Facebook co-founder: Time to break up Facebook

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Hello there, Bret. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. And breaking tonight, China and the United States are in a faceoff. A battle for the ages. When the next war comes between superpowers, it is likely to be first over money and technology.

For example, whoever controls 5G is going to have an enormous strategic advantage in the future. Then, you've got the issue of cyber. And then, and we hope not, perhaps, a military option. But the first stage is likely what we are watching play out right now.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is “The Story.” This is a description of a book called China's Vision of Victory. "Someday we may -- we may say that we never saw it coming. After 75 years of peace in the Pacific, a new challenger to American power has emerged, on a scale not seen in generations. Working from a deep sense of national destiny.

The Chinese Communist Party is guiding a country of 1.4 billion towards what it calls the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. And with it, the end of an American-led world. Will this generation witness the final act for America as a superpower?" The book is by Dr. Jonathan Ward, who joins me in just a moment along with Steve Hilton and Charlie Hurt.

Now, the market sold off on jitters early this morning. But it bounced back late in the session. The president tweeted almost all day about this ongoing battle and the effort to solve it. He said at one point, "Tariffs will bring in far more wealth to our country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind. Also much easier and quicker to do. Our farmers will be better, faster and starving nations can now be helped. Waivers on some products will be granted, or go to a new source."

Went on to say this, "Tariffs will make our country much stronger, not weaker. Just sit back and watch. And meantime, China should not renegotiate deals with the United States at the last minute. This is not the Obama administration or the administration of sleepy Joe," says President Trump, who let China get away with murder!"

Meanwhile, candidate Joe Biden just recently said this about this whole issue with China.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch, come on man. They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not a competition for us.


MACCALLUM: Nor are they? David Spunt, live at the White House where a trade talks between the two nations just ended this evening. Good evening, David.

DAVID SPUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Martha. Good Friday evening to you. Busy day here at the White House. Things are finally slowing down right now that, that Chinese delegation left town.

It appeared that things were in somewhat of a stalemate with those talks ending a little bit early today after a few hours. But state media in China, Martha, has just reported in the last few minutes that U.S. officials will actually be heading to Beijing at some time soon to actually finish those talks and continue those trade talks.

President Trump early this morning tweeted that he was upset, he was annoyed with what was going on, "We have lost $500 billion a year for many years on crazy trade with China. No more!"

He then fired off several more tweets, but later in the day, Martha, his tone change. He said, "Over the course of the past two days, the United States and China have held candid and constructive conversations on the status of the trade relationship between both countries. The relationship between President Xi and myself remains a very strong one, and conversations on the status of the trade relationship between both countries will continue. In the meantime, the United States has imposed tariffs on China, which may or may not be removed depending on what happens with respect to future negotiations."

Now, the talk which began yesterday ended today with no sign of a deal, 12:01 a.m. this morning, those tariffs went into effect. Up 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of goods. You can see some of these goods right here, clothing, electronics, furniture, even perfumes, and colognes.

Now, President Trump went on further and tweeted, the process has begun to place additional tariffs at 25 percent on the remaining $325 billion in Chinese goods. That's something that we could see here in the future.

Last night, Liu He, the man China sent to negotiate with the United States, left the talks, less than impressed with the entire situation. Listen.


LIU HE, VICE PREMIER OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (through translator): Of course, China believes raising tariffs in the current situation is not a solution to the problem but harmful to China, to the United States, and to the whole world.


SPUNT: However, today, just after a few short hours at talks, Liu He was spotted at the nearby Willard Hotel in Washington, having lunch. He said talks would continue and they went fairly well.

Now, President Trump was at an event with the first lady just a couple hours ago for military spouses here at the White House. The president did not say anything about tariffs. Now, Martha, last night Liu He, the vice premier of China, said that both presidents, President Xi, and President Trump would need to speak directly about this.

President Trump, said yesterday that he got a nice warm letter from President Xi. They would be speaking sometime on the phone. A White House official, says they have not spoken yet, but Chinese state media reporting right now, it looks like those talks will continue in Beijing, and you have to also remember that China is promising retaliatory action against the United States for what happened. Martha.

MACCALLUM: David, thank you very much. Joining me now, Jonathan Ward, founder of Atlas Organization, a consulting firm focused on U.S.-China global competition. He's also the author of the book that we talked about before, China's Vision of History. Joined also in New York here, by Charlie Hurt. Washington Times opinion editor and Fox News contributor. And Steve Hilton, host of "THE NEXT REVOLUTION".

Gentlemen, thank you very much. I don't think you can understate the importance -- you know, you look back at the beginnings of World War II, for example. There was an oil embargo. You know, Japan was under pressure not suggesting that we're heading towards World War II. However, there is a very dynamic struggle going on right now, Jonathan, between these two nations for dominance, correct?

JONATHAN WARD, FOUNDER, ATLAS ORGANIZATION: Yes, Martha. Good evening. It's good to be here. I think the key thing that we have to understand is that the first thing is we have to win this economic competition. There's an economic competition shaping up with China, their basic objective is to surpass us economically.

Only at that point, can they really build in the military infrastructure that -- you know, puts in place what they would think of as a Chinese sanctuary. Their goal is by the year 2049, which is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China by the Chinese Communist Party, by 2049, they would become the undisputed world power really (INAUDIBLE) with no other rival.

They are turning points on this road, they see 2035 as a turning point -- they see 2021. But the next decade is what matters because that's when the technological contest, the industrial contest, the military contests are all really coming to fruition.

MACCALLUM: That's true.

WARD: So, we have to win the economic competition if we want to avoid the deeper bigger chance for conflict.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan, just staying with you for a moment, you spent a lot of time in China studying these issues. Now, it's our understanding that - - you know, that there was some significant conversation, there was about 100-page document, they thought they were getting close to a deal. Then, it feels like it goes the deal goes back to China, they look at it, they say, "No, there's no way. We're not doing any of this stuff on any of these pages. Go back to Washington and tell them this is where we stand." And the president just said, "Deal over. Done." Is it -- was that a good move, Jonathan?

WARD: I think the issue you have here is we're basically negotiating on their entire economic system which is their path to power. I mean, we're asking them, it appears -- you know, from what's known to change their -- you know, what -- how they do intellectual property transfer, how they -- you know, market access. Essentially, their means of siphoning off from the United States and from the rest of the developed world.

The tools for industrial and ultimately military power. And I think they've just said, "You know what, we're not going to do that. We don't have to." And I think it tells us a bit about the sense of confidence in China. I mean, also in the economic side there, they've just unveiled -- you know more stimulus -- you know, lower interest rates, all of this may give them a sense of short-term confidence.


WARD: They may be factoring in their assessment of U.S. domestic politics, i.e. can we wait this out? You know, will the U.S. actually hold this position? But in the end, they have a definite sense of where they're going. They've told us what that is, and that's really their gift to the United States, as they've told us their broader strategy, how they're going to do this, how they're going to surpass us, how they're going to take this position in the world that they seek?


WARD: And frankly, we have to be negotiating with that much longer vision in mind. I've been really its understanding their vision of victory that will allow us to thwart that into rebuild American power.


MACCALLUM: OK, all right. And let me see if what I hear. Thank you so much. I want to hear from Charlie and Steve as well. Steve, if you watch this play out today, what do you think?

STEVE HILTON, HOST: Well, first of all, Martha, I just want to really say what a great thing that you have set up this news story about the tariffs in the way you have without long-term historical context. And with Dr. Ward's excellent points. I couldn't agree more.

This is an incredibly important historical moment we're in. And actually, I think we really need to recognize that President Trump has done something, truly historic in overturning a consensus.

For the last 50 years or so that has said, look, if we're nice to China, if we open up to China, if we give them the Olympics, if we overlook their bad behavior and raise it with them behind closed doors, they will change their behavior. That has not happened. Exactly, the opposite has happened. They've gone further and further towards this goal of world domination. They're on the brink of that now.

And finally, we have a president -- the first western leader actually, who said, "No, we could not challenge you." Now, he's using the weapon of economic terrace, I think that is a smart choice because as we've seen since he started doing it, it's been hurting China. But it hasn't hurt our economy. Our economy is booming, it's roaring ahead.


HILTON: It will continue to do so because actually, our trade with China, even though it's important, it's really a pretty small part of the giant U.S. economy. And we can afford to pursue this economic war for a long time yet.

MACCALLUM: Interesting. You know, Charlie, you saw that tweets that we put up. Basically, the president's suggestion was we have a $500 billion trade deficit with China. So, why don't we just basically take that on the chin, and we will buy -- we'll make it up to the farmers here in the United States, and then, we will still have money left over to give some of that food away to poor countries, and we can build infrastructure with the rest of it? What say you?

CHARLES HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: It so interesting because -- you know, for going back in numerous administrations, they have ignored this issue, they have ignored this problem. President Trump, a major, major reason, he got elected is because of his campaigning on China. I think it's probably after immigration and was the biggest campaign platform that both parties had ignored for so long.

MACCALLUM: He said, "China, China, China!

HURT: And you'd go to the rally, and people at the back of the rallies would scream out, "China!" And getting to talk about China because they just love it when he go on these reps about China, and how they were stealing our lunch and everything.

And so, and I think, Steve is exactly right. Finally, you have somebody who standing up to China, and -- you know, we have one advantage, and that is they are a communist system. And we know that communism, in the long run, doesn't work out very well. We are a free and open system, and we know that, that -- you know, I have faith in that system, that, that system can prevail.

But I think that President Trump -- you know, that you could not ask for a more --he's like a pig in the slop. He loves the situation. It's the biggest deal on earth, it's on the biggest stage, and he is clearly willing to use every weapon at his disposal to -- in order to try to win this. And I think that what you see with those tweets and stuff. Is he is making it clear to China that he's perfectly happy not making a deal? And that has to scare the hell out of China.

MACCALLUM: Big deal. Gentlemen, thank you. Excellent insight. Good to see all of you tonight.

WARD: You bet.

HILTON: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next -- thank you. So, coming up next, former FBI director Jim Comey takes his case against the Trump administration to a Town Hall on CNN last night.

So, one of the question is, as a former FBI director, why is he speaking out now two years after he was fired from that job? Karl Rove joins us, and Xochitl Hinojosa. I'm going to get that right before we come back to the break next.


MACCALLUM: Former FBI Director James Comey once again taking the stage, using the spotlight to publicly criticize Trump Administration officials last night, this time taking aim directly at Attorney General William Barr and President Trump over what else, the Mueller Report. Watch.


JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: I think he acted in a way that's less than honorable in the way he described it in writing and described it during a press conference and continues to talk as if he's the President's lawyer. That is not the Attorney General's job.

I think he has lost most of his reputation with the way he's conducted himself. The president is not above the law and I don't accept the notion that because the president is the head of the executive branch he can't ever obstruct justice in connection with the executive branch activities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think he had criminal intent based on what you have seen now in the Mueller report?

COMEY: It sure looks like he did in connection with a couple episodes.


MACCALLUM: Here now Karl Rove, former Deputy Chief of Staff under President George W. Bush and a Fox News Contributor. Xochitl is DNC Communications Director. Xochitl, welcome. Good to see both of you. Karl, good evening to you.

Karl, I guess my first question is why is Jim Comey doing town halls? You know, why -- he's the former FBI Director fired two years ago. Why is he doing those?

KARL ROVE, CONTRIBUTOR: Are you asking me?


ROVE: Darned if I know. Look, this guy is tone-deaf. He goes out there in opines about obstruction of justice by President Trump. Look, this guy messed it up. He was the guy who was presiding over the investigation of Hillary Clinton and took the authority that he did not have to make the decision as to whether or not she should be charged. That was up to the Attorney General not the Director of the FBI but he made that determination, and he did so before he even interviewed her.

And then after he decided that he was not going to charge her, which again was not his is his right to make, that was the Attorney General's responsibility, he then trashed her which we do not do in this country. If you decide not to indict, you shouldn't be out to trash her. And then he intruded at the end of the election.

And then he presided during the election over an FBI that we now know in retrospect was staffed with people like Peter Strzok who were vehemently anti-Trump and were involved in sensitive matters involving the investigation of the Trump campaign.

So look, this guy messed it up. Why he thinks that we want to listen to him now is beyond me. This guy has done enough to offend Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe he ought to go back and wait and let the FBI reputation be -- or the activities of the FBI under his time as the director be investigated by the independent --

MACCALLUM: Which he is. I mean, it may be that he just wants to get out in front of what he's concerned is coming because obviously there's a big report coming out in May and June. Xochitl, you know, based on everything that James Comey, the former FBI director laid out there, he -- and he did say several times you know, that there's a potential roadmap there, that Robert Mueller's report is a roadmap many have said for Congress to follow.

So if this is the case, why isn't -- why isn't Congress pushing for impeachment?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Well, I think that what Congress wants is the full report and we've said that all along. And the reason why --

MACCALLUM: The full report is out. They could go see it any day of the week, and none of them have gone to see it.

HINOJOSA: The -- so they need -- what they need to see is the unredacted report. They need to study it and they see need to see the underlying evidence. And the reason why --

MACCALLUM: You do know that the unredacted report, 99.9 percent of volume two and like 97 percent of volume one is all available to these members of Congress and yet they have not chosen to take the time to go look at it. You know that right.

HINOJOSA: Well, they are -- they are going to do -- they're going to do that. They're going to conduct oversight. And once they do all of that, then they will make a determination on the best path forward. I think jumping right now to what the end result is without finishing our investigation, I think that that's not what they want to do.

They want to look at the full thing. They want to see the underlying evidence. They want to talk to Bob Mueller. And from there, then they will decide the appropriate action. And I think that --

MACCALLUM: It's been going on for two years and they were so excited that Bob Mueller was going to take it over and be the special counsel. Karl, he investigated it for two years. I mean, Karl, just sit back and look at the political question here. Do they want to impeach or not? And if they don't want to impeach, what is with you know, all of these subpoenas and all of this sort of dragging this across --

ROVE: Well --

MACCALLUM: Go ahead.

ROVE: Look, sure they would they want to impeach. Adam Schiff says and continues to say he has evidence of collusion of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. You have Jerry Nadler saying the president engaged in obstruction. They're not -- this is all drama. This is all pyrotechnics. This is all for show.

They have already made the determination that the President violated the law. They just don't have the guts to go forward with an impeachment resolution. And you're absolutely right when you raise the question about the Mueller report. They could go look at it. They could have gone ten days ago to look at it.

They could have gone to look at it -- look at it and come back and said you know what, there are things in the report that need to be revealed in the American people. But they don't go and see it because they know that what they're likely to read in the -- and the redacted part of that has little or no impact on the -- on the outcome.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's the thing.

ROVE: It involves sources and methods of intelligence, ongoing investigations that are peripheral to the president, and it includes general grand jury information. So they could go look at it but they won't, but they will continue to say as Nadler, Schiff, Maxine Waters, and others have said the president is guilty of impeachment. It should be removed from office. We're just not ready to file the motion to do so.


MACCALLUM: Xochitl, you know, let me ask you a question because someone raised this point who's you know, I thought was very interesting. You know, do you really think that Bob Mueller and his team would have buried the really juicy stuff underneath a few redacted sentences? I mean, don't you think that if they had the goods that they would have just put them out there, that they wouldn't be hiding it.

HINOJOSA: I'm sorry, what part of obstruction and evidence of obstruction is not serious? That is extremely serious. What exactly was the president ---

MACCALLUM: Well, it was well investigated too.

HINOJOSA: What exactly was the President hiding? And I think that Bob Mueller makes very clear in the report, I don't think that Donald Trump being frustrated in the Oval Office because things aren't going his way is an excuse for obstruction. I'm sorry --

MACCALLUM: No, but he didn't find --


MACCALLUM: He didn't find obstruction. That's the whole point.

HINOJOSA: There was very clear -- no, no, no. That's not what he said. It was very clear in the report that he said that he didn't come to a conclusion, and it looked like the evidence looked like obstruction. So that is something --

MACCALLUM: So you would imagine that it was very clear to a team of 19 lawyers and Robert Mueller that they would have been able to reach some kind of conclusion but apparently it's very --

HINOJOSA: Well, but that's because of the Justice Department precedent not to indict a president.


ROVE: No, no, no.

MACCALLUM: They didn't use. They didn't use the OLC decision in their process. I got to go, guys. I'm running out of time.

HINOJOSA: But it was stated in the report --

MACCALLUM: We will continue. Xochitl, thank you very much. Xochitl Hinojosa, Karl Rove, thank you guys, big debate, good to see both.

HINOJOSA: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, an entire American city held hostage by hackers demanding ransom. This is no joke. The Police Department, all of the systems, the Board of Election is affected, nobody knows what to do.


MACCALLUM: All right, Fox News Alert. Tonight a major accident in a Houston Ship Channel. Two barges collided with an oil tanker carrying thousands of barrels of gasoline component chemicals. One of those barges has flipped over, not that one, it's the other one. And then you're going to see this giant -- you see a giant hole in the hole, and this one is taking on water. Early reports say there could be as many as 25,000 barrels of chemicals leaking into the ship channel.

Those chemicals are called reformate. They're flammable, they are toxic to sea life. There have been reports from some of the nearby towns that they are starting to get a strong petroleum smell that is wafting off the water likely the result of this accident.

We also just got video of what we believe could be the ship that crashed into the barge. You can see the damage on the front of its hall. At this point, it is still afloat but we will keep you posted if we get more out of Houston tonight.

In the meantime, how about this in Baltimore. The entire city government has been held hostage to cyber terrorists since Tuesday. They are still trying to find answers here as employees are getting this message on their computer screens. What happened to your files? We've encrypted your files with your public -- with our public key. You must send us Bitcoin for each affected system. That's the ransom plea.

Leland Vittert live with the new details on the hackers demands tonight. Incredible. Hi Leland!

LELAND VITTERT, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Martha! Add this to the very long list of problems not only for the city of Baltimore but the citizens is well. They're using a program called Robin Hood and the hackers according to the local CBS station, they are now being investigated by the FBI. Ransomware attacks are named because they're akin to ransom kidnappings except with computers, the hackers demand payment to either turn the computer systems back on or give you your data.

You showed the computer screens of a couple of the employees and this is who is affected. The hackers want $76,000 but the mayor says they are not paying it. This is the mess that it's causing. The police e-mail system isn't working. The e-mails and voice mails for the city council aren't working. The public works department has suspended late fees on water bills because of problems paying and taking those bills.

The mayor there has put out the statement. He said that people were able to get their cars at towing yard, come in and pay in cash or money orders so they can mail the payments in. So, the city is functioning according to the mayor, talking to the CBS station. We're doing it a different way that the citizens of Baltimore are not being affected.

Some folks might dispute of having to come into the city and do things manually is not being effective, but this highlights ransomware attacks around the country.

Last year, the FBI reported nearly 1,500 ransomware victims who lost a total of $3.62 million. Those are the people who paid. The city of Atlanta, they got hot in a similar way to Baltimore. The city there refused to pay just like in Baltimore. It cause of $17 million to recover the data in Atlanta.

Specific to the Atlanta attack, the DOJ indicted two Iranians. And Martha, this always bringing up the question of either state actors or quasi state actors attempting to test U.S. systems for larger, wider scale attack coming up.

MACCALLUM: That's exactly the concern and that is why we do this story because you think about what these people in Baltimore are going through, magnify it across big slash of the country and try to imagine what that would be like. Leland, thank you very much.

Nick Mosby is former Baltimore City councilman, Maryland State delegate, and a network engineer. You have all the qualifications, Nick, to tell us about this. So, explain to us, you know, how bad is this, and could it be that they are testing systems like this in order for a larger attack?

NICK MOSBY, FORMER BALTIMORE COUNCILMAN: Well, it's -- first and foremost, thanks for having me on.

MACCALLUM: Thank you.

MOSBY: It's extremely -- it's extremely disruptive to the citizens of Baltimore and to the city of Baltimore and that's the point. The point is to kind of bring institutions to our needs. I mean, let's be very clear that, you know, these individuals how there's been a focus on hospitals and cities, and other municipal and public services.

But this also affects corporations as well as individuals. I mean, basically, any end-user, any active device that's connected to the internet has the ability of being hacked in and potentially having some of this malware applied.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Now, a lot of the companies, as Leland reported, they pay ransom. They want the whole thing to be kept quiet. They pay thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions according to that. Is that a mistake for them to pay this ransom when they need to get their company back up and running?

MOSBY: Well, it is a huge mistake. And unfortunately, a lot of companies go undetected. I mean, these are only the companies that we know about that are reported on. But you know, imagine the public embarrassment around this.

But when you pay for this immediately, you know, you embolden this type of behavior. I mean this is someone who's literally committing a crime and you're kind of paying them for their action to release you from that particular crime.

And more importantly, you can pay out the money, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be acting in good faith, and you know, prod (ph) you with the right set if inscription keys to get your system back in place.

MACCALLUM: Thank you.

MOSBY: So, what this does do --

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I got to leave it there. Thank you, Nick. I'm sorry. We are out of time. Nick Mosby, we wish you luck and we'll keep you posted. We'll keep looking at it. Thanks, Nick Mosby. Good to see you tonight.

MOSBY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up, an incredible opportunity. On Tuesday night, if you might have noticed, I wasn't here. I was with these folks. You'll see why, coming up next.


MACCALLUM: I had the great honor of this week hosting the World War II Foundation's 75th D-Day event at the French embassy, remembering the heroes who landed on the beaches of France in June 6, 1944, those who came home and those who did not.

Purple Heart recipient, Senator Bob Dole, received a leadership award and several other World War II were honored with the French Foreign Legion medal, a very high honor for their bravery and courage to end the war and free a continent. Watch this.


MACCALLUM: I'm so proud to be here tonight with all of you to support the World War II Foundation and show my gratitude to those men who we honor tonight, especially Senator Dole, for whom I had the honor of serving as an intern when I was in college.

TIM GRAY, FOUNDER, WORLD WAR II FOUNDATION: The World War II Foundation is honored to present our 2019 Leadership Award to Senator Bob Dole who not only served this country during the war years of 1941 to 1945, but also returned home and made sure the legacy of his generation and that of his fellow soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen would never be forgotten.

They do this so that future generations understand the sacrifices made by those who fought and survived, and those who never came home from World War II.

Senator Bob Dole served with the famed 10th Mountain Division in Italy in World War II. As we all know, he was seriously wounded in combat in Ipo (ph) Valley. The medics who treated Bob Dole did not think he would make it. Obviously, he did and spent the rest of his life in public service to his country from the great state of Kansas.

BOB DOLE, FORMER SENATOR: I still do a little public service. I go to the World War II Memorial every Saturday for the past nine years and greet veterans. And anymore, there are not too many of us from World War II. And there are some of us still kicking around. I'm only 95. And I'll give you my recipe if you want.

But again, I want to say thank you. I probably don't deserve it, but I will take it anyway.

JEAN-PIERRE MONTEGU, EMBASSY OF FRANCE REPRESENTATIVE: I would like to begin by expressing my heartfelt thanks to you, veterans of World War II, who are honoring us with your presence tonight for your selfless participation in the liberation of my country.

The Legion of Honor has been France's highest national order and one of the most coveted distinctions in the world. Indeed, French and American soldiers have long fought side-by-side, often paying heavy (inaudible) in blood and will still do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Keller landed at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944. He took part in numerous combats, notably at Saint Lo, where despite his wounds he distinguished himself by saving the lives of two fellow soldiers.

MACCALLUM: Tonight, we have the opportunity to honor some them once more to serve the purpose of making sure that America never forgets these heroes, without whom the world would be a very different place.

I recently went to Iwo Jima to see where my uncle died at the age of 18 to further my understanding of the pacific battles and impart so my family would remember his sacrifice for generations to come and hopefully a broader audience will pause and marvel at the everyday heroes. Many, like my Uncle Harry Gray, who was just out of high school, who gave up everything for their country, and to secure freedom for those who got to live and go on.

I had read Douglas Brinkley's the Boys of Pointe de Hoc and tear up wit the rest of America when President Reagan spoke on the 40th anniversary of D- day. Standing on the cliffs of Normandie, he said --

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the range of daggers that were trusted at the top of these cliffs and before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the Boys of Pointe de Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.


MACCALLUM: Remarkable. Remarkable heroes. We'll be seeing some of them again in less than a month when many of them in their 90s will make the trip to Normandy, France. THE STORY will be there as well in honor of the 75th anniversary of D-day.

So when we come back, one of Facebook's founders, Mark Zuckerberg's college roommate, they shared a tiny room together, now says that the whole idea is bad for America and it's time for the government to split up Facebook. Ladies' night is up next.


MACCALLUM: From friends to frenemys, it looks like. Facebook co-founder, Chris Hughes, Mark Zuckerberg's college roommate, now calling for the tech giant to be broken up. He says it is now in the zone of dangerous. It is so big it's un-American. And here's how he feels about Mark Zuckerberg. Listen.


CHRIS HUGHES, FACEBOOK CO-FOUNDER: Mark is a good, kind person. We've been friends for 15, 16 years at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you still friends?

HUGHES: And I also think he has too much power. Listen, I don't know. I really don't know if we're going to be friends.


MACCALLUM: But he went a lot further when he talked about Zuckerberg's motives on the New York Times' podcast, "The Daily." Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mark didn't care about making money. He cared about growth.

HUGHES: I think that's true.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think that's true?

HUGHES: Oh, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, this was not about increasing the value of the company, what was it about?

HUGHES: It was a drive for domination.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Lisa Boothe, Fox News contributor; Kristina Partsinevelos, Fox Business reporter; and Danielle McLaughlin, attorney and progressive commentator. Good to have both of you with us. Thank you very much -- all three of you with us.



MACCALLUM: I found this fascination, this whole -- you know, it's almost like Social Network, The Movie Part Two, you know, because he talked about how they live together in this tiny dorm room at Harvard, and how Mark left Harvard but he came from a very middle-class family. He said, I wasn't about to walk away from that. But he said, you know, his goal became to have this dominance of this company in the world. What do you think, Lisa?

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I mean, sure, with any business, as you see growth, you want to see the business continue to grow. I wonder if they are still friends. I wonder what their relationship is.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I don't think so. I don't think so.

LISA BOOTHE: But I think for me -- you know, if you don't like Facebook, you can deactivate your account. It's not essential to the way people live their life, or at least for me, it's not.

And the thing that I find ironic about this is Facebook got caught in the cross hairs is because of the relationship with Cambridge Analytica and that relationship with President Trump because the Obama campaign essentially did the same thing that Cambridge Analytica was doing and there were allotted for their efforts on that data collection. And also what I think what's ironic, consumer data is for sale.

If you work in polling, if you work in data, everyone's consumer data is for sale. So, you don't need an app to collect data from Facebook. You can go out and purchase it. So, I really have found this whole entire scandal quite interesting to me because, you know, what did you think you were getting for free?

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean politically it is very interesting what you say about -- how -- I think everybody sort of turned after this election.

BOOTHE: Right.

MACCALLUM: Right? It's such a great thing. Everybody love Facebook on their social media. All of a sudden, it's like -- this evil side of it. Kristina, in terms of the trust question here, should it be broken up? Is it a monopoly?

KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK REPORTER: Well, if I'm coming from a business perspective, no because this is a profit driven company. They started out privately. They should operate the way they want.

However, there are some concerns. When you think about the facilitation that Facebook has played in the role of suffering around the globe, you have child brides that are bargained off from South Sudan on Facebook or rumors that help start the Myanmar genocide. So, you have all these issues.

Facebook now has to decide, do they want to be held accountable for the content on their platform, are they a media site, how should we hold them accountable? So, you have Zuckerberg right now maybe trying to regulate a little bit more, which we're seeing with removing some of the hate speech on there, but should we give them that power? Does he deserve that power? How powerful has he become?

MACCALLUM: Danielle?

DANIELLE MCLAUGHLIN, ATTORNEY: I agree. What is Facebook? That's the ultimate question when we're thinking about regulating or not regulating. And to your point, are they a media company, are they a publisher, are they just a platform, are they a financial services company, are they a messaging company, are they a marketplace?

And the point that you made as it relates to Zuckerberg regulating himself, there aren't that many industries out there that get to do that. I think one of the reasons is that Congress doesn't understand the technology enough to regulate --


MACCALLUM: Remember that moment, saying, well, how do you make money? Advertising? Oh, OK.

I want to play this and go to Denver now to the second topic. So, you got, you know, in one place, in Kentucky, you got Mitch McConnell saying, you should have to be 21 to smoke cigarettes and buy -- you know, and Vape. Here, you got them saying magic mushrooms should be -- we should back off of prosecuting people for possession of magic mushrooms. Listen to their argument. Play this.


MELANIE ROSE RODGERS, MUSHROOM RESEARCH ADVOCATE: We have a mental health crisis in our hands. We have been badgering (ph) our mental issues with prescription drugs. Even at a young age, children are taking this medicine. We have something natural growing in the forest, in the dirt, and coming out of, you know, things that like really bring hope to our society. And it's time that we start talking about drugs rather than this whole prohibition era that had said, you know, just let's not talk about it, don't do it.


MACCALLUM: Wait a minute. Magic mushrooms are a hallucinogenic and she is saying that they should be given to children for mental health issues. I'm confused.

MCLAUGHLIN: I'm confused. I think that maybe there's something akin to marijuana that's given to some children that helps with ADHD and other things. One -- this is -- this is my sort of concern here is that what is the gateway? They aren't going to decriminalize the possession, the sale, or taking of this drug, but they need to deprioritize it.

I also worry about, you know, as we've normalized some of these drugs, even some of the class C or whatever, what if people decide to do it when they're driving, for example. We see this -- I've seen this around with marijuana and other things. So, I just worry a little bit as a mother. We've got Mother's Day coming up. Where are the lines where you want people to have medicine, if this is what it is, but how do we keep each other safe?

MACCALLUM: You have an opioid issue on one hand, right?


MACCALLUM: I mean in terms of just overall health, it's like, you know, go gluten-free, go trans-fat free, and then we're going to start legalizing drugs. It's mind-boggling to me, Lisa.

BOOTHE: Well, I mean, is heroin next for Denver?

MACCALLUM: I mean, yeah, my mother gave me something.

BOOTHE: No. But you know, seriously, what I found interesting politically is they read that there was no organized effort against it, this measure. So, I don't know. I found that fascinating because you would think --

MACCALLUM: You don't know what you're doing. Are you kidding me?


MACCALLUM: Are they seriously going to legalize mushrooms?

PARTSINEVELOS: I mean, it is -- it is non-addictive though. I spoke to a doctor. It's supposedly one of the least non-addictive. It's minor, and yes, it's largely symbolic at this point. I think we're wasting -- we're talking about it, but maybe we should focus at the regulation revolved around marijuana first and whether there should be regulation and maybe move on to mushrooms. But overall, you kind of be using that therapy --

MACCALLUM: I just think it's exciting (ph) when you're trying to make people healthier and healthier. Giving them hallucinogenic drugs is not the best way to go.

Real quick, in Denmark, women say that they would -- they are OK with being called on the street by construction workers generally, but -- and they don't necessarily want to be called feminist.

BOOTHE: Well, I think -- what is a feminist, right? Everybody has a different definition for it. Because for me, the definition of feminism, if you want equality, I don't think equality is asking for the government to come in and dictate the terms of your employment with increased equal pay legislation before Congress.

To me, that's not feminism. I think equality is having an equal playing field and I don't want the government to come in and dictate the terms. But someone on the left would say feminism is additional equal pay legislation.

PARTSINEVELOS: I don't now. You're making it political. I don't think it's political. I think we cannot presume that my definition is universal nor is it society -- accepted among various societies across the globe. And I think being a feminist, you can call it whatever you want. I still believe in equality. I may not call myself a feminist. It's a definition that we can all debate about till --

MACCALLUM: In Denmark, they're all into hookah. It's like being cozy and curling up with a blanket and your socks and drinking tea. And I think they're just chilled. I mean that sounds -- that sounds lovely to me.

BOOTHE: It's all good. It's all good.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, ladies. Great to see you tonight.

PARTSINEVELOS: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: More of “The Story” coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So, before with history, this was “The Story” on today, May 10, back in 1940, Hell Roars in Europe. Winston Churchill is premier as Neville Chamberlain quits. The news coming shortly after the Germans invaded France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and midway through a failed attempt by Chamberlain to keep them out of Norway. Nearly 4,000 British troops were killed on that front. And the Germans were still able to occupy the neutral Scandinavian country.

In London, it had been announced that Winston Churchill would take over and lead a coalition government. Two days prior, his majority plummeted in a vote of confidence in the comments during a debate on the war. But Churchill prevailed, rallying the nation in defiance of Hitler. He was the only man for this hour, a view shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people.


WINSTON CHURCHILL, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM: Never gave in, never, never, never in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.


MACCALLUM: The sheer force of his personality helped to cement the Big Three Alliance between Russia and the United States. Churchill's determination was vital to the eventual victory. He served as prime minister of the United Kingdom until 1945 as the war ended and then again from 1951 to 1955. We will see you back here on Monday night at 7:00. Thanks for being part of our STORY tonight. Tucker Carlson joins us 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.