up in their faces in the end here. I mean, the women's march was something that I felt, and I participated in the New York version of it, was incredibly empowering especially after an election that signaled to a lot of people that women's rights were going to be rolled back. And there's no place for this. This is not all Democrats.
SMITH: I have to leave it there.
BOOTHE: Except there's a lot of women that -- viewpoints aren't.
SMITH: Maybe we'll continue this conversation all three of us.
SMITH: Thank you for joining us. I'll see you tomorrow at 9 on America's Newsroom and Outnumbered at noon. Tucker is next.
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.