Lankford: Russia is a 'distraction' until we get it resolved

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," September 19, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, "THE STORY" HOST: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum. And tonight, THE STORY begins here in New York City at the United Nations. We expect the president and other members to assemble momentarily for one of those photo opportunities, and we are watching for that moment. But earlier today President Trump gave what some are calling the strongest speech of his presidency so far. By any measure, it was bold and, perhaps, the most consequential and provocative speech ever given there by a U.S. President.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power but to give power to the American people where it belongs. And to preserve their rights and to defend their values. As president of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always and should always put your countries first. We have a policy of principled realism rooted in shared goals, interests and values. That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room. It is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face. Or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow?


MACCALLUM: Later in this speech, he took aim at North Korea and then Iran and Venezuela.


TRUMP: It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more. We were all witness to the regime's deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later. We saw it in the assassination of the dictator's brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport. We know it kidnapped a sweet, 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea's spies. The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.

Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.


MACCALLUM: All right. So, if you missed it today, that's a pretty good summary of where President Trump went with this speech. Marc Thiessen an American Enterprise Institute Scholar and a Fox News Contributor and someone who has written and contributed to presidential speeches done at the U.N.; and Larry Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, who served as Assistant Defense Secretary under President Reagan, both here for analysis here tonight. Marc, let me start with you. What did you think?

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND SCHOLAR OF AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Sure. I thought it was an outstanding speech. It made me proud to be an American to hear my commander-in-chief speak that way. I mean, look, what he did today he recast America First, not as a call for isolation. Remember when everybody on the left was so worried that he was going to be isolationist. He recast it not as a call for isolation but as a call for American global leadership based on the principle of state sovereignty that frees nation states, free, prosperous and strong nation states are what is necessary to confront the dangers we face in the world. And he's absolutely right.

You know, communism and fascism were not defeated by the United Nations. The dramatic expansion of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity that we've seen in the world since the collapse of communism isn't the result of global institutions. It's the result of the spread of the American idea of free enterprise backed by U.S. military might and by the projection of American power and our allies. And that's what he talked about today.

MACCALLUM: So, Larry Korb, the North Korean delegation was not in the room to squirm while he enumerated the atrocities that they have committed, including Otto Warmbier. I can only think that his family must have been heartened to hear their son's name called out in front of the one remaining North Korean member of the delegation who sat there with his head down taking notes. What did you think?

LARRY KORB, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS AND FORMER ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN: Well, I think he was right to do that but then using the term rocket man made it sound like our relations with North Korea's a video game. This is very serious business. And I noticed that his press secretary already backed off from the strong language that he said. Look, we're going to have to live with North Korea just as we learn to live with China under Mao when they got nuclear weapons at the time of the cultural revolution. And then, when he used the term radical Islamic, you know, terrorism, no, even President Bush who Marc knows well never used that particular term because that doesn't help.

THIESSEN: That's not true, Larry. I wrote those words for Bush.

KORB: He never used them. I went back and checked.

THIESSEN: Yes, he did. I wrote them.

KORB: He said it's a religion -- I know. He said it's a religion of peace, is what he said and he went to a mosque.

MACCALLUM: Well, and both can be true. The Muslim religion is a religion of peace. However, there is radical Islamic terrorism that exists in the world. You know, there was a lot of outcry after the speech, this is Terry Moran from ABC. Let's play that.


TERRY MORAN, ABC ANCHOR: He said words totally destroying a nation of 25 million people, that borders on the threat of committing a war crime.


MACCALLUM: He's referring to the part of the speech where the president said that if North Korea went too far, the country could be destroyed. I just want to point out that Bill Clinton used essentially the same exact language in his own way. Let's play that and then get your response.


BILL CLINTON, 42ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons because if they ever use them, it would be the end of their country.


MACCALLUM: All right. Larry first, and then Marc. What do you think?

KORB: Well, of course, if they use them that would be the end of the country. But that's the real challenge, you don't want them to use them anymore than you wanted China to do it when Mao was there during the cultural revolution. That's the way the deterrence works. You make it clear as Mattis and Tillerson have if you use them, it's all over. But what you don't want to do is say something that's going to provoke them to use it by some off-handed remark like, you know, rocket man.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, Marc, it's a good point. And you think about the fact that in the past, presidents have been very clear when they speak about Iran to say, you know, our enemy is not the Iranian people. We're talking about the regime here. So, did that go too far today?

THIESSEN: No, it didn't. Because what he was trying to do is make clear to the regime in Pyongyang that he is willing to use military force to stop them from getting the capability to threaten an American city with a nuclear ICBM. And one of the reasons we never had a cataclysmic war with the Soviet Union during the Cold War is because of the Soviet leadership, and we know this from the KGB file from the pile of bureau files in the Soviet archives opened up. They actually believed that Ronald Reagan was willing to launch a nuclear first strike. It was through peace through strength. And their knowledge of that that we never got to a war.

Right now, the regime in Pyongyang seems to be convinced that they can do whatever they want and that nobody will (INAUDIBLE), there will be no military consequences. Donald Trump made clear today that if they do not back off their pursuit of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them to the United States, then he will destroy their regime. And the United States is capable of doing that and willing to do that and it's only through their -- if they get that through their thick head, then will we ever have a chance to have this solved peacefully.

MACCALLUM: Gentlemen, thank you very much.

KORB: No. You're not going to strike them first, OK? They're talking about the rhetoric, the idea -- and we never did. Khrushchev said we'll bury you. We did intend, you know, threaten to use nuclear weapons, and it wasn't just Reagan.

MACCALLUM: All right. I got to go.

THIESSEN: Ronald Reagan said, we'll bomb you in five minutes.

MACCALLUM: Larry and Marc, thank you very much. Thanks, you guys. Good to see you both tonight. Lots to talk about. So also, breaking this evening, Hurricane Maria leaving widespread devastation in its wake. It is plowing towards Puerto Rico. Here we go again. It's just unbelievable -- the devastation that has been wreaked all through that island chain. National Weather Service, warning just minutes ago that it is strengthening maximum winds of 175 miles per hour. We're going to take you to San Juan for an update on that in a moment.

And some 2,000 miles away from a different type of natural disaster tonight. Central Mexico rocked by a devastating earthquake, over 100 people dead. These numbers continue to rise by the minute tonight. Shocking images coming in. We'll get you updated on the Mexico City situation. Very sad tonight. Also, remember this tweet in which President Trump claimed that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. It was laughed at by critics. But there's a new report that points in the direction of, perhaps, the president being right on this. So, we'll break it down for you. We'll tell you what we know so far. Howie Kurtz on whether the media may have been too quick to dismiss that claim.


MACCALLUM: Next up on "The Story," shockwaves after a report that former Trump Campaign Chair, Paul Manafort, was wiretapped by U.S. investigators. As you may remember, President Trump made a similar claim back in March with this tweet: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthy- ism," he wrote. CNN was quick to pounce, disregarding the tweet as, "Trump's baseless wiretap claim." Even the director of National Intelligence under President Obama categorically dismissed the claim.


JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, if the FBI, for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?


TODD: If there was a FISA court order?


TODD: And at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether it exists?

CLAPPER: I can deny it.


MACCALLUM: Wow. So now, CNN says that's not with this screaming headline: "exclusive U.S. government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman." Noting in the article that Manafort was bugged at the time when he was known to be speaking with President Trump. Here with more, Howie Kurtz, Fox News Media Analyst. It is so stunning; so many parts of this are stunning. But you know, when the president came out with that tweet, he was lambasted for probably 10 days, I would say, Howie.


MACCALLUM: Now, is it proven true or not?

KURTZ: You have pundits on the right saying, uh-huh, President Trump is vindicated; you have some on the left say, oh, no, he isn't. The plain truth we don't know yet. We don't know, for example, whether candidate Trump's voice was picked up on those man for wiretaps. And we do have the Trump Justice Department, Martha, saying two weeks ago, no evidence to support the original Trump claim about Barack Obama.

MACCALLUM: So, now, you've got a situation where according to these reports, there were two FISA courts approved wiretaps on Paul Manafort before and after the election, right? Now, James Clapper, clearly, said that there was no wiretap on President Trump or on his campaign, which would clearly include Paul Manafort, who was the manager of his campaign.

KURTZ: James Clapper has some explaining to do because he was unequivocal as we saw in that clip with Chuck Todd, saying that not only didn't let that happen, he would've known about it, he knows about all the FISA stuff. And here's the significance: the first tapping was in 2014, well before the campaign. The second was -- may have started after Manafort was ousted as campaign chairman; he continued after the election. The FISA Court doesn't approve these kinds of surveillance unless there is reasonable suspicion that somebody was acting illegally as a foreign agent.

So, it could be that this was related to the investigation of collusion with Russia, in which case President Trump would be partially vindicated since he may have been picked that. Or could have nothing to do with that because of Manafort's under investigation for money laundering, tax, perhaps not registering properly as a lobbyist, could have to do with something else. So, there's more here to be seen. By the way, Martha, it is outrageous that this was leaked -- even we know Robert Mueller clearly tried to put pressure on Manafort. It's a criminal investigation; it's illegal to leak this stuff.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And they said that he was told that he would be indicted. And James Clapper, as you point out, has some questions to answer as well. I mean, this is not the first time that he has made a statement that turned out to not be the case. So, we need to know whether or not he --

KURTZ: The media may be as embarrassed as well as Clapper if it turns out that Trump was indirectly targeted, but that's not clear yet. So, probably, the smart thing to do is not to rush to judgment.

MACCALLUM: And we don't know yet whether or not the president was right about wiretaps at Trump Tower, but we do know that it's an open question, at least, at this point based on these reports.

KURTZ: Indeed.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Howie. Always good to see you. So, just moments ago, I spoke with the Oklahoma's Republican Senator, James Lankford, he is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I asked him about all of this.


SEN. JAMES LANKFORD, R-OKLAHOMA: This is the obvious reason why we need oversight over all of our intelligence operations to be able to evaluate what's being done, how it's being done, what authorities are being used and then what can we learn from that? So, we have a lot of questions as well. Any kind of wiretap that's used. Especially, on an American citizen, and we'll ask those questions and we will get answers to those questions as we go through the next several months.

MACCALLUM: Does it strike you as odd that there could be FISA courts approving wiretaps of Paul Manafort that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, had no awareness of?

LANKFORD: Yes. I'm trying to identify where that authority would come from. Obviously, with an American citizen that's a very different animal to be able to go through a wiretap, especially in an intelligence operation. That's not allowed without a clear FISA court for Jim Clapper to step in, and say that he was not aware of it and he could absolutely say no he had never seen that, it wasn't approved, didn't happen. We still have a lot of questions and we will get answers.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And a lot of people want to know what the basis for the FISA warrants was. What evidence it was based on that they were going to do those taps. I do want to ask you --

LANKFORD: There's a very high standard, as you know, for FISA courts. That's not something that's done flippantly. That's a very strong group of judges. So, the FISA court is involved, there's been a very, very high standard. We're trying to find out was a FISA court at all involved in that.

MACCALLUM: All right, senator. I want to turn your attention now to Michael Cohen, an attorney for President Trump who was involved during the campaign. He was supposed to speak to you all on your committee today. What happened?

LANKFORD: Well, he was supposed to speak to our committee privately. We have a lot of the interviews that we do behind closed doors to be able to ask hard questions that we go through the process. But we ask those witnesses not to be able to put out a big statement before or after. Obviously, we as the intelligence committee, are not going to put out a counter statement. So, it's best that they don't put out a statement, that then, we get questions about to say did get said or what else got said because you're going through the investigation trying to handle it in a professional way.

Mr. Cohen wasn't honoring that, and so we pushed to have that committee not meet today and then later made a request then to say, if he's going to make a statement publicly, then let's go ahead and make public statements, and we'll do the hearing in public. He since agreed to do a public hearing on that, and we'll walk through those exact same questions with him.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, he was supposed to, sort of, have this closed session with you all, answered questions. He put out a four-page statement saying that he had no interactions with the Russian government, ostensibly -- you know, that's what he said in the statement, I should say.


MACCALLUM: He and his lawyers, you know, we're going back and forth in the room, sort of, discussing what they were -- you know, what their side of it was going to be presenting this. Did that frustrate all of you?

LANKFORD: No. It is entirely reasonable for them to be able to talk about how they're going to handle it, and what they are going to do. It's also entirely reasonable for us to get as many questions answered as we can. Again, the way the Senate Intelligence Committee is working is working in a bipartisan way. We've got bipartisan staff. We've got the bipartisan cooperation that we're trying to get through and get to the facts. No one should be afraid of all the facts coming out.

When the facts get out, then, we can get a chance to get this resolved and the American people can move on from this. It's a distraction until we get it resolved. So, we're trying to handle it as professional as we can to be able to walk through the process because at the end of it, we're going put out a full report and get all the information out and all the questions that have been asked and what we have back.

MACCALLUM: What's your interest in Michael Cohen, specifically?

LANKFORD: Well, we have, obviously, all kinds of interests. I don't want to go into all of the details of that and exactly what we're going to ask him. But many of the things you'll see now because it will be a public hearing now. And we'll ask him those questions that we were going to ask him in private, we'll ask him now in public and walk through it then.

MACCALLUM: Do you have any indication that he's unhappy about the fact that this is now a public hearing?

LANKFORD: No. He's agreed to it. Obviously, we had approached them early on from the committee and has asked him not to put out anything publicly. He chose to do that. So, we chose and then say, we'll let just put it all out publicly and testify then.

MACCALLUM: Big change in events as a result. Senator Lankford, thank you very much. Always good to see you, sir.

LANKFORD: Always good to see you as well. Thanks.


MACCALLUM: So, there is yet another hurricane on the march tonight. It's a cat five. We are live in San Juan where the impact is just hours away. Plus, a former Trump campaign advisor has had enough of the Russian investigation.


MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: I don't think they're really looking that much to believe me. I think they're looking for reasons to extend this long as they can.


MACCALLUM: Michael Caputo is here next to tell us how the collateral damage from the Russia probe is hurting his family's future. And torched police cars after police shot and killed an armed Georgia tech student. Could all of this have been prevented? Mark Fuhrman breaks down that video straight ahead.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, man, drop the knife.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on, let's drop it.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, drop the knife.



MACCALLUM: Yet another hurricane is threatening the United States, as well as many Caribbean islands. Preparations, underway now in Puerto Rico. Hurricane Maria is on the way. It is massive and dangerous. Look at this. It's just the latest after Irma and Harvey and all of the rest in between. It's now headed after leaving a devastating trail of destruction in the island of Dominica, which is said to be nearly destroyed. The national weather service is warning that this is potentially catastrophic, still, and strengthening.

Joining me now on the phone from San Juan, Brett Adair, is a Meteorologist for Weather Nation T.V. He's been tracking the storms over the past 15 years and certainly over the past several weeks. Brett, good to talk to you tonight. Tell me what you're seeing there tonight in Puerto Rico now.

BRETT ADAIR, METEOROLOGIST, WEATHER NATION T.V. (via telephone): Well, here in San Juan, most areas have closed up. Everyone is really prepared for the storm. We rode around the islands today, and what's devastating already to us if you still have areas without power and trees down and power poles down from Irma. So, you know, this is going to be a devastating blow to Puerto Rico as a whole.

MACCALLUM: What was the reaction of people on the ground there? And we should point out, you know, we had hoped to have a picture of you as well, but the things are getting very dicey there, technically, of course, given this storm. How are the people weathering all of this?

ADAIR: Well, I mean, you have some people here that are actually tourists that are stuck. They had flights out of here and there. They're stranded-- well, not stranded, they're staying at hotels and they have emergency plans in place. The residents here, they've been working fast and furious boarding up, getting food, getting supplies. So, you know, the preparations that can be done has been done. The streets are fairly empty tonight. And so, everybody is really starting to batten down those hatches because it's really going to get wild here, really, 2:00 to 3:00 a.m.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, that's the prediction. We're looking at the track on the left-hand side of the screen. What are your best take on where this is going and potential turns that it could take and places that need to be warned?

ADAIR: Well, the unfortunate circumstances, there's high in the Atlantic Ocean that is kind of steering this. And I just don't see how Puerto Rico could not get a blunt direct hit pretty much all of the islands are going to face major impact -- potentially, infrastructure damage. And now, the pressure that was measured is below 9 or 10 mill bars. So, we are actually stronger pressure-wise than Hurricane Irma ever was. That's quite a concern.

MACCALLUM: All right. We are staying on top of this breaking news story tonight throughout the evening. Hurricane Maria as it sets its sights on San Juan and Puerto Rico. Brett, thank you. Thank you very much.

ADAIR: Thank you.


CAPUTO: I never heard of anyone in the Trump campaign talking with Russians. But I never was asked questions about my time in Russia. And then, I never even spoke to anyone about Russia. I never heard the word Russia. And we did not use Russian dressing. There was absolutely no discussion of Russia on the Trump campaign to the day I left.


MACCALLUM: So, that was former Trump Campaign Advisor, Michael Caputo, back in July after facing questions from the House Intel Committee in the Russia probe. And Michael Caputo back in July after facing questions from the House Intel Committee in the Russia probe. And as the investigation continues, this former aide is speaking out about the collateral damage for him and for so many people who are having to defend themselves with legal fees, security bills. High costs taking a toll, even leaving him to liquidate his child's college fund to help pay to what he says is a politically motivated investigation. Here now Michael Caputo, former senior advisor to the Trump campaign. Good to see you tonight. Welcome. So this has been, obviously, very tough on you and your family.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: It is. But it's just not on my family and my kids and myself. It's also, right now, it's widening where, you know, government employees, people making those kind of low White House salaries are being called in front of very serious investigators. And they've all got to lawyer up, too. It's not your family, you know, general practitioner, or your divorce attorney. This is very specialized legal advice that you need to get. These are people specialists in a very finite section of the law. That competency comes at a very high price. And there are people now just, you know, coming into to these investigations from the government who will never be able to afford it.

MACCALLUM: But what do you say to those who hear you say that, and they say, well, you know, if these low level staffers have nothing to worry about, then why do they need some high powered legal defense if they never were involved in anything?

CAPUTO: Well, that -- you know, I think -- you would think in theory that would be true. But it isn't just the person, you know, the people that are being targeted by the investigation. It's the witnesses and the subject of the investigation who happen to be nearby or in the same office. You know, working near the people who are being targeted. And we have to sit down and tell our perspective, and provide the information that we have. And if someone in that position, the position I'm in, and others coming from the White House now, if they make a mistake, they don't recall something correctly from 16, 18 months ago, they could be in a problem with the FBI or with the House or the Senate. And to avoid that, you're best to invest in good legal representation. And if you don't, you're just not very smart.

MACCALLUM: I mean, special prosecutor process that could go on and on and on. You said something stunning. You said this can never happen again. They're going to destroy Donald Trump, his business, his friends, and people like me. So you believe this will end with them destroying President Trump?

CAPUTO: Well, I'm not quite certain they're going to beat President Trump, and the people around President Trump, but I believe that is their purpose. I think the establishment that's been entrenched in Washington for so very, very long on both sides of the aisle, they can't have enough another Donald Trump pop-up in ten years, another billionaire populist who wants to make things right in Washington, so they have to punish Donald Trump, his family, destroy his businesses, his friends, where I guess I fit in and others, and just to make sure that this never happens again. You don't have to look any further than today's speech at the United Nations to know that we have a very different president, the kind of president that I have worked so hard to elect. And I'm so very proud of what he did today. These kinds of things make the establishment very, very nervous and they can't have it happen again.

MACCALLUM: Michael Caputo, thank you very much. Good to talk to you tonight.

CAPUTO: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So breaking this evening, a massive earthquake striking central Mexico killing at least 100 people. Toppling buildings and we are getting some shocking images that are now coming in minute by minute from Mexico. This is an awful disaster. And we will show you what is unfolded in the recent hours this evening. Also, a vigil tonight for a student shot and killed by police at Georgia Tech turns ugly as rioting breaks out. Former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman is here to take a look at the video to break it down to tell us whether or not this could have ended very differently.


MACCALLUM: So, candlelight vigil turned violent on Georgia Tech's campus. Two police officers were injured and a police SUV was torched during what started out as a peaceful vigil for Georgia Tech student, Scout Schultz, shot and killed by the police on campus over the weekend. Trace Gallagher live in our west coast newsroom with the back story on this awful story tonight. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Martha, for context, the 911 call came in at 11:17, Saturday night, reporting a suspicious person on the campus of Georgia Tech. The caller described the suspect and said he was possibly intoxicated, holding a knife or a gun. Minutes later, male and female campus police officers encountered 21-year-old Scout Schultz outside the dorms. He was bare foot, disoriented, and we now know that Scout Schultz is the one who made the 911 call on himself. Here's the first part of the video.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, man, drop the knife.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on, let's drop it.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: No. Drop the knife.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the knife. Drop the knife.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the knife, come on.


GALLAGHER: You could see him walking toward the police officer. In that 15 seconds, police demanded he drop the knife nine times. In the next part of the video, at least four campus police officers have now surrounded the suspect, and a male officer can be heard trying to engage the 21-year-old. A graphic warning, this is disturbing video. Watch.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What are you doing here?




UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What's your name?


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What is your name?


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What's your name?




GALLAGHER: He died moments later. Police contend protocol was followed. But the parents of Scout Schultz say he was in the midst of a mental break down, never once raised his arms, and that his knife was folded inside a multipurpose tool. The family lawyer says the officer who pulled the trigger had been on the job for one year with no crisis intervention training. Here's the parents.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I took him back to school on August 19th, and that's the last time I saw Scout. Why did you have to shoot? That's the question. Why did you kill my son?


GALLAGHER: We should note, Georgia Tech police officers do not carry stun guns, and three suicide notes were found inside Scout Schultz dorm room. His parents say Scout also tried to hang himself last year. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Terrible. Trace, thank you very much. Here now to break down this video and answer the question whether the police could have used non- deadly force is Mark Fuhrman, a former LAPD detective and a Fox News contributor. Mark, good evening to you. Obviously, this is a heart breaking, awful story. And I can also tell you that we now have the text of the 911 call that it's believed Scout Schultz called the police himself and said, hey, I'm over at west village, looks like somebody is skulking around outside, it looks like he's got a knife in his hand, I think he may have a gun on his hip. He went on to say, it looks like he may be drunk or something. So this is classic case of suicide by cop, at least it appears that was this young's man intention, Mark.

MARK FUHRMAN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely, Martha. That being said, when the suspect actually sets the stage for the entire incident, and his intent is death, there is probably almost nothing that the officers could have done short of lethal force or, possibly, use of a stun gun, which might have been effective or might not. The officers are trained tactically that when a man has a gun or a knife, let's just say a knife in close proximity, 21 feet or less, that they can close that distance in about the time an officer can un-holster his weapon and shoot. So they're very aware that a suspect can take their life even though that they could make contact and actually take out the suspect.

MACCALLUM: You just heard from his father that they claim that it was, you know, it sounds like a closed knife, like a Swiss army knife or some other kind of knife that was closed according to this report. You know, why not shoot him in the ankle, shoot him in the shoulder? I mean, isn't that what police officers are trained to do to take somebody down in a nonlethal way in this sort of situation where clearly it's a disturbed young man?

FUHRMAN: No. They never are trained that way, Martha. I mean, in the heat of a situation, to expect that the average officer would have that kind of level of marksmanship is probably almost silly. You aim for the center mass to stop the individual, and to stop the advance, and to stop the attack, or the aggressive nature of what the person is involved in. And you brought up something that was interesting. It was a closed utility tool or a leather man. Now, if I saw that in somebody's hand, I wouldn't think knife. I would see a gun. And that's exactly the way the call came out, a knife or a gun. So, the officer, we have to only understand what he knew and when he knew it. When he couples that call with the conduct of the individual, what's in his hand, if he sees that and that suspect is advancing, his only tool at that point is deadly force. He shot one controlled round, center mass, and he stopped the suspect. That's exactly what he's trained to do.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, you know, my first thought too is a Taser. They apparently don't use them. I mean, what is a Taser for if not to respond in this sort of situation? You know, clearly, this is a young man who is very disturbed. And they were -- it sounds like they were doing all the right things. They were trying to get him to talk. What's your name, what's your name? What's going on here tonight? You know, all of that feels like it's unfolding the way you would expect it to. Why wouldn't they have Tasers in this situation?

FUHRMAN: Well, I can't speak to why that police department doesn't have Tasers. But Tasers are not always effective. I have seen people tased where they just pull the darts out and keep the advance and the fight going. He is mentally ill. And I go back to what everybody knew about him. It seems like those people, quite possibly, should have got him more help before this night when he tried to take his own life and left three suicide notes. But getting back to the police and tactics, you know, because they don't have a stun gun, because the department or the college didn't provide them is not their problem. They have to deal with the tools that they have, and the tools that they had, they had to use exactly as they did, and that officer was 100 percent proper in his conduct, his control of fire, his actions.

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, they're suspended. So I imagine an investigation is going to unfold, and then we'll see if that does turn out to be the case here.

FUHRMAN: It will.

MACCALLUM: Thank you for your analysis, Mark Fuhrman, always good to have you with us. Thanks.

FUHRMAN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So pretty tough situation. Awful, in fact, is unfolding in Mexico City. The more we learn about this, the more devastating it looks to be. Rescue crews are trying to get people out of some of these crumbled buildings as we speak. We're going to bring you update from Mexico City straight ahead. Plus, we have witnessed countless scenes of conservatives coming under attack on college campuses. But just yesterday, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi found herself at the center of a very difficult situation, and at the center of people's outrage. New polls tonight suggest that this may be part of the growing way of discourse in this country. That's problematic. Jason Chaffetz and Richard Fowler join me next.


MACCALLUM: Tonight, rescue workers are combing through the rubble following a devastating earthquake in Mexico, central Mexico, about 70 miles away from Mexico City. In fact, reports say that over 100 people have been killed. Those numbers are very early, sadly in this situation. Buildings are literally been reduced to rubble in some cases. The magnitude 7.1 tremor hit in the early afternoon, a lot of people at work, moving about in the city, people ran for their lives. Mexico City's International Airport suspended operations to check for damage there. Today's earthquake comes just two weeks after another earthquake killed 90 people, and it also comes on the anniversary of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake that killed thousands. More updates throughout the night here on Fox News.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I am. Yes, I am. Yes, I am. You do not.

PEOPLE SHOUTING: You're a liar. You're a liar.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't know what you're talking about.


MACCALLUM: That was uncomfortable. That was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She was shouted down by illegal immigrants in her hometown of San Francisco. Videos like this are rare from the left, really, but a norm for many conservative situations that we've seen recently. A new Brookings Institution Poll finds that a majority of college age Democrats think that that behavior is acceptable, 62 percent of Democrats say they believe it's OK to shout down a speaker if they don't like that speaker, 39 percent of Republicans agree with that idea. But even more frightening, perhaps, is this one. This poll says nearly one in five college students think that violence is acceptable to stop speech that you find offensive. Jason Chaffetz is former Republican congressman. Richard Fowler, nationally syndicated talk show host. Both are Fox News contributors. Richard, let me start with you. Do you think this is a troubling poll?

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It is definitely an interesting poll. Troubling, I would also argue, too. The reason why it's interesting is that I think that millennials, and I think these are the younger terms millennials, so the latter end of that tier. I think they have grown up in the most diverse society ever, right? They have grown up in a society where they've seen biracial, they've seen transgender, they've seen gay, they've seen lesbian, and so they think the world is that, right? And so they think any speech that's not that type of exclusion should be excluded. I don't agree with that at all. But I think that's where they are. And I think what we've got to do as a country is figure out how we become more inclusive so we don't have this type of violence and shouting down speakers. I mean, for me it doesn't matter. I'm a gay black guy and I get hurled insults all the time. I just don't care about it. I mean, I think this is a very, very, very interesting, interesting, interesting poll.

MACCALLUM: I mean, there's a huge difference though between, you know, someone who is upset about, you know, conservative political thought and somebody who is offensive on the grounds that you just pointed out.

FOWLER: That's what I'm saying. And I think that goes both way because the water there and that line is very, very, very thin. I mean, you would see people -- if you look on my twitter account or anybody's twitter account well say I disagree with Richard, so I'll call him a racial slur, or I'm going to call him homophobic slur. Now that unacceptable, but that's -- I'm in this industry and I should expect that type of behavior from people on twitter. But the point I'm trying to make here is that I think our society, because of, you can say it's because of, you know, the partisanship that we have. You can say it's because of, you know, the fact that, you know, there's just so much black and white and not enough shades of gray that that's where we are. But I think what we're seeing from this poll is that millennials are saying we're.

MACCALLUM: It's OK to be violent.

FOWLER: No, I think there.

MACCALLUM: One in five, say it's OK to be violent.

FOWLER: . is a silver lining here is inclusion is the way to go.

MACCALLUM: I don't know. Jason, what do you think?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don't think we're just one good group hug away from solving this problem. I do find it ironic that those that preach the most tolerance are oftentimes those who are the least tolerant of anybody. And we grow up in a society in the United States of America where we're supposed to vigorously debate. It's OK to disagree. You just don't want to be so disagreeable that you turn that into violence. I find it wholly unacceptable. I find it a tactic of the left. When Barack Obama said, hey, we're going to be -- we're not the red states or the white states or the blue states, we're the United States. That didn't turn out to be true. And when Michelle Obama says we're going -- you know, when they go low, we're going to go high. I haven't seen anybody on the left doing that. I really haven't.

FOWLER: Let me just push back on that a little bit, Martha, and say, I don't think this is a left or right issue. I think the example I gave at the beginning of the segment of somebody saying, when I leave this booth, I'm going to have a lot of hate slur thrown at me. And that's not coming from the left, that's coming from the right.


CHAFFETZ: What do you think the resistance group is doing?

MACCALLUM: There's no society that should be accepting of that, Richard. And that's not what we're talking here. We're talking about people like Charles Murray who show up to talk about political thought. I know have you problems with Charles Murray, but we ought to be able to, at least, have a legitimate conversation about it without justified violence being -- civility.

FOWLER: Let's be very clear. I agree with you. I think the first amendment protects all of those individuals to speak. But the point I'm trying to make here is I think what millennials on college campuses are saying, they grew up in a society where one would say everybody got a trophy, but inclusion is the way to go. And so, if you're outside of their inclusion bubble, they want to reject that, and I think that's what we've got to work on changing.

MACCALLUM: I've got to go. I'm getting counted out. Thanks you, guys. Good to see you. We'll see you next time. We'll be right back with more.


MACCALLUM: So that is our story for tonight. We want to hear your story though. So send me a tweet at Martha MacCallum using #TheStory, and send your story our way. Have a good night, everybody. Tucker Carlson is up next.


Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.