Democrats to unveil 'Rooseveltian' COVID-19 relief bill

This is a rush transcript from "The Story with Martha MacCallum," May 8, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: --you're going to forget me. You got everyone. Thank you, Bret. Great to see you. Have a great Mother's Day everybody this weekend.

So think about this. A new center of gravity is slowly emerging in the coming presidential election. While the President's handling of COVID-19 will be central, perhaps even bigger will be the plan to pull the United States economy out of the deep hole that it is in.

With the record 20.5 million Americans who lost their jobs in April and a total of 33.5 million unemployment claims since this whole crisis began, unemployment is at 14.75 percent, the highest rate since 1948.

So if anyone had told you at the beginning of 2020, as we rung in the New Year in a packed Times Square - look at that. That in two short months Times Square would be empty and that we would be in a ditch that we have not seen since the "Great Depression." You never would have believed what has happened.

So now the election becomes largely a battle over who can get your job back. Which candidate can get you back on track and employed, with your help of course, and perhaps even be able to put you in a position where you can improve your home or maybe take a vacation to look forward to in 2021.

So we have already strapped the country with $3 trillion in stimulus spending, a debt that will be on the backs of generations to come no matter what. Senator Chuck Schumer is now giving us a look at the Democrats' plan for the way forward.


SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): They remind me of the old Herbert Hoover. We had the Great Depression. Hoover said just let's wait it out. It got worse and worse. We need Franklin Roosevelt to entice action and we hope to take that in the House and Senate in a very big and bold way.


MACCALLUM: A New Deal, in other words. The first one was an effort to get us out of the Great Depression, of course, and many economists believe that it worked. But the government expansion that came with it was here to stay. In fact, many of the buildings in Washington were built under the New Deal and House agencies that were created under it, which of course are all still there.

But there is another way that conservatives will embrace, first, the pause that Leader McConnell wants on another relief round, and then something that likely might look like a resurgence of manufacturing in America with far less in dependence on China, perhaps an initiative that is more market based and less government based in order to create jobs.

But which will draw in the voter come November, that's the big question for the election. President Trump will have to convince voters that he can make America great again. And Joe Biden has promised a return to normalcy. That was the bedrock of his campaign from the beginning. It used to mean a White House without President Trump in it.

But now it will be a far bigger vision on his part that is needed to convince people to return to normalcy. My next guest brings us some perspective on the history of all this. Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of "The Case for Trump."

Victor always good to see you tonight. When you hear Senator Schumer talk about a Rooseveltian solution here, what do you hear in what's being said and how will each side endeavor to convince the American public that their way is the way forward?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Yes I think it's kind of a false dichotomy, because you got to remember that we're running about $4 trillion deficit when we have these new packages. Herbert Hoover couldn't even conceive of that.

Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump is the arts Keynesian in history. So this is the most --the biggest creation of liquidity we've ever experienced. And the idea that you have to have even more of it, that is absurd. So - that you would be a tightwad if you didn't want to break that current record before you even know if it's effective or not.

And second, we're kind of in Orwellian situation, Martha, because we have these locked down largely blue states, California, Illinois, New York and they're saying we can't take any chances with the economy and we don't think people - more people will die because of the lockdown versus exposure to the virus.

We have to be absolutely certain that nobody gets the virus and dies. OK. But we have soaring welfare costs and we have soaring entitlement costs, because people are locked in at home. But we want other people to go out in the red states and we want to criticize you for being reckless.

But you're the people are going to have to provide the labor and the services and the capital to create wealth and give it to the federal government, so that it can turn around and give it to us and bail us out, while we sit at home and suggest that we're your moral superiors. And that's an untenable situation. It's incoherent.

Because you can't stay at home and say I'm going to be perfectly morally smug and superior to you and you and you, but I need money to be printed and given to me to run my entitlements while we're not working, and that money's got to come from somewhere and it's going to come from the places that are actually risking and going out working and providing it and yet they're going to be criticized. I don't think that's coherent or sustainable position.

MACCALLUM: So it seems that this environment has created a new argument for universal basic income, for universal health care, for universal child care. I've heard a lot of discussion about this coming from Senator Schumer, also Senator Markey, talking about how this is a moment when we all have to really wake up and realize that we need these things in order to survive as a country. What do you say to them?

HANSON: Well, what's made us survive so far is that were the world's largest producer of energy, we're the largest agricultural producer in the world. We've got the largest tech sector. So it's a private enterprise and capital that while we sleep every night, brave people on the freeway are delivering food. Your turn on your thermostat, the energy comes. Somebody is working and it's not government bureaucrats or financial planners that are printing money, and that's what's kept us going.

We had a booming economy with record low unemployment. We had a margin of error. And we didn't have that, we would be all destitute right now and that's what's so troubling about it. Because what works is the private sector that gave us the wealth and gave us the margin of error that we coasted for two months.

And by the way there is a paradigm, Martha, it's three states Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York that comprise about 11 or maybe 12 percent of the population. That's where 52 percent of all the fatalities to the coronavirus have happened. I'm not blaming the governors. Although, Governor Cuomo is decision to open up the nursing homes to infected patients probably resulted in about 5,000 unnecessary fatalities. But, nevertheless, things happen.

But what I'm getting at is, that paradigm of dense living, reliance on mass transit, using elevators - the density that's necessary to put that many people not many places runs at enormous risk, especially when you're dependent on subsidized government transportation.

And the other paradigm that people have always sort of ridiculed is energy inefficient, that is the Los Angeles paradigm or that Utah paradigm or the Texas paradigm or the Florida paradigm has been much more successful.

We have three states Florida, Texas and California they have an aggregate population of about a third of the country - 90 million people. They've only had 5,500 hundred. That's a large number. But it's just a fraction of the 75,000 dead. That's the paradigm that's been far more successful. So I don't get the idea that a blue state paradigm is supposedly going to get us out of this mess.

MACCALLUM: So quickly before I let you go. Is there - what's the answer to greater government expansion on the sort of market-based side. Do you think that it is a resurgence of manufacturing in America? Things that have been made in China that can be made here. Is there a government sort of inspired plan that gets picked up by the private sector that you see as a way out as a way out, as a way up again?

HANSON: Yes. I think the government can give really clear incentives, tax breaks, property tax incentives, get these industries back home locate them where they were traditionally very prosperous, many of them in interior of the country that'll get the unemployment even lower than it was before the boom, encourage more energy development and we had all the bases.

This wasn't not a natural recession or depression. This was a new neutron bomb, what we all feared in the 1980s, that was let off. That just didn't destroy the infrastructure, but it destroyed the economy. And it was self- induced.

And I think the historians are going to look back and they're going to look at the data and the analytics from this virus and they're going to be very troubled. Because when it's all said and done, the people who suggested that lethality rates were not that different from the flu and the modelers were wrong, and our experts and credential expertise misled us, that's going to be unfortunately true.

And I think we've way overreacted, and now it's time to get back and get to work and create capital and wealth and turn the private sector loose like we had before the virus and we'll be fine. We'll be better off with low interest, cheap energy and decoupling from China.

MACCALLUM: Victor Davis Hanson, always good to see you. Thank you for weighing in tonight, sir. Good to see you.

HANSON: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: So this story caught my eye today. As we wrestle with reopening here in the United States, Shanghai Disneyland, which shut down three months ago, January 25th, is opening its doors on Monday. You might wonder as I did. Will people come though? That's the big question.

So while it is opening at 30 percent capacity, tickets sold out almost immediately. So that is one indication, at least, of some serious pent-up demand. Germany is also seeing enthusiasm as people start to go back out, go to dinner and get to life back there as well. Another example of some pent-up demand.

So here with a data map of where movement is starting to happen in America. This is very interesting technology. Nick Singh, a spokesperson for SafeGraph, a company that measures foot traffic through mobile location data to 5 million places in the United States. Nick, great to have you with us tonight.

Let's start with a look, if you could take us through this map that shows sort of everybody going - staying home and then the slow resurgence of people starting to move around again. Let's take a look at that.

NICK SINGH, SAFEGRAPH SPOKESPERSON: Thanks for having me on Martha. The data is fascinating. This social distancing data that we used and create from anonymous mobile location data shows that the nation, starting in May - it's starting in March up to around April 7th, people are staying at home more and that's the dark blue sea.

But around April 7th was the high watermark. Since then the nation has been easing from staying at home and this is across all 50 states. It's not just in states where governors relaxed stay-at-home guidelines. So it's very fascinating stuff.

MACCALLUM: So - and you're picking all of this up through cell phone data. Right? So when we leave a section of our apps on that allows the locator on our phone that's where you're getting this heat, but it's anonymous or so we're told?

SINGH: Exactly. So this is a panel of anonymous mobile location data from around 45 million devices that we see monthly. SafeGraph is all about aggregated insights. So it's not about where any one device has gone.

It's all about aggregated insights to see how well is a neighborhood doing in social distancing, as well as how well is foot traffic to a mom and pop store or a retail chain doing. So it's not about individual movement, but more so aggregating that to get your pulse on the economy and different brands.

MACCALLUM: Yes. It mean, we're going to be hearing so much more about this and all the companies that are tracking where we're going and social distancing and all of it. I want to put this one other graph up the one that we had initially to show this one.

Foot traffic broken down by activity and industry. So the blue line - and you can see April 17th, I believe it is - April 27 on the bottom there. And then where all of these different industries start to go up. Golf has started to go up, because a lot of the golf courses reopened. Casinos is having a nice rebound, it seems, and home repair up about 35 percent. What's your take away from these, Nick?

SINGH: While none of these industries are really hitting there's 2019 year- over-year numbers, we are seeing a rebound in some of the different industries and when you drill down into different states like Georgia or Texas you are able to notice that there is pent up consumer demand. And when we do eases regulations visits to these different industries - pretty much all industries is rebounding and increasing. And we are seeing that, it's nowhere near 2019, but clearly, things are slowly starting to return to a new normal.

MACCALLUM: I think that's encouraging. Nick Singh, thank you very much. SafeGraph is the company doing that data. Good to see you tonight. Thank you very much.

SINGH: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, a stunning reversal - thank you. A stunning reversal of roles in the Russian collusion case. Could Michael Flynn get his job back and Jim Comey be the one who might be in legal trouble. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, hear on that next.



WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes and the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime.


MACCALLUM: You heard the Attorney General there saying that what General Michael Flynn did was not a crime as the DOJ drops the criminal charges against him. And new reports suggest that Michael Flynn could be back on the scene at some point soon in the White House or elsewhere.

So "The Daily Beast" reported this quote "Team Trump wants Flynn back for 2020. Sees him as it's Nelson Mandela." So are the tables turning for General Flynn and also for the man who went after him in now questionable ways - the former Director of the FBI, James Comey?

Judge Andrew Napolitano joins me in moments on how the former FBI director could possibly face prosecution. But we begin tonight with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is now candidate for the United States Senate in Alabama. Sir, very good to have you with us tonight. Thank you for being here.


MACCALLUM: So my first question for you goes back to something that President Trump said today. He said if Bill Barr had been his first Attorney General there would have been no Russia probe. He said, no, there wouldn't be. He would have stopped it immediately. He goes on to say that you were a disaster. What do you say to that, sir?

SESSIONS: Well, I did what I had to do. I was appointed his Attorney General. I was honored to take that office and I was informed that there was an investigation involving the campaign. Unlike Attorney General Barr, I was an official role in that campaign. I was with the President many times as we travel the country. I was Chairman of the National Security Committee. I officially reported to the FEC.

So when the rules say you can't investigate a campaign that you're a part of it, clearly applied to me. I did the right thing. I did - I cannot back down on that. And Attorney General Barr is doing a great job. I'm proud of him. But he's not in any way inhibited, like I was and indeed Attorney General for the Department of Justice, for that case, involving the campaign, the Russian collusion was the Deputy Attorney General at that time. There was one. It just wasn't me.

MACCALLUM: So - and I know that Judge Napolitano is going to agree with you on the fact that you had to recuse yourself. I know Judge Napolitano agrees with you on that.

But I guess my question would be. When you saw sort of what was going on, and you saw that the FBI was - now we understand, out over its skis, was there nothing that you could have done in your role as Attorney General to sort of put up a red flag about what you saw?

SESSIONS: Well, Martha we did a number of things. I pointed - supported the activities of the Inspector General who turned up the page in Strzok and Page e-mails and began to really raise questions about the integrity of this matter, the integrity of the FISA warrants. So we did that. But I was not able to participate in actually overseeing the investigation.

I didn't know any more than what was in the newspaper. That was the Acting Attorney General of the United States that was managing that case. It was his responsibility to supervise that and he did.

I would just say this, had I not recused, and I had not taken action to try to suppress, stop or eliminate, fire the people who were doing this investigation, it would have been a catastrophe for the rule of law. It would have been a catastrophe for my ability to bring control over that department that was out of control and needed discipline. It was leaking like a sieve and there were a lot of problems in that department.

And, finally, I think it would have been a total disaster for President Trump to try to slam that down, violate the law, not do the right thing and then suppress an investigation. When, now thank goodness, he and I too, who was a part of the investigation have - he's been exonerated. He is now on the way to re-election. Nobody even mentions Russia collusion anymore.

So it was a painful time no doubt about it. But I did the right thing. I'll always do the right thing. Not going to back down when it comes to doing the right thing.

MACCALLUM: Understood. You said that you believe that James Comey should have been fired and were very instrumental in that happening. Now Christopher Wray is in that position at the FBI and the President says that the jury is still out on him. What do you see for the future of Christopher Wray? Do you think he's going to hold on to that job?

SESSIONS: Well, the jury is the President, that's a jury of one. Only the President can remove the Director of the FBI. I'm sure and the proper thing for the President would be to stay in communication with his Attorney General Bill Barr and evaluate the performance of every public official.

One thing about Chris Wray unlike James Comey, he doesn't have ego problems. He has high degree of integrity. He knows the law. He's a brilliant lawyer. And so I think he will - has the potential to be an excellent FBI Director. But I do think there has been a long history in the FBI being too defensive and protecting and circling the wagons when investigations occur.

So I think Attorney General Barr and Deputy - and FBI Director Wray need to get to the bottom of all the things that happened. The best way to restore confidence in the FBI is to get to the absolute bottom. The good, the bad, the ugly, and then promising and reforming that department. I think they can. I know they can. That what - that's what has to be done.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, it seems like we're getting closer all the time. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions thank you, sir. Very good to have you with us tonight. Thank you for being here.

So joining me now is Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst. Good to have you with us as well, Judge. Do you think going back to the question that was posed in my introduction to you that the tables are turning and that Michael Flynn, perhaps, regains his position and that James Comey is susceptible at this point to investigation, prosecution himself.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, whether Michael Flynn regains his former position is really up to the President. The Michael Flynn, I know, was an honorable person who by no means merited what he went through. But the situation with respect to James Comey, as a result of the documents that the Justice Department filed with Judge Sullivan yesterday can only be described as grave.

Because we now know from those documents that there was no, zero good faith basis to commence the investigation of General Flynn. Now, the government enjoys immunity. If you're prosecuted and you win, you can't sue the government for prosecuting you, unless there was no good faith basis for the prosecution.

So Jim Comey is now exposed not only to civil liability, a lawsuit from General Flynn seeking to compensate General Flynn for the millions he lost in defending himself. But Comey is also exposed to criminal prosecution for knowingly, willfully and intentionally violating the civil rights of General Michael Flynn, his right to fairness, we call it due process, without any good faith basis whatsoever.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And no doubt they'll go back to that sound bite that we've played here quite a bit where he boastful he talks about sending in agents to the White House and General Flynn was under the understanding that he didn't need any attorney, that they weren't investigating him.

Quickly on one other person who was in the Obama administration who's now coming under some attention, who - this Evelyn Farkas, who was a defense official has been on MSNBC a million times, very confidently talking about how they knew that there was Russian collusion going on.

Here she is on March the 2nd on that . Watch this.


EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER OBAMA DEFENSE OFFICIAL: The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff - the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods. Meaning, we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.


MACCALLUM: Yes, she knew that there was more. She was a major source, I believe, for a big "New York Times" series on the Russia collusion hoax, as I guess you could now call it. The President always calls it that, but it seems like there was no there there. Here's what came up in the transcripts.

Trey Gowdy says, why don't we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians. "Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point you didn't work for it, did you?" She says, "I didn't." He says, "Then how did you know?" And she says, "I didn't know anything." According to these transcripts. What do you see here Judge?

NAPOLITANO: Well you know it is a crime to lie to the FBI, we know that. It's a crime to lie under oath. Everybody knows that. It is not a crime to lie on television, but it's not very good for one's career.

I've really never heard of this woman until all of this came out yesterday and more of it came out today, but she was obviously an emissary for the forces that want to do impair or even bury President Trump. But yet when she was put under oath, she acknowledged that what she was saying on MSNBC was not true. She's still there.

MACCALLUM: Yes. You know I don't know the answer to that question, but she was very fired up on this story so often on that show. And she wasn't alone, obviously, there was an assumption that all of this was well- founded. And you know you can sort of never get that part of this back. Right? I mean, what's the impact on all of these individuals who have gone out there and sort of been way out on this limb that has now been cut off, Judge?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think, more documentation is going to come out. I don't know what else it's going to show. But thus far it has shown that the public media, television face of these people is radically different from what they said when they were under oath and knew that they could go to jail if they failed to tell the truth - radically different. This woman, Farkas, is just one of many who appear to be in that category.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And it explains why people like Trey Gowdy, sort of couldn't say everything that he knew, having sat through these, but kept reassuring so many people that there was not a lot of underlying that sort of was connective tissue in this story for quite some time.

Judge, thank you. Always good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight.

NAPOLITANO: Good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, Joe Biden's push for campus rules that essentially said that all women should be believed. Now he's asking for a very different standard, says our next guest. Robby Soave, up next.


MACCALLUM: Joe Biden's efforts to distance himself from the Tara Reade controversy get more complicated by the day, as new document surface that appeared to back up Reade's version of the story.

One of the problems that he will face is that during the Obama administration he championed a crackdown on sexual harassment and assault on college campuses. A just cause, to be sure, but the pressure that threatened losing public funding to those universities made some very unjust situations arise, leaving the accused without attorneys or even full disclosure about the accusations against him in many cases.

Now Biden is calling for due process and fairness for him, but suggests by his latest remarks that these other individuals on campuses do not always deserve the same.

Joining me now, Robby Soave, associate editor at and author of "Panic Attack." Robby, good to see you this evening. You have written about this a lot and we have done a number of pieces on this over the years in terms of what happened on college campuses, but remind everybody, you know, what the rule was from the Obama administration and what the impact was in some cases on due process.

ROBBY SOAVE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, REASON.COM: Sure. The Obama administration issued guidance to universities that often cause them to stop having hearings for sexual misconduct, adjudication altogether. Where you are having one university official become aware of a dispute between students, this person would investigate it, would decide what witnesses to question, what question was relevant, and then render a judgment, would render a verdict without having any opportunity for an accused student to even present evidence on their behalf.

In some cases, they weren't even sully aware of what the charges against them were. They weren't able to consult an attorney or even a friend. These were really blatantly unfair procedures that again, the federal government forced colleges to adapt.

And Joe Biden was at the center of that effort. It was one of his most important achievements or contributions to the Obama administration. He was the hype man. He spearheaded this effort.

So, I find it kind of hypocritical now that he would say he deserves a benefit of the doubt that under the standards that he advocated verbally and in practice were quite different than what he wants - he wants to enjoy now.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, now, we spoke with Secretary DeVos the other night, because they're -- she's working to perform these procedures so that there is more due process in these very difficult situations that arise on college campuses, to be sure that both sides have due process and fairness.

And already Joe Biden even in the midst of what's going on with Tara Reade spoke out and denounced the changes the reforms that would happen with title nine, and said that he will -- that they will shame and silence survivors, these changes, and that he will put a quick end to it.

So, he says, if elected, he's going to make sure that these due process reforms can't take place on college campuses, and yet he seems to want something very different for himself.

SOAVE: I mean, it's so hypocritical and just really wrongheaded. If you look at the reforms that the secretary is doing, some of them are just very common sense. There are -- I mean, this -- the previous guidance did not serve every victim well. There were many alleged victims who didn't feel --


MACCALLUM: That's right.

SOAVE: -- that they were that way, they didn't want an investigation and the universities were conducting these unfair investigations contrary to the victims' wishes.

Under the new procedure's universities can offer support, resources to people without initiating these kinds of, really, you know, in-your-face kinds of quasi-judicial trials sort of environments against their wishes.

Who could be against that? I don't know why anyone would be, let alone Biden who is now in a position to sort of, need the norms of due process. I mean, due process is more than just for the legal system. It's a frame of mind that we practice, you know, assuming that people are innocent unless evidence can be -- can be demonstrated to show we should think a different way.

That's something that I believe Biden should enjoy but he has not advocated that for others, it's not just college students but also Justice Kavanaugh --


SOAVE: -- when he said when that was going down. And so many of his supporters have adopted the same kind of hypocritical switch, so it's a shame to hear him say that will go down this --


MACCALLUM: I mean, you think about the -- you think about the good that could potentially be done if he were to stay right now, you know, I find myself in a situation that I think is very unfair and I don't think anybody should be in this situation. I think that both sides need to be heard.

It would be amazing to hear that kind of revelation in the middle of what is going through right now. But we shall see. Robby, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight.

SOAVE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Take care. So, once again, the nation sees an awful video and a shocking loss of life. And now, the father and son shooters are under arrest tonight as the story continues to unfold. Senator Tim Scott is next.


MACCALLUM: Two Georgia men, Gregory and Travis McMichael charged with murder, accused of chasing down and shooting an unarmed black man Ahmaud Arbery more than two months ago. Their arrest coming last night after state police took over this case this week. Amid cell phone video of the shooting sparking national outrage and the suspects say that they thought Arbery was a burglar. Arbery's family says that he was just out jogging.

Joining me now by phone, Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, author of the new book "Opportunity Knocks." Senator Scott, always good to have you with us this evening.

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Obviously, this is a very disturbing story. I guess one of the questions is, what took so long? If this happened two months ago, why did it take the video to, you know, to get to the point of these two arrests?

SCOTT: That's a great question, one I hope we get a better answer to. It seems like the older fellow, 64-year-old person was a former police and investigator for the local prosecutor, so I think that had some role to play. And the other part of itis that they had him down as a witness, so I assume that they saw no actual reason to dig at all.

And I'm not sure why it would take a video if you gun down a man at one p.m. in the afternoon jogging in shorts and a t-shirt, it's kind of hard to him to steal anything, that he can't carry on his bag and he had nothing on him, so it's really disturbing to see the video. I've watched it a few times.

But Trey Gowdy said it as well as you said it, which is why did it take a video, why did it take a video for someone to act?

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, that is a very good question. This is Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Ahmaud Arbery's father. Watch this.


BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR ARBERY'S FATHER: We have two justice systems in America. One for black America, and one for white America. As if the roles were reversed and it was him and his father, in a truck with a shotgun and a .357 magnum and killed Greg McMichael's son in broad daylight, because we know without a shadow of a doubt, they would've been arrested on day one.


MACCALLUM: You know, one of my questions is, you start to read into the story, the New York Times reported on the story and said there is potentially another video. There were concerns about what was going on in the neighborhood.

And I see a tweet from you saying every single time the excuses pour in, he looks suspicious, we thought he was committing a crime. You know, what do you say to those earlier reports that indicated that they thought he was -- he was a burglar? What would you say?

SCOTT: Well, I mean, I think we should follow the evidence where it leads but here's what we know. Obviously, he wasn't stealing anything because he couldn't have been a burglar because burglars don't jog down the road and then change direction. Burglars typically run into a vehicle and get away or at least try to get away.

When you have a person who is jogging, literally down the road in shorts and a t-shirt, to have two men with weapons pointed at the one person, for anyone to suggest that this is how you handle a break-in would be inconsistent with reality, number one.


SCOTT: Number two, there's been no actual evidence, nothing reinforcing except for a 911 call that said there was a black person jogging in the neighborhood. So, no actual reports of a burglary that day.

So, going back to a couple days before, a couple weeks before, if you cannot jog anywhere in this nation, then you should not jog at all, and frankly, for folks who are really concerned about the situation, I think we should look at it from two perspectives.

One, thank God we live in a country that is involved to the place where we actually have people of good conscience, conservatives and moderates and liberals all coming together, looking for the truth.

Number two, we still have work to do. I think you have to understand the first major progress made in this nation to then underscore the importance of continuing to make progress.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well said. Senator Tim Scott, thank you very much, sir. We wanted to see your face and talk to you from the studio in Charleston but there was a little problem there. So hopefully we'll have you that way next time. Thank you very much, senator. Good to talk to you.

SCOTT: I look forward to.

MACCALLUM: We hope there's justice in this case and soon.

SCOTT: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, this is the 75th anniversary of a really important day in the history of the world. Victory in Europe. Celebrations looked a little different this year than that happy scene in Times Square but as always, we salute our veterans here, and you will meet a World War II hero who is here to tell his inspiring story that spans from D-Day all the way to V.E. Day, next.



HARRY TRUMAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a solemn but glorious hour. I wish that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to see this day.


MACCALLUM: President Harry Truman making that announcement 75 years ago today. World War II in Europe had finally come to an end. Streets across the globe flooded with soldiers returning home to their loved ones.

My next guest is one of the last living World War II paratroopers, 82nd Airborne. He was captured by the Nazis while serving in Europe and escaped. He is the recipient of two bronze stars and two Purple Hearts and he is a member of the French Legion of Honor.

Joining me now, Henry Langrehr, member of the 82nd Airborne and the author of the book "Whatever it Took" along with his co-author Jim Defelice. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight.

You jumped at Normandy, Henry, and were taken prisoner, as we said, by the Nazis and manage to escape in a harrowing situation. What do you want young people in this country to think about when they think about what you did and the 75th anniversary?

HENRY LANGREHR, WORLD WAR II PARATROOPER: I think of one word. Sacrifice. I think that we all have to learn to sacrifice things that we believe in.

MACCALLUM: And what drove you to make the sacrifices that you made and to fight as you did for your country?

LANGREHR: Well, the sacrifices that I made our equivalent to the people back home that made sacrifices also. They did a terrific job in giving us all the material that we needed to fight the war, and did without themselves. So, it's word as again, sacrifice.

MACCALLUM: And on V.E. Day you got to go home to your sweetheart, right?

LANGREHR: Yes, yes. I got home to my girlfriend, she waited for me for two and a half years not knowing where I was at or what had happened to me, and it was a great celebration. Everyone cheered and everybody had their own little parties.

JIM DEFELICE, CO-AUTHOR, WHATEVER IT TOOK: That's the X-rated part of the story, though, Martha. We don't want t go too far.


MACCALLUM: We thank you so much for your service. Go ahead, Jim. Final thoughts, Jim Defelice.

DEFELICE: I was just going to say that they did have a fantastic support from the home front, and from people like Henry's wife. Wife now of 74 years. So, the love story had a happy ending.

MACCALLUM: Jim, I know that you helped him tell the story together. He crashed through a garden house in St. Mary Glades, extraordinary story and I suggest everybody listen to it. Our podcast is also available. So, good night, guys. Thank you.

More of The Story right after this, coming up next.


MACCALLUM: Be sure to listen to the Untold Story podcast with Henry Langrehr, that goes up on Monday. This is The Story for Friday, May 8.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.