Crenshaw: There is a far left wing of the Democratic Party that truly do not like Israel
Dems delay resolution on anti-Semitism as several defend Rep. Omar's remarks; Texas Republican Rep Dan Crenshaw weighs in.
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Indeed it is. Ash Wednesday. Thank you very much, Bret. Good to see you tonight. And tonight on “The Story”, Democrats do not seem to have the votes tonight to condemn anti-Semitism.
They were seeking a way to denounce statements like this from the freshman Congresswoman Ihan Omar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN: I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Omar also, over the past several months has written several tweets that have been deemed anti-Semitic by many. Last month, she tweeted that Israel's relationship with United States is "all about the Benjamin's baby". And in 2012, she tweeted, "Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."
A stance that many of her allies have fiercely defended during a rally late today on Capitol Hill. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATALIE BAMBAD, ACTIVIST, IF NOT NOW MOVEMENT: To those using this resolution to tear down the leadership of strong women of color, you do not have a vision for a safe Jewish future.
NIHAD AWAD, FOUNDER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS COUNCIL: We need to show her that we love her, and the country needs voices like her.
LINDA SARSOUR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MPOWER CHANGE: We are calling on Democratic leadership to show leadership in this moment by expanding the language of the resolution to include anti-Muslim bias, anti-black racism, and xenophobia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: And this is where top Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are stuck between a bit of a rock and a hard place tonight. They've got this new wave of the party, and a gathering push back today in favor of Omar.
Tonight, Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Democrat Congressman John Garamendi, and author Victor Davis Hanson joined me. But first, Congressman Garamendi of California. Congressman, thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight to respond to this.
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, D-CALIF.: Sure. Great to be with you.
MACCALLUM: So, what happened to the vote, and is it going to happen?
GARAMENDI: Well, I think there will be a vote and there certainly should be. There is no place in America, really in this world for anti-Semitism. We really have to push back on that, and each and every one of us in public life whether in Congress, the Senate or City Hall.
We need to watch our language because our words really do carry weight and they may very well be misinterpreted to -- you know, help somebody that may very well be biased. And biasness ought not occur on -- in any circumstance, whether it has to do with Muslims or any faith or any color. This just terribly disruptive to our community, so, watch our language.
MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you this. Do you think she should be named in this resolution or not?
GARAMENDI: No, I don't think that's necessary. What is necessary is a very strong statement by the Congress, by the people's representatives that this is -- that anti-Semitism language is absolutely not acceptable.
MACCALLUM: But you know, it's interesting because she apologized in the initial stages of all this controversy that's rolled out over the past few months. But she's definitely changed her tone on this in the past week or so. She's not apologizing anymore and now she's gaining support in the party. Does that concern you?
GARAMENDI: Well, what concerns me is bigotry, what concerns me is that basically, the discourse throughout America. We've become in the last couple of years far too ready to put people down to show and display and to actually increase the biasness that does increase. And in many cases, the bigotry, and racism. That concerns me because that is taking over a lot of the discourse, not only in the public, from elected people, but also in the bars and restaurants and homes across America. It's not good for our nation with all the doubt --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Yes, I understand. You know, but, in terms of -- you know, Jewish voters in this country who feel very upset about what they are hearing from her, what do you say to them tonight that it looks like the way the party is leaning is sort of a broad, and somebody even say -- you know, sort of watered down or diluted a version of a condemnation of her. If it's -- you know, suddenly about everything and not really about that anymore.
GARAMENDI: Well, it has to be about the issue at hand. And we have to be strong about that. And I will assure you that the Democratic Party that I know that my colleagues in Congress are very, very concerned about language that is construed either correctly or not to be anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, that cannot be.
And so, all of us need to watch our language, and I'll say that to myself, I say it to my other colleagues because it can be used as a weapon against people. People of color, people of one faith or another.
And in this case, clearly her words were construed by many of being anti- Jewish, anti-Israel, and certainly harmful to people of Jewish faith, and Jewish background.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: But, let me ask you about the idea that we heard in the montage at the beginning there, we heard from Linda Sarsour.
GARAMENDI: Sure.
MACCALLUM: And they're basically saying, "Don't back down, Ilhan, you are right that there is too much allegiance to another country -- in Israel and this country. And we're not going to put up with that anymore."
I mean, that is something that I think -- you know, there'll be a lot of pushback from Jewish people in this country when they hear that. If they sense that your party is OK with that.
GARAMENDI: Well, let me start right now with the push back. That's just plain wrong. I don't know anybody who have -- any American that has an allegiance in the sense that, that was used here.
We certainly do support Israel. And we have, and we should continue to do so. At the same time, all of us recognize that there's a very serious problem with the Palestinians and Israelis that needs to be resolved. All of us have worked on this issue for years, if not decades. There's work to be done. The problem still persists.
But it's not a matter of allegiance, it's a matter of support for one of our principal allies, both long and short term. And hopefully, long into the future. That's where I'm coming from. I know that's where many people --
MACCALLUM: Yes.
GARAMENDI: I don't call that allegiance, I call that support.
MACCALLUM: Do you -- do you think that you consider her comments to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel? Because some people divide those two and say that it's about the policies of the country and not about anti-Semitism. Where do you think it fall?
GARAMENDI: Well, it's been construed as being anti-Semitic. That's why we got to watch the way we use our language that may not be what she intended. But that's certainly the way it's been construed, and certainly the way it's being used by many people on whatever side of this issue want to talk about. So, it's a matter of how we have to be careful, how we use words.
If she or anybody else wants to support the Palestinians, that's perfectly appropriate. If she thinks that Palestinians are getting a bad deal, she should say so. But she should say it in a way that is -- that does not cause people to think her language is anti-Semitic or gives cover to those who are clearly anti-Semitic. And there is more than enough of that far too much in America. And that's where the real harm comes that somebody might construe that today, there's an anti-Semitic movement in Congress.
MACCALLUM: Understood.
GARAMENDI: There is not and there should never be.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Garamendi, thank you very much for coming on tonight, sir.
GARAMENDI: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: We appreciate it. Here now, Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas. Good to have you with us this evening. What do you think about all that?
REP. DAN CRENSHAW, R-TX: Well, I think there's a lot of agreement there. There are still a lot of Democrats who do believe in supporting Israel, who do believe that anti-Semitic comments are wrong. And I feel bad for them. Honestly, because there is a far left wing of their party that is in true disagreement with them. They truly do not like Israel.
They truly believe all the things that Omar has been saying. She believes it. That, that should be really clear to everybody by now. She's been trying to tell us for a long time, and it's been explained away multiple times now.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
CRENSHAW: There's been apologies made for her. They said, "Well, we just need to have dialogues. You need to help her understand what she's talking about so that she understands how much its hurting people.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: But Congressman, let me ask you this. She was elected by the people of her district. She count -- she comes to Washington -- just to play the other side of this for a moment.
CRENSHAW: Yes.
MACCALLUM: She comes to Washington. They know who she is. She's been campaigning, she's been talking about what she believes in for a long time. So, shouldn't she have the freedom of speech to say what she wants to say and represent her people? And if they decide that they don't like the way they're being represented, they'll change their mind in a year and a half.
MACCALLUM: Oh, yes. I don't disagree with that. I mean, every member here has the right of freedom of speech, OK? And they have the right to represent their own views. Just like we have the right to criticize it and to condemn it.
Now, it is something different when we're talking about what committee she's on, because the real problem here is that she has a platform on the Foreign Affairs Committee to condemn Israel.
OK, so that tells us that the Democratic leadership also supports that. Because here is the thing. This is how we are assigned to committees here in Congress. Our leadership tells us what committees we can be on.
MACCALLUM: Right.
CRENSHAW: OK. So, when there is something that the party is against, they will not put you on that committee. And we've done that in our party, and I think they should do that in theirs. Unless they actually believe in what she's saying with respect to Israel.
MACCALLUM: Well, that's an excellent point. With regard to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she said this in a tweet about the concern she says about implied tropes. And she's sort of making the bridge between what Omar is talking about and people who are concerned about -- you know, these anti- Semitic tropes that said they're sometimes called.
She says, "If we're so concerned about implied tropes, why aren't we concerned about this one? Where was the concern last week when 26 Democrats voted for a GOP amendment to expand ICE powers rooted in the racist and false trope that Latino immigrants are more dangerous than U.S. born citizens?"
CRENSHAW: Wow. There's a lot there. So, even if she actually believes what she's saying, that has nothing to do with condemning anti-Semitism. Right? Like two things can be true once. OK, even if she believes this craziness.
But, the reality is, is that enforcing the law is not racist. OK? Asking ICE to report when an illegal immigrant is trying to buy a weapon is not racist. That's enforcing our laws. And I think most Americans want. Want us to enforce our laws. We want to feel like our rule of law is working out. That we are a sovereign country and that we can protect our borders.
MACCALLUM: In terms of -- you know, I know, you are -- you are very passionate today in the homeland security hearing with the head of homeland security, Kirstjen Nielsen.
You talked about someone who came to your office that really sort of brought home the message of the border as you see it. Tell me about that before I -- before I let you go.
CRENSHAW: Sue. Well, you know, I was making a point about the humanity of this entire thing. You know, the Democrats keep talking about the children coming across and how we need to help them. And I agree.
The thing is that we have very different ideas on what helping them looks like. What we don't want to do is allow them to be used as tokens to get across our border. And that's what our laws incentivize right now.
So, the young lady who came into my office, she was kidnapped years ago of around 2013. They tried to cross the border with her twice. Both times, they were refuted, but the third time they made it across.
Nothing to stop them, no wall, no agents, plenty of open territory. She was brought to New York and she was raped for five years. About 30 times a day. This was a heartbreaking story I've ever heard. All right? And she told me the story, she was -- she was almost emotionless about it. I mean, it was -- it was really something to see.
This is what our laws incentivize. Because they incentivize children to be brought across. That is your ticket. To come across as an adult, our system still works, we can send you right back. But adults with children - -
MACCALLUM: Yes.
CRENSHAW: It's incentivizing them. And that's why this is a humanitarian crisis. Those numbers of children coming across have increased drastically.
MACCALLUM: Yes, they have.
CRENSHAW: You know, just last month, 76,000 people. 76,000 people just apprehended. This is truly an emergency.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Crenshaw, thank you. Good to see you tonight.
CRENSHAW: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Here now, Victor Davis Hanson, a National Review Institute fellow, and author of the new book, The Case For Trump. Victor, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Good to be here.
MACCALLUM: You know, one of the things that strikes me as you listen to this discussion about what they should do in this resolution, is that the way that it -- they're kind of trying to please everyone is to make it more broadly about -- well, we're not going to mention her name, we're going to make it about anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia. All of these issues. And then, that will sort of cover all our bases war against hate.
HANSON: If you're against everything, you are against nothing. I mean, no doubt. With all due respect to Representative Garamendi, the problem is not that she might be misconstrued. Everybody knows all too well what she's doing. Both her constituents, who probably agree with that position, the majority. And this new identity wing of the Democratic Party.
The reason that Martha, she keeps saying that, and can't be constrained, and Representative Tlaib, and also, AOC is that because they feel there's benefits to be improved.
MACCALLUM: Right.
HANSON: So, the question is, they always want to say, here is Israel and here are Jews. But they have to ask themselves, there's 23 countries in the Middle East. Why do they always select this one and fixate as that human rights? And why not talk about what's going on Saudi Arabia? Does it apply to women? How about what's going on in Libya? Is it raised? Well, how about what's going on North Africa?
There's 193 nations in the world, but they always fixate on one. And they have a problem because the Democratic leadership as you point out, as Representative Garamendi confirmed, they have to have a blanket generic meaningless statement. Because if they were actually going to be exact and focused, and really oppose anti-Semitism about a third of this new Democratic progressive party would walk.
Because they really do not like Israel and they are very resentful that it's a Jewish state. And they're very angry that in this area of the Middle East is so --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, what do you -- I mean, does she not deserve then to be on the foreign affairs committee? What do you think about that?
HANSON: Well, I think that that's up for the Democratic Party to decide. Right?
MACCALLUM: Absolutely.
HANSON: Because you can't -- you can't say you can't do this. It's illegal. If they want to have somebody on the Foreign Affairs Committee who fixates on the democratic free market humane state, and ignores all the other miseries, and prejudices, and pathologies, all over the Middle East indeed all over the world.
We're not talking about Cuba, we're not talking about Iran. Representative Omar never talks about the Uyghurs in China. Why is it always just Israel and the Jews? And then, she resents when people pushback. And she says, "All I have -- a have a perfect right." You do have a perfect right, and we understand why you're doing it. It represents your constituents. It represents the new wing of the Democratic Party.
There is benefits to be accrued. Go to it. But then, don't get angry when people say, don't (INAUDIBLE) for us, we're not stupid. Israel and the Jewish state have certain implications. And we know what's going on, it's anti-Semitic.
MACCALLUM: Yes. But I want you to ask about a different topic before I let you go. And that is the fact that the DNC decided today that Fox News would not do one of the 22 debates that they are going to offer to give their candidates an opportunity to speak to the American people. Obviously, that's a responsibility that we take very seriously and we take the responsibility to do that very fairly and professionally. So that is an opportunity that we would like to have. What do you think about the fact that they're eliminating everybody who watches this network?
HANSON: I think it's a bad idea because what perhaps the most anti- Republican network was CNN. They've had to fire three hosts Mr. (INAUDIBLE) who said some things, or late gourmet host Kathy Griffin. They all did things that were pretty radically an obscene and yet that was a network for all the criticism of Trump that they work with, the Republicans did.
They have a long history of this. Remember that Anita Dunn the communications director said that your organization wasn't a legitimate news organization. They monitored James Rosen, they went after the -- they meaning the Associated Press, they monitored reporters. And so in their view -- and they quote in New York or the and in the New York Times, you're the only conservative. There's a lot of cable networks that are liberal and there's mainstream networks I think are more liberal than not.
And so they know what they're doing and their attitude is they're going to punish Fox by trying to show the world that their support for conservatives and liberals, but more conservative is beyond the pale. They don't believe in free speech. They don't believe in symmetry and they're going to try to demonize Fox.
MACCALLUM: I'm just looking at this latest Trump tweet, President Trump tweet. He says Democrats just blocked Fox News from holding a debate. Good. Then, I think I'll do the same thing with the fake news networks and the radical left Democrats in the general election debates. Not a surprising response I guess in some ways but is that also a mistake and does that have ultimately have to change the game here?
HANSON: Yes, I think the President believes in deterrence, tit for tat. And that the only way to stop what they're doing with CNN is just to turn the tables. I mean, with Fox is to do it to CNN. But do we really want to go down this European model where each newspaper, each television station - -
MACCALLUM: I mean, we're already so divided.
HANSON: Yes, I live --
MACCALLUM: -- strong silos. This is one opportunity where everyone should --
HANSON: I live in Europe three years and that's what the European model is that each newspaper is ideological and is at war with the other one. They back each particular candidates. You have different points of view. The left knows that and you've been effective. If your ratings were very low, I don't think it would be a matter. Its -- they -- it's like Anita Dunn. She said that you were not a legitimate an organization not because you're not, because she felt that you had in northern influence in you.
MACCALLUM: Well, we hope they change their mind. Victor Davis Hanson, thank you. Always good to see you. Good to have you here tonight. So coming up next, remember, Joe diGenova's advice for White House officials targeted by the House Judiciary Committee?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE DIGENOVA, CO-FOUNDER, DIGENOVA & TOENSING, LLP: Everyone should refuse. And when they're subpoenaed, they should all take the Fifth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So the first person to say that he will take that advice and refuse to cooperate with their investigation will join me next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIGENOVA: Everyone should refuse, and when they're subpoenaed, they should all take the Fifth because this is a perjury trap. This is not a legitimate investigation, it is a fishing expedition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So at least one former Trump aide says he's going to take that advice after House Democrats launch a broad, massive probe calling for documents from the 81 people that you see on this list in the president's circle. My next guest says no thank you to the Judiciary Committee's requests for pertaining to things such as the 2016 Trump Tower meetings and contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates.
Here now former Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo. Thank you, Michael. Good to have you with us tonight.
MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Thanks for inviting me, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So -- it's good to have you back. So explained to me -- you know, I guess when this first came across, it looks as if you are the first one out there to say I am not going to put myself through this process. You did send them your -- whatever the documents that you had were, right? You did that part?
CAPUTO: Well, we sent a letter from my attorney. Dennis Vacco, he was New York State Attorney General and we just explained to them that I had none of the documents they were looking for. I was nowhere near any of that stuff, if it happened, when it happened. And we sent a letter saying that we don't have any of that stuff.
But also Dennis talked to a staff member at the committee who said well, OK, you don't have any that stuff but would you be willing to produce Michael to testify before the committee. And Dennis was kind of scratching his head about that. It's like, I had probably the shortest document request of everyone on that 81-person list, you know, three paragraphs. And Dennis said, you know, if he's got such a short document request list, he's such a marginal player in this whole thing, and you still want him to testify --
MACCALLUM: Now, what did they say about that?
CAPUTO: Well, I mean, clearly -- they said, well, we may not, we may. They didn't actually ask me. But here's the thing, Martha. They intend to invite every single one of those 81 people. It's not just a document request. I mean, comply with the document request, I did. I think everybody will. But they intend to invite everyone to testify. This is going to be a long summer.
MACCALLUM: Do you think that the ground they wanted you to cover is ground that has already been covered. Before but Jerome Nadler -- Jerrold Nadler, I should say, said that he wants to bring everybody in front the committee because there's enough things that have happened outside the scope of Mueller's investigation that they have to dig into that. But it sounds like as far as I can tell, they're not digging outside of that.
CAPUTO: You know, everything that was -- everything on my document requests and most of the document requests I read because they're all online, it was already discussed that nauseam. In the House Intelligence Committee when I testified there for $30,000 and the Senate Intelligence --
MACCALLUM: So you're saying it cost $30,000 for you to represent yourself in this and you can't -- you simply can't do that again.
CAPUTO: You can't go in without an attorney. You can't go in with your cousin who's an attorney. You got to go in with a hard court like you know like you know, Dennis Vacco or Mr. diGenova. You've got to go in with somebody who knows what they're doing or they're going to get you in a perjury trap. Now, I've testified three times once at Mueller and that was -- that's over the space about two years --
MACCALLUM: And they've been done with you for how long? How long have they been done with you?
CAPUTO: I haven't spoken to anyone since the summer of last year.
MACCALLUM: Summer of last year. All right --
CAPUTO: And they want to catch me to perjury trap like every single one of those people on that 80-person list.
MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see how many people join you. That's one and you say there's three others at least who are talking about doing what you're doing. Michael, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.
CAPUTO: Thank you very much.
MACCALLUM: You bet. Coming up next, Geraldo Rivera says that people should give Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez a break. He is here to explain next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GERALDO RIVERA, CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: My three grandchildren live in her district, I went to college in her district, she may have the most far-fetched ideas that are totally implausible or impractical but she has a heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RIVERA: She's me at the age of 26, when you have long hair and you want to solve everything.
Let them rebel in the possibility that everything can be wonderful. Everybody in South Asia can have a Cadillac. I'm not a socialist. I am a capitalist. I'm a Republican. I understand the generosity of the concept of socialism.
MACCALLUM: We are not going for that. Geraldo Rivera defending AOC last night, but renowned economist Thomas Sowell warns that many who are enthralled with the ideas that Geraldo talks about embracing are just not looking the evidence.
THOMAS SOWELL, ECONOMIST: So many people today, including in the leading universities, don't pay much attention to evidence. When you see people starving in Venezuela and fleeing in the neighboring countries and realize that this is a country that once had the world's largest oil reserves, you realize that they've ruined a very good prospect with ideas that sounded good but didn't turn out well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MACCALLUM: He makes a great point. Fox News roaming correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera joins me now. Geraldo --
RIVERA: Hi, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So, you got a lot to push back there last night. You know, we are all picturing you sort of in your (INAUDIBLE) T-shirt with your big mustache.
(LAUGHTER)
MACCALLUM: But, I mean, you know --
RIVERA: I feel like (INAUDIBLE).
MACCALLUM: There is this feeling I do think that, you know, that some folks think that it feels cool, right? You know, socialism is sort of this idea that everyone should have equality and everyone should sort of get what they need from the bureaucracy. But the problem is that the bureaucracy likes to take over. I mean, it empowers government so extensively that it leaves the people with no power at all.
RIVERA: You know, I maybe the only person in the country who supports both Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Martha. In her case, the reason I am generally supportive of her is that she has been a tremendous inspiration to young people. She has gotten this whiny millennial generation off the couches in their mother's basements and instilled in them the possibility that they, you know, may be could be more successful than their parents. I think it has been a woe is me kind of generation.
MACCALLUM: Wait, but what in her message, Geraldo, is going to make them more successful than their parents?
RIVERA: That they can change the world, that they can seize the initiative, that they can be somebody, that they can, you know, participate rather than drop out, that they can be energetic, they can be patriotic.
MACCALLUM: But she's espousing a system that will take away their power. That is what Sowell is saying. That's the underlying evidence that he talks about, that they are giving up their power.
RIVERA: I think that is going way too deep. I'm not arguing socialism versus capitalism or --
MACCALLUM: I get that she is an attractive character, absolutely.
RIVERA: Well, there is definitely pride, ethnic pride and geographic pride. I think she is a great example to the youngsters in that congressional district and around the contrary in many ways. I think to be so harsh on her as if the Green New Deal was going to be legislation that is going to go into effect and cows can't fart (ph) and airplanes can't fly, I think that that is a bogus way of looking at her and the class that she represents. This is the most diverse. It is in many ways the youngest. It is the most integrated Congress we've ever had.
MACCALLUM: I guess --
RIVERA: Let them express these ideas.
MACCALLUM: I understand that. But they also do not have a memory of the Cold War. They don't have memory. The only -- I mean, there are plenty of present day examples, but they don't seem to believe that Venezuela accurately represents the danger of socialism to them.
RIVERA: I was in law school in 1967, 1968, 1969. I got arrested in Washington. We were going to change the world. We didn't trust anybody over the age of 30. You know, our generation, maybe this generation is waking up the way mine did. Maybe we fell asleep and now we pass the baton in our dreams to this next feisty generation. Let them make their mistakes. Let them try to do something.
MACCALLUM: Nobody is stopping them. They are out there doing everything they want to do.
RIVERA: They certainly are.
MACCALLUM: It is interesting to watch. Geraldo, thanks for being here. I just saw you down the street corner this afternoon. Now you're back in Ohio. That is why they call you the roaming correspondent.
(LAUGHTER)
MACCALLUM: Roaming all day.
RIVERA: And now I'm in Cleveland.
MACCALLUM: All right. Good. We'll see you later.
RIVERA: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Thanks a lot. Coming up next tonight on THE STORY, R. Kelly -- oh, my goodness, did you watch this? He breaks his silence on sexual abuse allegations in a shocking interview. Unreal what happened in there. We will show you. Defense Attorney Mark Eiglarsh has a very surprising take on what happened in there, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
R. KELLY, SINGER: Stop it. Quit playing. I didn't do this stuff. This is not me. I'm fighting for my life. You guys are killing me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: New global backlash tonight following the bombshell documentary "Leaving Neverland" which features two men who say that they were sexually abused by Michael Jackson at the Neverland Ranch when they were children. Now, some radio stations in New Zealand and also in Canada are pulling all Jackson's songs from the air. In Quebec, they did this in at least two dozen stations. Meanwhile, the Jackson's estate is suing HBO, calling the film a public lynching.
Also developing tonight, R. Kelly has been taken into custody just a short time ago. Here are the images from him earlier today. They are holding him because they say that he owns a $160,000 in child support, this as we hear from the R&B singer on a separate case for the first time. He lashed out in an emotional tirade with Gayle King, denying the allegations of sexual abuse and calling the women liars. Trace Gallagher with all of that from our West Coast newsroom tonight. Hi, Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, ANCHOR: Hi, Martha. The Cook County sheriff says R. Kelly will stay in jail until he comes up with $161,000 in back child support. Kelly's publicist says the 52-year-old singer doesn't have the money because he hasn't been able to work and the child support could be the least of his problems.
Kelly is accused of sexually abusing four females, three of whom were underage at the time. Prosecutors say there is ample evidence to support the charges including from the alleged victims, Kelly's former business associates, and they mentioned a reported video tape that allegedly shows Kelly having sex with a girl who repeatedly states that she is only 14.
During an interview with CBS' Gayle King, R. Kelly acknowledges he has done "lots of things wrong," but denies holding anyone against their will. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLY: I don't need to. Why would I? How stupid would that be for R. Kelly? With all I've been through in my way, way past, to hold somebody -- let alone four, five, six, 50, you say it, how stupid would I be to do that?
GAYLE KING, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I didn't say --
KELLY: That's stupid, guys. Is this camera on me?
KING: Yes.
KELLY: That's stupid. Use your common sense.
GALLAGHER (voice-over): Kelly blames social media for fueling the allegations and we should note that Gayle King told Entertainment Tonight she never felt R. Kelly was a threat to her, but she believes he was unhappy with some of her questions especially about underage girls. Look.
KELLY: I didn't do this stuff. This is not me. I am fighting for my life. You are killing me.
KING: Robert.
KELLY: Thirty years of my career. You all are trying to kill me. You are killing me. This is not about music. I can't do it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GALLAGHER: Kelly says people are trying to use his past to prosecute him now. The singer was acquitted of child pornography charges in 2008. CBS says its interview with Kelly lasted about 80 minutes. They plan to show more of it tomorrow. Martha?
MACCALLUM: No surprise there. People want to watch it. Trace, thank you very much. Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh. Mark, it is good to have you with us. I think a lot of people watched this and said this is crazy. I mean, who puts their client in this position to go off like this? You actually think that it might work to his favor. How?
MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'll tell you why. Look, clearly he showed that he is a much better singer than he is an actor. He was horrible. I'm not buying it. You are probably not buying it. Most reasonable people are not buying it. But he is not targeting reasonable people. He is targeting that one, that one lone potential juror who may say, you know, someone that passionate, someone like that, I don't know, I don't think you might be guilty.
He is looking for that because he is facing decades. And while he has a phenomenal lawyer in Steve Greenberg, who I am friendly with, he does not have David Copperfield on his team and he can't make this evidence disappear.
MACCALLUM: I mean, he clearly -- she said she never felt threatened during the interview. She was right next to him. I mean, there are moments in that that are very uncomfortable watching it where you kind of think, you know, is he going to lose it? Where is this guy going? I think for a lot of people watching it, you think, what is this indicative of? What does it tell us about his character, and what he might have been like with some of these young women?
EIGLARSH: When you are accused of crimes of violence like he is, you want to stay cool. You want to be mellow. But I don't think the jurors will likely ever see this video because he is not admitting anything. If anything he wants the jurors to see this because he is professing his innocence passionately and then it avoids him having to take the witness stand which is what I am sure his lawyers want to do in the criminal trial.
MACCALLUM: So in terms of when it gets to that point, does any of this, you know, move the trial to someplace else? I mean, obviously he is a Chicago person. So, how's that going to work?
EIGLARSH: Look, they could potentially move to change venue. I don't think it is going to happen. That will only occur when it is clear that they can't get a fair jury in that town. This is everywhere. Wherever you go, most people would have heard either of this or saw the documentary. So the key is just finding enough jurors who could say, yeah, I've seen the stuff but in spite of that I can still be fair or I've never seen it, which is really what rock have you been living under.
MACCALLUM: As you say, he is talking to one juror because that is all he need --
EIGLARSH: That's it.
MACCALLUM: -- to put some doubt into that case. Great point. Mark, it is good to see you. Thank you.
EIGLARSH: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: When we come back tonight, another apology from Elizabeth Warren.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: I shouldn't have done that. I'm not a person of color. I'm not a citizen of a tribe.
MACCALLUM (VOICE-OVER): interesting who was asking her those questions as well. She will do anything to shake that story and move on. "Wednesdays with Watters" is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So surely Elizabeth Warren wants to talk about the issues in the 2020 race for president. But so far, it only seems to go back to this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID AXELROD, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The question that I've never understood is why? Why did you in 1986 fill out on your -- I guess it was your law license or something -- an application, American-Indian? Why did you check those boxes?
WARREN: Based on what I learned growing up and the fact that I love my family. Decades ago, I sometimes identified as Native American. I shouldn't have done it. I'm not a person of color. I'm not a citizen of a tribe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: "Wednesdays with Watters" with Jesse. Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. That is David Axelrod.
JESSE WATTERS, HOST: Yeah.
MACCALLUM: President Obama's chief of staff and ran his campaign. It interesting that he wants to know the answer to that question, too.
WATTERS: I can't believe I am saying this, but I give CNN a lot of credit. That was a very tough, direct question.
MACCALLUM: It was compelling, absolutely.
WATTERS: She hasn't never really directly answered. And she still didn't directly answer it. She said she did this because she loved her family? So love makes you lie about who you are? It doesn't fly, Marha. So, she hasn't been able to raise a lot of money. Every time she's interviewed, she's going to be asked the same question. She has been peppered with consultants. She sounds like a robot. She doesn't even sound like a real person.
MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, everywhere she goes this question is going to come up. I just wonder, you know, you always wonder sort of who the powers that be in the party want to succeed. And, you know, we don't know what Present Obama is going to do. Joe Biden looks like he is going to get in.
He has hired a new consultant who was a pretty strongly against Ed Gillespie in the Virginia race. He runs a Latin victory fund pack. Cristobal Alex is his name. He did a very vicious ad against Ed Gillespie that accused him of treating minority children unjustly. What do you think about Joe Biden on this move?
WATTERS: Well, it is the first serious sign that he is getting in. This guy also was in charge for voter mobilization for Hillary Clinton. I think he could've done a little bit better than that, but that is neither here nor there. If I were a Democrat running against Biden, this is what I would do.
I would try to separate Biden from Obama and say you are the coattail candidate because that would get under his skin. I would use Biden's record against him because he's been there since the 80s. He has said so many things that are so out of step with the mainstream or the party now. That would really hurt him.
I would use his identity against him. Straight, old, white guy, out of touch with how young women, minorities feel about America. I would use socialism against him. I would make him denounce socialism and that would just pick a fight with the base. That is how you take out Biden.
MACCALLUM: But there's going to be a lot of Democrats who will be nostalgic for President Obama. They are going to look at Joe Biden and think about a man who was vice president of the country for eight years. And, you know, he did run twice. He has had a lot of gas. But most of that was before he was the vice president. He does relate to a lot of working- class voters in Western Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan. He and the president share a lot of territory with those voters.
WATTERS: That is an asset. He can speak to those people in the Rust Belt. At the same time, the Democrats want fresh blood. Democrats always do better when they run young, inspiring, fresh new candidates like the young Bill Clinton of the 90s, Barack Obama. When they try the nostalgia thing with Perry (ph), Gore (ph), Hillary, it doesn't add up.
MACCALLUM: It's true. Speaking of young aspiring candidates, Aaron Schock was a young Republican congressman who ended up getting booted out of his position. He used congressional money and Capitol Hill money to decorate his office on the Hill in the Downton Abbey theme.
WATTERS: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
MACCALLUM: He has a grand notion of himself at 37 that he wanted to be like Lord Grantham.
(LAUGHTER)
WATTERS: He is like the Paul Manafort of Congress with this lavish taste. You remember the movie "Goodfellas" when they have the big score?
MACCALLUM: Oh, yeah.
WATTERS: And then the guy comes out and he starts buying mint coats for his wife. Calm down.
MACCALLUM: He is mad because everyone's wife and girlfriend are looking at them.
WATTERS: You want to lay low after big score. You don't want to show it off and decorate your office in Kashmir and things like that. What I think what really did (ph) him in was the Men's Health cover photo shoot with his six-pack abs.
MACCALLUM: Which we have.
WATTERS: Of course, you have that, Martha.
(LAUGHTER)
WATTERS: That is the only reason I'm here. You want to talk about it. That got everybody in Congress jealous because you show up six-pack abs like that.
MACCALLUM: They don't like that.
WATTERS: All the fat congressmen and all these prosecutors, they are like, no, we got to take this guy out.
MACCALLUM: Not go over well. That's an interesting --
WATTERS: -- right in their face (ph).
MACCALLUM: We will see what happens to him. I think he's going to be a model or maybe an actor in the next masterpiece theater.
WATTERS: I think you are going to have him on when he is clear.
MACCALLUM: Oh, Jesse, thank you very much.
WATTERS: All right.
MACCALLUM: "Wednesdays with Watters." When we come back, our response to the DNC's decision to restrict Fox News from its 2020 presidential debates, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So, before we go tonight, as we did mention earlier and many of you have been responding online to this news, the Democratic National Committee made a decision today that Fox News will not host any of their planned 22 primary debates during the 2019-2020 election cycle. As an anchor and reporter who has moderated many debates and done so fairly and professionally, we ask tough but fair questions.
As you would imagine, this is very disappointing news. Several Democrats have commented today, among them Congressman Garamendi, who was on earlier, made off camera comments on this saying he thinks this is a mistake.
All viewers, especially everyone out there with a large audience as we have here at Fox News, should have the opportunity to watch these debates, to participate in them because there are viewers of all stripes across the channel watching Fox News every night.
Our senior vice president Bill Sammon issued this response today. "We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democratic presidential debate. They are the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America which includes many persuadable voters.
We hope they will consider that. This is “The Story”.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox