Clinton: Democrats need someone who can win Electoral College

close

Video

Clinton: Democrats need someone who can win Electoral College

Polls point to tight 2020 race in battleground states; National Review's Rich Lowry weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," November 5, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Hey there, Bret. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody.

So, tonight on “The Story,” Brit Hume and Congressman Eric Swalwell are both here in New York to talk about the latest in the impeachment proceedings. Also with us this evening, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley who believes that it is time to sanction the leaders in China. But he also says, do not trust what Silicon Valley executives are telling you.

Also with us tonight, Jesse Watters on that stunning hot mic, ABC moment that is raising a lot of questions about how Jeffrey Epstein's story got buried three years ago. And yet, Brett Kavanaugh's was fair game.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is “The Story.” And we begin tonight with the absolutely horrifying story coming out of Mexico tonight.

At least nine Americans: three women and six children including 8-month-old twins were massacred in their vehicles in Mexico. They're bullet-ridden, burned-out cars discovered in an area that's known for drug and migrant smuggling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is for the record. Nita and for my grandchildren are burnt and shot up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Just like a horrifying -- all of it. In moments, we're going to be joined by the aunt of Dawna Langford. Dawna was one of the women killed in that attack along with her two children -- two of her children.

But first, chief breaking news correspondent Trace Gallagher brings us the very latest on this investigation in this unspeakable tragedy. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Martha, the theory that because these families were driving SUVs, they may have been mistaken for rival cartel members appears to have zero credibility.

We now know these vehicles were miles apart heading in different directions. And in the first attack, one of the moms, Christina Langford Johnson, got out of her vehicle, waved her hands to show she wasn't a threat and was shot and killed anyway. A child running away also shot and killed. But Johnson's 6-month-old baby was found in a car seat, hidden on the floor of the vehicle alive.

In another SUV, Rhonita Maria Miller had some car trouble it had fallen behind the other families when she was attacked near the border of Sonora. She and her four children were killed, including her 8-month-old twins.

A few miles away, search teams found a third vehicle with three bodies. Relatives identified them as Dawna Ray Langford and her 11 and 3-year-old children. Several other children, some badly wounded escaped that vehicle. And after hiding the smaller children in bushes, a 13-year-old boy walked 14 miles for help.

The families were all breakaway Mormons, not associated with the Church of Latter-day Saints. Most have dual citizenship and have lived in Mexico for decades. Authorities say their relative wealth once made them targets of the cartels for extortion and kidnapping.

In 2009, one of the group's prominent members publicly denounced the drug traffickers and was shot and killed shortly thereafter. But experts say, it's rare for the cartels to target Americans -- it generates too much pressure.

And today, President Trump tweeted, "If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing and able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively.

Mexican President Manuel Lopez Obrador, thanked President Trump for the offer but said Mexico would handle it. But Arkansas GOP Senator Tom Cotton, says Mexico can't handle it. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: The only thing that can counteract bullets is more and bigger bullets. If the Mexican government cannot protect American citizens in Mexico, then, the United States may have to take matters into our own hands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Historically, cartels have also avoided targeting children. Apparently, not anymore. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Awful. Trace, thank you very much. Joining me now is Trish Cloes, she is the aunt of Dawna Langford, who is one of the three mothers who was killed in this horrible attack. Trish, I know that you are on vacation in Rome and that you are hoping that you're going to be able to get back home tomorrow.

What have you learned from the family about how the surviving children are doing tonight?

TRISH CLOES, AUNT OF DAWNA LANGFORD: They are still hospitalized but they are -- they're doing better.

MACCALLUM: What can you tell me about what you've heard through family members about what happened?

CLOES: Third family members at the time that we received the first message, in a group message that the whole family is a part of. I, at that time on this trip, I was actually taking the trip with Rhonita, Rhonita's brother.

And so, that's why we got wind of it at that moment because he was also with us and we are related to all three of the women, just as I'm related to Dawna Langford. I'm sorry, this is really, really, really hard for me without breaking down.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I can't imagine -- I completely -- I can't imagine -- you know. When you hear of these -- this little boy, the 13-year-old, who apparently put some of these other children in bushes to make them safe and then he walked all the way back to try to get help, do you know which child that is? Can you tell us anything about -- you know, that the strength of this boy?

CLOES: That was the oldest boy that was there. He has to have had so much strength to do that and courage, but it doesn't surprise me. His mother as my niece, and she -- she's a great mother and she taught him well. These are great children. These are children of good standards and good faith, and that doesn't surprise me that he did that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. What do you think about the -- you know, the early reports were that they had -- it was a mistaken identity. But then, when you learn that they were miles apart and that one of them got out of the car and was then shot, you know, what goes through your mind? What is happening here-- you know, when these cars could potentially be targeted with these individuals in them and killed women and small children?

CLOES: What goes through my mind? It's unfathomable, it's too -- it's unspeakable, it's gut-wrenching, and it's an attack on American citizens. And it's -- it, you don't know either way the families would love to believe that, you know, if they weren't targeted because the family had never had the drug cartel for over 100 years, even, even challenged them or anything like that.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, what do you think -- what do you think might have changed here?

CLOES: So, this is unbelievable.

MACCALLUM: You know, what might have changed, it was another woman who's from the community who said that she has felt that tensions have been rising and that she believed with certainty that they must have been targeted. Have you felt anything changing in the community? Why do you think after all those years of safety, the cartels would suddenly turn on the family?

CLOES: Because they're not being stopped. They're not being stopped that doesn't matter if it's their -- our family or somebody else's family. They are not being stopped. And they're -- they have -- they have no conscience, they're going do what they want to do. And regardless, there is no consequences for it.

MACCALLUM: Do you think they're trying to send some kind of message?

CLOES: I can't -- I can't say if they are or not. I just -- I mean, they're evil.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

CLOES: They're heartless. You know, it's a lawless element that has gone untouched in Mexico.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

CLOES: It needs to stop. We need to get involved, and I really appreciate so much.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

CLOES: So, I really appreciate so many that have been involved. Especially our president, we want to thank him for doing that. You know just to be looking in and American -- an average American citizen and really taking to heart and progressing forward with action because something needs to be done.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Trish --

CLOES: And we just can't overlook this anymore.

MACCALLUM: Trish Cloes, we're -- our prayers with your whole family. And I can't imagine what you're going through, especially being so far from home and everybody.

CLOES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, thank you for talking with us tonight and we'll keep in touch.

CLOES: Yes, sure, absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. So, when we come back --

CLOES: You're so welcome.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Trish. Take care.

When we come back tonight, we're going to have the breaking developments today in the impeachment inquiry. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, says that the newly revealed transcripts describe President Trump's quid pro quo pressure campaign against Ukraine.

Also in New York, this evening, Brit Hume, and he says that he does not see that being the case given what we learned today. So, we'll talk to them both, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Some significant developments tonight in the House impeachment inquiry. Transcripts released today reveal European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his testimony. Acknowledging that he told a Ukrainian and official that U.S. aid would not resume until the country issued a corruption statement.

Democrats call that revelation a clear-cut quid pro quo, but the White House is saying not so fast as more staffers are summoned. Fox News correspondent Gillian Turner poring through the stacks of documents today on all of this, she has a story for us tonight from Capitol Hill. Hi, Gillian.

GILLIAN TURNER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. We're still going through them -- hundreds of pages, it'll be going on all night. But for now, we want to tell you that Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised that testimony you just mentioned with this three-page long addendum that he sent over to the Intelligence Committee yesterday.

In that addendum, he said after he gave committee investigators his testimony, he then soon after remembered a meeting that he hadn't mentioned to them with a Ukrainian official. Now, that Ukrainian official was Andriy Yermak. And Sondland remembers telling him U.S. aid to Ukraine likely wouldn't resume until the government issued an "anti-corruption statement we had been discussing for many weeks."

Asked about a meeting in the Oval Office with Secretary Perry and Kurt Volker, Sondland says the president directed him multiple times to talk to Rudy Giuliani. He says, he wasn't even specific about what he wanted us to talk to Giuliani about. He just kept saying talk to Rudy. Talk to Rudy.

Sondland also says after Ambassador Bill Taylor texted him with that now- infamous text on September 9th saying, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with the political campaign, he called President Trump himself directly and asked him what do you want from Ukraine to which the president answered, I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.

Now, Martha, the next big-ticket item for impeachment investigators here on Capitol Hill in particular with the Intelligence Committee is going to be the appearance or may or maybe not appearance of John Bolton on Thursday. He's been summoned. His lawyer hasn't so far said he's not going to appear so there is at least some reasonable chance to think he may show up. We'll keep you updated on that, of course.

And then also today, Fox News confirmed Mick Mulvaney has been summoned for Friday but our sources here are telling us, you know, there's a lot of hope but not much chance he's actually going to show up.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right, we'll see. Gillian, thank you very much.

TURNER: You bet.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now with more, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, good to have you here this evening.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: So you had already seen all of these transcripts because you were sitting in there.

SWALWELL: Yes.

MACCALLUM: What struck you that came out today that makes a difference in terms of what we'd heard before and what we have heard now?

SWALWELL: The revised statement by Ambassador Sondland. You know, it aligns with what we've heard from Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and others. And the arrows continue to point in the direction that the President was leading an extortion scheme.

But I do think you see that there is a sharp straight line from the President to Sondland and the President to Rudy Giuliani. These two individuals are the ones asking the Ukrainians to carry out this investigation --

MACCALLUM: Extortion how? How so?

SWALWELL: So $391 million allocated by Congress signed into law by the President for the Ukrainians to protect themselves against the Russians. Using those dollars, aid that has not yet come and Sondland even says, he told the Ukrainians you're not going to get that aid unless you conduct these investigations, solely to benefit the President though, not to benefit U.S. national security or U.S. interests but the president in investigating a potential political opponent.

MACCALLUM: The President says it was about corruption and that's what Sondland says too. Even in the changed statement, he says that he -- it was clear that they wanted an announcement that there was going -- that they were going to look into the corruption.

SWALWELL: When you read these transcripts, you see that the witnesses acknowledged that investigations mean Burisma and Burisma means Biden, that that was synonymous as one of the witnesses told us. That it wasn't about corruption writ large. And what's interesting in the call records --

MACCALLUM: In terms of the extortion -- I'm just trying to understand what you mean by the word extortion.

SWALWELL: You need to do this in order to get that.

MACCALLUM: OK, so quid pro quo essentially. But the issue is that -- one of the issues is that the funding was released and they never did make this public statement about corruption. So that makes it a little bit more difficult to have a case of extortion if A, you're not sure that the people understood that they were being extorted and B, the issue that was the goal of that extortion never actually happened.

SWALWELL: And I made this clear in the Volker interview, if you read the Volker transcript. And Volker acknowledges that the money was actually not released until after the whistleblower complaint had become public.

So I think there's a very good argument that once impeachment is now on the table, the Volker complaint -- or the whistleblower complaint becomes public, the White House realizes they've got us, we better release it otherwise it looks really bad.

MACCALLUM: So how do you -- politically, how do you feel that this is going? Because you know, when you look at the most recent polls, it looks like there's a lot -- the division in the country seems to very much reflect the division that we saw in the House vote. Are you concerned that you know, in order to convince the American people, that you are -- you know, of what you are putting forward, that you may not be able to get them over that bridge.

SWALWELL: I think what we've seen in the depositions that have been released now, there's powerful evidence to suggest that we should go forward and have public hearings. Evidence is not a conclusion. The President is entitled to a fair process. In public hearings, these witnesses will be under oath. They'll be before the cameras and --

MACCALLUM: You sound like you already made up your mind that he is guilty of extortion.

SWALWELL: No.

MACCALLUM: You just said that.

SWALWELL: The allegations of extortion is a serious one, and the evidence so far has borne that out. The President has an opportunity though to cooperate and allow his witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and others to come forward and perhaps provide exonerating evidence. But there is a serious allegation of extortion. That's why we're moving from depositions to these public hearings.

MACCALLUM: You think you can convince the American public though of that given the numbers that you see right now?

SWALWELL: I think the President has admitted, you know, that this is what was going on. Mick Mulvaney signed off on it and said this is what we do all the time when he was asked if this is a quid pro quo. These evidence - - these witnesses from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman to other State Department --

MACCALLUM: So you -- you're saying that you think the evidence will ultimately bring the American people over to your point of view. You believe that.

SWALWELL: We have good reason to continue in our process. And I'm not going to jump to you know a conclusion of guilt or innocence yet because my job is to call the evidence.

MACCALLUM: Do you think Rudy Giuliani is at the center of this and that the President you know, was aware of everything that he wanted these folks to do?

SWALWELL: That's a great question. And some suggest well, he'll just throw Giuliani under the bus. He cannot separate himself from Rudy Giuliani because Rudy Giuliani is his agent. And he told Sondland this, talk to Rudy. So they are inseparable and that Giuliani is --

MACCALLUM: But Sondland said he didn't tell him what it would be about.

SWALWELL: Right, but Trump is Giuliani and Giuliani is Trump because lawyers don't act on behalf of their clients unless their clients say go do that.

MACCALLUM: So we'll see. All right, Eric Swalwell, Congressman, thank you. Good to have you here in New York. Thank you for being here. So as House Democrats press on, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell predicts that if this impeachment inquiry leads to a trial, he says it will not lead to President Trump's removal from office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: I will say, I'm pretty sure how it's likely to end. If it were today, I don't think there's any question it would not lead to a removal. So the question is, how long does the Senate want to take. How long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor in the Senate instead of in Iowa or New Hampshire? I'd be surprised if it didn't end the way the two previous ones end with the president not being removed from office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume joins us now in New York. Bret, good to have you here.

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Great to see you in New York as always.

HUME: Nice to see you.

MACCALLUM: So tell me a little bit about Mitch McConnell there and what you think that the language around all of this is like right now from the Senate?

HUME: Well, looking ahead, I think it's pretty clear that he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate are now the key audience. I think it's pretty evident that the Democrats are going to go through and impeach this president. And the question then becomes, you know, what happens in the Senate?

The President can afford to lose 19 Republican senators and still survive an office. I don't think there's anywhere near 19 Republican senators, if any who are prepared to vote against him so far. So that's where we are. And so when we judge these things like the Sondland transcript today and other information we're getting, I think you need to look at it in that light to -- because this is a peculiar process. It's sort of quasi-legal, quasi-political.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

HUME: And you get too far down the road of saying well, legally, this and legally that, you missed the point. If you get too far down of just politics, you miss the point on that side. So that's I think where we are and I, you know, you heard McConnell. He's somewhat dismissive. They'll have to hold a trial.

But at this point, I don't think that the Democrats in the House have moved the ball very far toward getting Republicans to go along and they need it.

MACCALLUM: Here's an interesting poll from Gallup that finds that more Democrats want President Trump removed than wanted Nixon out. President Trump -- I think the number is right there. 87 percent want him removed, back in 1974 71 percent. I mean, you know, I would imagine, a lot of that is a reflection of, of the times and certainly, of the strong feelings about President Trump.

HUME: Well, that -- and remember, that impeachment, that whole impeachment was very much a bipartisan affair. I mean, the vote -- the vote just started with 410-4. It was clear that Republicans were prepared to vote to convict if he were impeached. And Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned before that could all happen.

It was a very different time. And I must say to you, Martha. I was there in Washington watching all that. And the atmosphere in the House was very different. It was a very sober proceeding. There was a sense of gravity about the whole thing. There we're not members of the House running out to the microphones after every day's events and announcing their conclusions, as you saw Eric Swalwell doing right here with you, even though he insisted he had an open mind.

That wasn't how it was that that was then. That was -- and there was a sense that impeachment is a drastic step. There was a sense that, you know, it's going to be very divisive, and it has to be gone about with some care.

Nancy Pelosi had it right in the beginning when she said, it's got to be bipartisan. Well, it's not. It's not a bit bipartisan at this stage.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, I can only wonder if she -- if she feels like she did the right thing, you know. I mean, she sort of gave in to the pressures that were around her. And she said, well, now that this -- now that we have this transcript and this piece of information, it's very clear the phone -- the phone call that we need to move forward.

But 59 percent of Americans in the Monmouth poll think that it would be better to just wait until the election and let people decide then.

HUME: And the course is more -- and as more time goes by, Martha, and we're into the election year, you know, fully into it, people are going to say well, wait a minute, we can want to turn him at office. We can turn him at office later in the year.

And remember this about Nancy Pelosi. When she made the announcement, which is all it was, that this Impeachment Inquiry was getting underway, it was the night before the transcript such as it is was released. So I mean, my guess has been -- and I don't know this, but my guest has been if she'd seen the transcript ahead of time, she might not have done it.

MACCALLUM: Brit Hume, always good to see you, sir.

HUME: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you.

HUME: Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, poll show President Trump on track to lose the popular vote, but in the battleground states, it looks like a different story. So national polls versus those polls with Rich Lowry on whether the Democrats are in for a rude awakening, or perhaps not.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So we got some brand new battleground polls that are raising some eyebrows tonight showing that one year out, this race for the White House is tight. Joe Biden is ahead of the president in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Arizona. And they tie in Michigan. Trump is ahead in North Carolina. But all those numbers are within the margin of error.

So, he is also ahead, President Trump is ahead of Sanders in Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina. And then Elizabeth Warren polls ahead of President Trump only in Arizona. I know that's a lot of information to look at. But the overall take away is that it's very tight.

My next guest who is not a big fan of Donald Trump as a candidate first time around now says he thinks this president has a clear path in 2020. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review and author of the new book, which is very interesting, "The Case for Nationalism." Rich, it's great to have you back.

RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

LOWRY: Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, when you look at these numbers tis far out one year away, what do you see.

LOWRY: Well, one, I think a lot of the media and the Democrats they've reveled in these national numbers that have Trump routinely, you know, losing to Biden, eight, nine or ten points.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Our Fox poll has I think a 13-point spread.

LOWRY: Yes. But these states are more important. They are the states that deliver the presidency to Donald Trump and these poll numbers make it clear they are still there for them. For him. They are still attainable for him.

Now all the margins they are relatively small but there is a clear pattern. Biden is the strongest of the Democrats. Sanders after him. And Warren is the weakest. So, you can just see how Democrats, despite the performance or problems of Joe Biden are drawn to his candidacy because at least on paper he is the strongest of them.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, if you are in the Joe Biden camp, obviously, you are going to feel good about those numbers. He has an edge and he's the only one who really has a pretty solid edge at this point. But Democrats have expressed that they are concerned about this field.

LOWRY: Right.

MACCALLUM: And I keep thinking about, you know, when he is more solo out there or when --

LOWRY: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- it's only down to three candidates --

LOWRY: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- and he's on the debate stage longer and speaking longer, you wonder how that's going to hold up. Hillary Clinton had this to say last night about Democrats and what she is looking for in a winning candidate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: We have to hope that whoever ends up being nominated can win the electoral college, because we know that's what it comes down. I think several of our candidates could win the popular vote. But, as I know so well, as Al Gore knows so well, that is not enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That is -- that is probably the most realistic thing that we've heard about --

(CROSSTALK)

LOWRY: It's finally --

MACCALLUM: of Hillary Clinton.

LOWRY: Finally occurs to her that you need to win the electoral vote.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It sunk in you can't win the presidency with New York and California.

LOWRY: About three years later. But, the warning sign for Democrats here should be it's not going to be easy. And you just can't fly your ideological freak flag and that's what the party has been doing to lurch towards, you know, Elizabeth Warren's rise is all about these extreme left wing positions that are going to be a hard sell in a general election, especially among the working class voters.

MACCALLUM: Last question before I let you go. What's the impeachment impact here do you think?

LOWRY: I don't know. I think it, like a lot of things, it's going to disappear really quickly like two weeks later wait, that wasn't a decade ago? But I think it will play in a lot of House races. But we have the potential for a truly unprecedented act the president getting impeached by the House and then going on to win re-election.

MACCALLUM: yes.

LOWRY: It's quite plausible.

MACCALLUM: It's going to be quite a year no matter how you slice it. Rich Lowry the author of "The Case for Nationalism" and the editor, of course of the National Review. Rich, always good to have you here. Thank you very much.

LOWRY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So still ahead tonight, an ABC anchor caught on a hot mic saying that the network killed the story of Jeffrey Epstein. It raises a lot of questions about why. And Amy Robach says that she does not believe that the pedophile killed himself in that prison. A special Tuesday edition of Wednesdays with Watters. It is Tuesday though, folks, coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMY ROBACH, ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: For 12 years, we convince her to come out, we convince her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had Clinton. We had everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, it's election day as you know and the polls are now closed in the State of Kentucky where Republican Governor Matt Bevin is facing a tight re-election bid against the state's attorney general. Democrat Andy Beshear. The governor getting a last-minute boost from President Trump last night at a rally as we showed you here. But is that going to be enough to get Matt Bevin able to hold on to his seat there.

Mike Tobin live in Louisville tonight with the latest on this. Hello, Mike.

MIKE TOBIN, CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Martha. As the numbers are trick linking in the trend that we are seeing right now is the challenger Andy Beshear is doing well in the population centers as Democrats generally do and Matt Bevin is doing better in the rural counties. It's still too early to say that you can see a trend that one guy is pulling ahead.

I mean, right now Matt Bevin does show a lead but it's too early to draw conclusions. Both candidates are with their families right now. Beshear is watching the numbers as they roll in minute by minute. Bevin is not. Bevin is in a hotel suite with nine kids. He's not even taking calls from well- wishers.

Now Bevin worked very hard to nationalize this race. He hit hard on issues that are important to Trump voters, abortion, immigration, gun control, with the president in his corner he said that Kentucky voters are disgusted by this impeachment inquiry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. MATT BEVIN, R-KY: We don't appreciate when a handful of knuckle heads in Washington abdicate their responsibility as elected officials and tried to gin up things that are not true because they can't handle the fact that Hillary Clinton didn't win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOBIN: Now the challenger Andy Beshear in his position as attorney general has really been Bevin's nemesis the whole time he has been in office. He says that Bevin is unhinged. That he does not have the temperament for the job.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY BESHEAR, D-KY, ATTORNEY GENERAL: No governor should ever behave the way that Matt Bevin has. That bullying is absolutely unacceptable in that governor's office. And that we expect a governor to use that bully pulpit not to bully but as a pulpit to bring us together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOBIN: Bevin made the prediction earlier today that the polls were wrong and we would see him break away early in this process. That hasn't happened thus far. But it's still early. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Indeed, it is. Mike, thank you very much.

TOBIN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: So, Senator Josh Hawley is joining us next on “The Story” tonight. Why he is sounding the alarm on China based tech companies collecting data on Americans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Update on the Kentucky governor's race. the numbers look like this with 35 percent of the vote in, they are about 30,000 votes apart, 52 to 45. We'll keep you close to this as we get more developments on the Kentucky governor's race.

And also developing tonight, Senator Josh Hawley went to Hong Kong last month to see for himself what was happening to the protesters there under the fist of the Chinese government.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY, R-MO: The eyes of the world are on Hong Kong and free people everywhere are standing with you.

Sometimes the fate of one city defines the challenge of a whole generation. Fifty years ago, it was Berlin. Today it's Hong Kong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, this week, he's calling for sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials similar to the ones that have been imposed on Russia and Tehran. Officials freezing the assets of high-ranking members of the government.

He also believes that a number of Chinese companies should essentially be tossed out of America. Like the company Tik Tok bought by China two years ago and used by millions of people including celebrities. Watch this. This is what it looks like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Tik Tok. Join my beautiful people challenged by uploading your video.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Seems normal enough, right? But maybe not. Senator Josh Hawley a member of the homeland committee and judiciary committee joins me now. Senator, thank you very much for being here. So, what's so scary about Tik Tok?

HAWLEY: Well, every parent should know about Tik Tok and should know that it's not just a social media platform. It's a platform that teenagers use now more than Facebook. And here's the problem, Martha. It's owned by a Chinese company that has ties to the Chinese government. To the communist Chinese party.

And as Tik Tok scoops up massive amounts of data on our kids the communist party is able to get that data. They are able to build profiles on our children, track where they go, who their friends are, what's in their phone book. It's really alarming.

MACCALLUM: So, you had a hearing today and you had an empty seat for Apple and an empty seat for Tik Tok. Why didn't they show up?

HAWLEY: Well because they are afraid to answer questions. Tik Tok doesn't want to answer to the fact that they take direction from Beijing. That they are exposing our kids' data to the Chinese communist government.

And Apple doesn't want to answer for the fact that they are storing information in China. They are storing encryption keys in China and that, too could expose Americans' text messages or e-mails to the communist party.

These are major security risks, Martha. Both of these companies need to be held accountable.

MACCALLUM: So, you want to freeze the assets of the Chinese leadership and also in Hong Kong. So, does that include President Xi, does it include Carrie Lam in Hong Kong?

HAWLEY: Yes, absolutely can. And it can also include financial institutions that may be working with them in order to put the squeeze in Hong Kong. I mean, look, we know what China is capable of. China has been stealing our jobs for years. Now they want to silence Hong Kong. They want to project power all across the region.

And ultimately, Martha, they want to shut us out. They want to shut us out so that we can't trade, so that we can't sell our products. We cannot allow that to happen.

MACCALLUM: So, talk to me a little bit about, you know, the larger picture here. You say that China is the Berlin of the times that we're living in. And, you know, there is a sense with the NBA scandal and all of that that people are starting to look at what China is doing in this country very differently.

HAWLEY: Yes. You know, Hong Kong I think really represents the battle of the future. We are in for a long struggle with China. And the truth is we probably have already given up too much ground already. By we, I really mean the U.S. government.

Washington has been asleep at the switch for years. They have thought that China was our friend. That China could be liberalized. None of that has happened. They have stolen our jobs. They have stolen our property. Now they want to shut us out of whole regions and one day they want to dominate the world. We cannot allow that to happen. We have got to get tough with them. Hong Kong shows what the battle of the future is going to look like.

MACCALLUM: Yes. But obviously, you know, there is a lot of business, a lot of trade that goes on with China. We're trying to get a trade deal with them. How much support do you think you are going to get for trying to impose sanctions and freeze the assets of the leadership when all of those things are at play?

HAWLEY: Well, I think it speaks to the need to keep pressure up on the Chinese government. Pressure is what they understand, Martha. The sweet- talking they don't respond to. They will make a deal with you, and then hood wink you behind your back.

I mean, that is -- that's not the way to deal with China. You have got to get tough with them. The president understands this. I mean, the president's tough measure is what has brought Beijing to the negotiating table. And this, I think, is sanctioning them for their bad behavior in Hong Kong, for their repression in Hong Kong helps keep the pressure up.

MACCALLUM: All right. We'll talk more about it. Senator, thank you very much. Senator Josh Hawley, always good to see you.

HAWLEY: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: You bet. A special edition coming up Wednesdays with Watters but it is Tuesday. It's not like daylight savings week or anything. It's actually still Tuesday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, this week, renewed interest in whether serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in prison or whether he was offed by somebody who wanted him dead. A lot of people may fall into that category given the number of high-profile people who partied with and may have partaken in his obsession with underaged girls who say that they were sex slaves in his bizarre world.

Then this video surfaces from Project Veritas in which ABC anchor Amy Robach says that ABC, quote, "quashed her exclusive with Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre who said she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew when was 17."

Fox News is not able to independently verify this following video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBACH: I've had the story for three years. I've had interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told who Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story. Then the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview Kate and Will, that we -- that also quashed “The Story.”

She told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything. It was unbelievable what we had Clinton. We had everything. Do I think he was killed? A hundred percent. Yes, I do. Because you want -- he made his whole living blackmailing people.

There are a lot of men in those planes a lot of men who visited that island. A lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: ABC and Robach released statements today essentially saying that “The Story” wasn't ready for air. She said that and they said that as well not fully vetted. ABC has still not run all these years later and he is dead now the original Robach Giuffre interview.

Let's bring in Jesse Watters, host of Watters' world and co-host of The Five. Jesse, what do you think of all of this?

JESSE WATTERS, HOST: It's a sickening and wicked scandal. And ABC news has to hire an independent investigator to get to the bottom of this. And they have to answer one big question.

How many children were raped in the last three years since they spiked this story? Because as Amy says, she had witnesses. She had victims. She had photographic evidence with a Bill Clinton connection and a British royal family connection.

And ABC News said that did not meet their editorial standards. What are those standards? I want them to come clean because they went after Brett Kavanaugh with 40-year-old hearsay, with no corroborating witnesses, no evidence, and a lot of that was furnished by Michael Avenatti, a scoundrel, a bankrupt tax cheat, who brought forth gang rape allegations with no evidence.

So, what were those standards that allowed that to get on air? I'd like to know. And it looks like the play was we don't get access to royal family interviews on GM.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WATTERS: Please, and you are not going to go protect children who are allegedly being sexually assaulted by God knows who and God knows where? And this is the Disney company? The Disney Company. It's sick.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, and the suggestion that nobody knew who Jeffrey Epstein was? I mean, I don't know who these people are.

WATTERS: Right.

MACCALLUM: But Jeffrey Epstein was, you know, linked to many powerful people for years. I mean, he wouldn't be a household name necessarily but that executives at ABC and New York City had no idea who he was, I find very difficult to believe.

I mean, it also smacks of a lot of similarities of what we saw with the Weinstein story --

WATTERS: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- and I think that these institutions, these corporations need to ask themselves who are we and what are we when this story comes to us and we don't air it? I mean, Roberta (Ph) -- the Virginia Roberts, you know, that story on what she had alone, the pictures she had of her and her story. How many stories do you see on ABC and NBC and everywhere where it's just, you know, this is her story. This is what she says. You can back it up. You can investigate the other side of “The Story” and say that we can't corroborate this.

There is a lot of ways to get at a story like that. And as you rightly point out, none of those hoops were jumped through with the Brett Kavanaugh story.

WATTERS: No. And ABC just got in big trouble for putting on fake Syrian war footage.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WATTERS: Instead it was a gun range in Kentucky.

MACCALLUM: Great point.

WATTERS: That doesn't look good. But, also, this isn't being mentioned but Hillary Clinton three years ago was in the midst of a presidential campaign. And if ABC drops a devastating blow against her husband in the midst of this campaign, that's going to blow back big on ABC News.

Remember, they thought Hillary was going to win the White House. And they didn't want to jeopardize that relationship. They wanted to be on the right side of history. Now they are on the wrong side of history, and it's a tragedy if this is true.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it also starts to raise those questions again. We have had sort of three different data points this week of people raising questions about whether or not Jeffrey Epstein took his own life. And when you go back and you look at this and you look at the people and, you know, some of the names that you mentioned who, you know we know were on the plane and went to the island.

We have no, you know, there is no evidence about none of these women have said that they were with Bill Clinton. But it's part of the story that he was on that plane absolutely.

So, it raises questions about whether or not somebody had him killed. Michael Baden went on and he is, you know, full disclosure, is he doing work for Jeffrey Epstein's brother, but he a very renowned forensic -- forensic scientist. He said that he saw signs that he was perhaps, that he took -- that he didn't take his own life.

WATTERS: Everybody with common sense, Martha, knows that Epstein did not kill himself. Everybody knows that. This guy was wanted by many people. He was accused of blackmailing people. Remember, he had a picture of Bill Clinton --

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

WATTERS: -- in a blue dress oil painted --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Painted.

WATTERS: -- in his mansion.

MACCALLUM: And an oil painting in his house which is so weird.

WATTERS: Right. So, check the flight records, we want to see who was on that plane. Interview the pilot. These are questions that I think we need answers to. And the Department of Justice says they are doing an investigation into what happened at the prison.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WATTERS: Because, remember, the video cameras went down that were looking at Epstein's cell. That just doesn't happen randomly.

MACCALLUM: Crazy. Yes. There's too many crazy things there. We got to dig into it more. Jesse, thank you.

WATTERS: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. Jesse Watters tonight. Let's a quick peek at the Kentucky governor's race. Fifty-one percent of the vote is in there. And it is now 50 percent Bevin, 47 percent Beshear. So, we'll keep a close eye on that. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, the Republican versus Jim Hood, the Democrat. Polls just closing at eight o'clock there. So, we do not have any numbers for you there.

But that's “The Story” on this Tuesday, November 5th. We'll see you back here tomorrow night when “The Story” goes on. Tucker is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.