FDA chief: Teen e-cigarette use is an 'epidemic'

close

Video

FDA chief: Teen e-cigarette use is an 'epidemic'

FDA presenting plan to White House to ban sale of flavored e-cigarettes; FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb explains on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 21, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ED HENRY, HOST: Good to see you, Bret. Have a wonderful night.

Breaking tonight, even James Comey, is now declaring he doesn't know if there was Russian collusion or obstruction of justice by President Trump. The former FBI chief adding, he doesn't care. Really?

That flip-flop comes just hours after this image of the special counsel diligently driving himself to the office early this morning, sent some in the mainstream media into yet another tizzy.

But the possibility of Robert Mueller, finally dropping his report on alleged collusion. As of this moment, surprise, still no Mueller report. But what is surprising is now, it's Democrats in damage control mode. Not the President.

As his critics who once had visions of collusion, obstruction, maybe even sugarplums dancing in their heads, now seem to be backpedaling on what they once thought was their best shot at impeachment.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Ed Henry, in for Martha MacCallum who's on assignment tonight, and this is THE STORY.

Remember at the beginning of all this, two long years ago? Robert Mueller was the biggest game in town. The president's fiercest critics insisting it was only a matter of time before collusion was proven.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: There is more than circumstantial evidence now. There is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: We got them. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House, the Intel panel seem to be saying, "Hey, regardless of what you think of the congressman, you got to give him credit, at least, he's been consistent.

This very week, despite they're still not being evidence of collusion, he's still insisting he thinks there was. Other critics of the president not so much. Brand-new op-ed, I mentioned from Comey, the former FBI chief fired by the president, offers a rather flippant attitude toward collusion.

Suggesting the whole thing suddenly doesn't matter. "I have no idea whether the special counsel will conclude that Mr. Trump knowingly conspired with the Russians. Or that he obstructed justice with the required corrupt intent. I also don't care."

And get this. Some of the media are now suggesting, we might not be able to trust the Mueller report if it doesn't find collusion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, HOST, MSNBC: Let's say, Mueller, says "Look, all these things happen, the president act in all these ways. But fundamentally, there was no actual explicit collusion." Or even goes further and says, "You know, the president we exonerate, the president," I don't know if he can really do that. But do you trust whatever the outcome of this thing is, whatever it says?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Well, former House Oversight Committee chairman, former prosecutor, and Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy, joins me now live. Good to see you, congressman.

TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: You too, Ed. How are you?

HENRY: Good to see you. Great. James Comey tries to go on. I want to be fair in this op-ed by saying he only cares, "that the work be done, well and completely." And he says, he's rooting for the world to see the American justice system works. Do you think he and others were rooting for something else?

GOWDY: I can't speak for director Comey. I can tell you 60 Democrats voted to move forward with impeachment before Mueller's released a single solitary syllable. Schiff, not only -- not only does Schiff have evidence of collusion, he claims, but in his later quotes, he's actually got him indicted. And remember he said, those are very real prospect, he would actually go to jail. And now, Swalwell is promising indictments.

The part of Comey's op-ed that caught my attention. I agree that the Justice Department has had a really bad three years, where I part from director Comey as I don't think it's Trump's fault. I think it's some FBI agents and some DOJ officials that have diminished my fellow-citizens confidence, and that venerable institution that we need.

HENRY: But, you mentioned Eric Swalwell, so let's jump ahead to that. Here is what he said on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: If the policy is that you can't indict a sitting president, which I don't agree with. We should rewrite the law that says that if a policy like that prevents you from getting indicted, the statute of limitations can continue to run. But I do believe there are indictments waiting for this president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Have they learned nothing? Indictments are coming, he says.

GOWDY: Well, we've already had indictments, Eric. We've got a bunch of them, and not a single one was for conspiracy or collusion involving a Trump campaign official. Not a single one.

I think what -- what's most disheartening, I think is not just that a former prosecutor like Swalwell and a former prosecutor like Schiff would flip the burden of proof that Trump is now presumed guilty. That is the sad part to me is that two former prosecutors are willing to put their entire backgrounds on hole, simply because they do not like the president.

HENRY: So, why won't they just follow the facts?

GOWDY: Look, that's my motto. But may justice be done, though the heavens fall. And that's what I think -- I hope, most of my fellow citizens are going to say, you know what, let's wait until Mueller issues this report.

Comey used a word in his op-ed that I do take exception too. Mueller doesn't conclude crimes. Mueller alleges. Prosecutors' allege. It is juries in this country that conclude whether or not a crime was committed, not special counsel. They don't speak through press conferences and they don't speak through reports, they speak through indictments and convictions.

And there is a presumption of innocence in this country whether Democrats like Schiff and Swalwell like it or not.

HENRY: And there were -- when you said a moment ago, there haven't been any indictments associated with collusion. There's certainly been indictments and guilty pleas in the Mueller investigation as you know, tied to communications with Russians. But it hasn't led to conclusion -- to collusion even though, these Democrats keep saying it's been proven. And then that there's evidence.

GOWDY: Well, they -- made Adam Schiff had evidence of collusion in March of 2017. So, if you go back in time Ed, Comey is before the House Intelligence Committee and publicly confirms for the very first time.

There doing of counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. That's all March the 20th, 2017. Two days later, is when Adam Schiff, said he had evidence not quite direct but a little more than circumstantial. It was -- it took him two days to find what the FBI and Mueller haven't found in two years.

There's not a single indictment of a Trump campaign official for conspiracy to hack Podesta's e-mail or hack the DNC server. Not a single one.

HENRY: So, is this why we're now starting to see some spin. Whether it's from Democrats or people in the media. They're saying, after two years of wait for Mueller, we maybe can't trust Mueller.

GOWDY: I tell you that for those of us that have been defending Mueller, and trust me, there were days it was lonely as a Republican to do that. I'm very interested in his report because I think it's going to be about what Russia did. I think that's what really disappoints some Democrats. Not all, but some Democrats.

It is finding out what Russia did to this country in 2016 is not enough. What they really, really want is the president of the United States indicted. But they pivoted from collusion months ago.

Remember this whole obstruction of justice? Well, maybe he didn't collude, but the firing of Jim Comey is tantamount to obstruction of justice. They pivoted months ago, and now they're pivoting to Ivanka and Jared and private e-mail and to whatever else they can pivot.

HENRY: So, is this simply as the president says, a witch-hunt? If they just keep moving the ball, they say two years ago, we have evidence of collusion. Two years later, they don't have it. So, they just keep moving, it's a shell game.

GOWDY: To me, it is not a witch-hunt, Ed, because -- I don't -- if you go back and read what Comey said in March of 2017, and what Rod Rosenstein asks Mueller to do, it is find out what Russia did to this country. That is number one. And they did attack this country. That's not a witch-hunt.

I think what President Trump is frustrated by is this whole collusion narrative for which there is no evidentiary support has cast a cloud over his entire presidency and it's by design.

In March of 2017, when Adam Schiff said he had evidence of collusion, he hadn't even given his witness listed Devin Nunes. That's how unserious he was about investigating collusion. This has been calculated to draw out for the entire Trump first term, and they've been pretty successful.

HENRY: So, last question, has it been almost a battle of semantics? Because what it seems to me you're saying, going back to Comey in March of 2017 with the counterintelligence investigation there was interference from the Russians.

But Democrats have tried again and again to say there was collusion, and somehow that flipped the election. Nobody's denying there was interference. But did they try to make a leap from interference to collusion in flipping the election?

GOWDY: Well, they made more than a leap. They made a calculated decision that what would be a unifying thing for this country. How to prevent a hostile foreign country from interfering with our election. That should be an American issue, Ed. Not a Republican or Democrat American.

But that's not interesting enough to some of my -- not all, some of my Democrat former colleagues. It had to be about collusion because they still can't believe that Trump won in 2016. None of their friends voted for him. So, how in the world did he win?

And I think it's about undoing an election every bit as much as it is finding out what Russia tried to do to us.

HENRY: Trey Gowdy, we appreciate you coming in tonight and waiting for the facts.

GOWDY: Yes, sir.

HENRY: Appreciate.

GOWDY: Yes, sir. Thank you.

HENRY: All right. The president vowed to protect free speech on college campuses. Today, kept his promise. Taking a big step to do just that. But will his executive order have any real impact? The inside story from two people who are at the White House today. That is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We will not stand idly by and allow public institutions to violate their student's constitutional rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: “The Story” is brought to you by the new 2019 Ford Lincoln Nautilus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: Ugly scenes like that are the backdrop to President Trump at the White House today, delivering on a promise to protect free speech on college campuses. The president issued an executive order that pushes for a more aggressive adherence to the First Amendment. Requiring universities to support free thought and debate or risk losing federal research dollars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Under the guise of speech codes and safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, imposed total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today, these great people, all of that change is starting right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Here now Cabot Phillips, Media Director for Campus Reform. He was at the White House event today. Kristin Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America. She was also there. Richard Fowler, I don't think he was there but he is a good guy. He's a Senior Fellow at New Leaders Council, a Fox News Contributor. Good to see you all.

RICHARD FOWLER, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here.

KRISTAN HAWKINS, PRESIDENT, STUDENTS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA: Thanks for having me.

HENRY: Richard, I know you as a fair guy. You're not against free thought on campus are you?

FOWLER: Absolutely not. I think actually free thought and free speech are necessary for the education process. I think every voice should be heard whether it is the Republican Conservative voice, a pro-life voice, a pro- choice voice, an LGBTQ voice, all these voices should have belong on college campuses.

Here in lies the problem with this executive order is that all it does is reinforce a law that's already on the books that says that you have to promote free speech at colleges to qualify for research dollars -- federal research dollars. If the president really wanted to go farther on this E.O., he could have defined what hate speech was and created an actual litmus test.

This executive order doesn't create a litmus test. It just says that you have to promote free speech. Meaning this will likely get bogged down in the courts because somebody is going to be like well, what is free speech? How do you define it? And how am I doing it or not doing it which is why this E.O. is problematic.

HENRY: Well, Kristan, what about that because you've been on campus as I understand it. You've been shut down by Antifa and others. What has been your experience and why do you think this was necessary?

HAWKINS: You know, I think today was a good step in the right direction. Because now we have the bully pulpit. You have the president needs it's calling out these universities for the free speech suppression that goes on every day. And I think this is something that Americans now are being educated on that these college students are going onto campuses who are courageously standing up for their values are being shut down by their administrations, shouted down by other students, and I think it was good.

It was a good day, a good moment to have the President of the United States, the leader of the free world reaffirm our constitutional right to free speech and free expression.

HENRY: Cabot, Kristan makes an important point which is sometimes the president whether a Democrat or Republican, just by speaking out on an issue, signing the executive order, brings light to something that needs to be told. On the other hand, to Richard's point, will this executive order really have any impact when there's a law already on the books that's not being followed?

Why will universities all of a sudden say, OK, the president signed this so we're going to allow Conservatives to speak out.

CABOT PHILLIPS, MEDIA DIRECTOR, CAMPUS REFORM: Well, I think this is going to bring accountability to these universities. For too long they've been able to operate in the dark with people not really paying attention to what's going on. And I think the President using his position to draw attention is a step in the right direction. I applaud him for doing so.

And I've been all over a hundred college campuses in the last three years with Leadership Institute's Campus Reform. I've seen students be secluded to little free speech zones on campus when they're trying to express their ideas. I've seen Conservative groups lose their funding because the administration doesn't agree with their position. I've seen speakers -- I personally had to deal with suppression from administration and students..

And so this is an issue that it's going to continue to grow if we don't address it. I applaud the president for doing this. And also it's going to benefit students on both sides. Liberal students will also grow from this because they're going to have more access to ideas they maybe haven't heard in class or from other speakers. They're going to be stronger because of this. This should have bipartisan support.

HENRY: Right. Now Richard, you made the point of moment ago, there's already protections in place. And yet if you look at this video, there's been case after case where that has not actually happened. If you think about the student (INAUDIBLE) who was punched in the face. And this video is disturbing, Conservative Activist Hayden Williams, this was at U.C. Berkeley just last month in February. And as you see that video play out, it built and built and built and finally he gets -- he gets punched. Why is this happening on college campuses?

FOWLER: It's a sad, sad, sad video because we should be promoting the debate of free ideals on college campuses. But we have to remember that there are thousands of college campuses all across this country and there are millions of college students. Just to focus on Berkeley or two or three different examples, isn't the best way to go about this.

And I agree with everybody on this panel at the idea that we should have -- we should not have free speech zones and you should be allowed to speak freely and allowed to express your opinions. I'm just not necessarily sure that this executive order does enough to make more universities more accountable. All it says --

HENRY: Well, Kristan, jump in.

HAWKINS: This is an epidemic. This is -- this is escalating in college campus. I was just in a college campus two days ago facing protests and had to be escorted in and out with undercover and police officers in full uniform. This is escalating. Ever since President Trump --

FOWLER: But this executive order doesn't fix that.

HENRY: So does it make a difference?

HAWKINS: This has actually gotten more intense in college campuses.

FOWLER: But this executive order doesn't fix that.

HENRY: Answer that question, Kristan, does it make a difference though?

HAWKINS: We don't know. We do not know what's going to happen after this executive order.

FOWLER: Of course. Exactly.

HAWKINS: But I think this is a good step in the right direction.

FOWLER: And it could have had more teeth, it could have restricted what (INAUDIBLE).

HAWKINS: An we have to start taking this action.

FOWLER: It could have done a lot of different things that it didn't do, so to parade it like it's this amazing thing that's going to all of a sudden stop this abuse --

HAWKINS: But you don't know what it's going to do, none of us do.

FOWLER: Well, I read it. I read it and I know there's no enforcement in it.

HENRY: I want to give Cabot the last word. Richard, you've both had a lot of chance to speak. Cabot, Richard makes it seem like, it's not going to make any difference at all. A, shouldn't the President of the United States try, and B, when Richard said a moment ago, you're using video from two or three things. Is it really that isolated? Is it only two or three campuses?

PHILLIPS: Well, last I checked, the job of the president is to first and foremost protect and defend the Constitution. And when you have billions of taxpayer dollars going towards institutions that aren't protecting the First Amendment to that Constitution, it's the president's job to step in and at least do the best he can to address that issue.

And for every one student that had their story told onstage today, there are thousands of other students that thought their university was able to bully them into submission. They didn't know what their rights were. They didn't know that it was wrong for the university to deny them their rights. And this will draw attention to that, empower people that had their rights taken from them, and it should scare them, this other side that's trying to take rights from people.

FOWLER: Once again, Ed, without a litmus test, this E.O. really doesn't have the effect that people think it will have.

HENRY: OK.

FOWLER: It has to have a litmus test with clear definitions of what hate speech is and what it isn't, what free speech is and what it isn't, so people and colleges know how to act. And without that in this E.O., it doesn't have that power.

HENRY: We'll see how it plays out. The President made a promise --

HAWKINS: But today was a good step in the right direction.

HENRY: OK. The president promised, we'll see whether freedom actually follows up. Cabot, Kristan, Richard, I appreciate all your insights.

HAWKINS: Thank you.

HENRY: Up next, reports tonight the former Vice President Biden could be tapping a rising star in the Democratic Party as his running mate. Is it a smart political move or identity politics at its worst? Our political power panel is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: I have the most progressive record of anybody running for the -- anybody who would run. I didn't mean --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: Well, here's a highly unusual move that could pay off big or fall flat before the 2020 campaign even takes flight. Advisors to former Vice President Joe Biden are reportedly considering failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as his pick for Veep right out of the gate.

For a closer look at this so-called rising star of the Democratic Party we turn to Trace Gallagher with the back story. Good to see a Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, ANCHOR: Good to see you, Ed. It's not as if 45- year-old Stacey Abrams is sitting around waiting for the phone to ring. After narrowly losing the Georgia governor's race back in November, she has remained a hot political commodity. She's contemplating another run for governor in 2022 and is being heavily recruited to run for the Senate.

In fact, in recent days, Abrams has met with senator Kamala Harris and other party leaders about potentially taking on GOP Senator David Perdue in 2020. Stacey Abrams, the daughter of two Methodist ministers was born in Wisconsin, raised in Georgia, and has put together a powerful resume.

She did her undergraduate work at historically black Spelman College in Atlanta, studied public policy at the University of Texas, and got her law degree from Yale. Then at the ripe old age of 29, she was appointed deputy city attorney for Atlanta. She was then elected to the Georgia assembly and became the first black woman to serve as Minority Leader for the Georgia House of Representatives where she built a reputation for working across party lines.

Georgia newspapers say Abrams was instrumental in working with GOP Governor Nathan Deal on criminal justice reform and scholarship programs for low- income Georgia students. As a politician, she has vowed to fight for Georgia residents and she is certainly not shy about fighting for herself.

After losing the governor's race by less than a point and a half to Republican Brian Kemp, Abrams initially refused to concede accusing camp who had been the Georgia Secretary of State of promoting several measures that suppress minority votes. Abram still refers to the election loss as her moment of Darkness watch.

STACEY ABRAMS, D-GA, FORMER GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Because when I stood there and said I will not concede it wasn't just for me, it was for the millions of people who stood with me, for the people who stood up for me, who showed up on Election Day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: And you will be hearing a lot about Stacey Abrams and maybe a little about Selena Montgomery. That's her pen name that she used to write several romance novels. Ed?

HENRY: Trace, thank you. Colin Reed is Senior V.P. at Definers Public Affairs and Conservative Marc Thiessen American Enterprise Institute Scholar and a Fox News Contributor, and Doug Thornell an old friend whose Managing Director at SKD Knickerbocker. Good to see you all.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Ed.

DOUG THORNELL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SKDKNICKERBOCKER: Great to be with you.

HENRY: Doug, what is it about Democrats whether it's Beto O'Rourke or now Stacey Abrams who actually lost their races are being pushed for the top job and the number two job?

THORNELL: Well, I don't think it really matters that they lost. Ronald Reagan lost a contest, Bill Clinton lost a contest, Barack Obama lost a contest right? So it's what happens afterwards.

Now look, I think that every candidate here in this race and every campaign as all of us know is looking for an edge, an edge to win the nomination, an edge to win the general right? And if Biden's folks believe that putting him or pairing him with Stacey Abrams gives him that edge to win both the nomination and win the general, I think it makes sense.

There are some practical reasons why it also makes sense. It allows Joe Biden and his team to cover more ground. He and Stacey Abrams could be a multiple media markets during the day. They can raise more money.

HENRY: Sure.

THORNELL: So, there are a lot of good reasons why this makes sense. They balance each other out. Both of them, you know, connect well with voters. So, you know, we don't know if it's going to happen, and it would really disrupt the race and the party, but I think that's probably a good thing.

HENRY: Well, Marc, I hear what Doug is saying about they both connect well with voters.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

HENRY: But when Joe Biden ran for president twice on his own, he got single digits.

THIESSEN: Yes.

HENRY: And I come back to Stacey Abrams she came close but no cigar.

THIESSEN: Yes. So, the most important job that a presidential candidate makes especially if they get the nomination, is to pick the vice president because the vice president is the heartbeat away from the presidency. They have to be ready to step in to become commander-in-chief on a moment's notice.

And Joe Biden will be 77 years old the day he takes office if he is elected. That's older -- that's the same age that Ronald Reagan was when he left office. So, his vice-presidential choice is going to be really scrutinized.

So, you need to have somebody who is qualified to be commander-in-chief on day one. Stacey Abrams is completely unqualified to be commander-in-chief of the United States.

HENRY: Why do you say that?

THIESSEN: Because number one, because unlike Ronald Reagan, she actually didn't win a governor's race. She has no executive experience whatsoever. Her number one job that she has had would be minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, which is a part-time job, number one.

Number two, she has no foreign policy experience. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden because he was chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee. He brought gravitas to the ticket.

HENRY: Yes.

THIESSEN: Her experience if you go to her bio, her number one foreign policy credential issue was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, that's a temporary membership for young people.

HENRY: Well --

THIESSEN: That may qualify for a left-wing think tank but it doesn't qualify you to be commander-in-chief.

HENRY: I want to give Doug a chance but --

(CROSSTALK)

THORNELL: Marc --

HENRY: I would just quickly --

THORNELL: Our president didn't have any foreign policy experience either.

HENRY: All right.

THIESSEN: He was a -- he was a -- he had built a corporation, an international corporation. He was a successful business executive.

(CROSSTALK)

THORNELL: That's foreign policy experience?

THIESSEN: But, no, but he had --

THORNELL: That's foreign policy experience?

THIESSEN: He --

THORNELL: Come on, let's be honest. I mean, I'm not kidding.

THIESSEN: You compare her to Donald Trump?

HENRY: Colin, I also wonder if Joe Biden is trying to change the subject, which has been maybe he can raise as much money as Beto O'Rourke so all of us, and Bernie Sanders as some of the others, so you throw out there a little nugget, like, I'm thinking about this young rising star is my veep.

COLIN REED, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think that's totally right. Ed. And what it did as far as political theater goes, it changed the subject from Beto's good week and now we're talking about Joe Biden.

And right now, in this early stage, hard campaigned dollars and political news attention are the two most valuable commodities, so it shifted that back to Biden's court.

But let's be honest, Joe Biden has been around for almost 50 years in elected office. He came to the Senate before Watergate. He is not made for this moment, either a Democratic primary nor a general election.

HENRY: Yes.

REED: And as soon as he gets in, that's going to be the best day of his campaign and all downhill form that.

HENRY: Doug, I want to get back to what I teased before about identity politics. What about the fact that we keep hearing, well, you know, Joe Biden had a problem with how he questioned a black woman in Anita Hill, and that maybe he needs balance things out by picking a black woman. Is that identity politics? Is that really about picking the best available person, or is it about checking some sort of a box to get the left on board?

THORNELL: I don't think Stacey Abrams is checking a box. I think Stacey Abrams is a very talented politician who has shown a ton of charisma, who was a very good candidate in 2018. She was able to raise a lot of money --

HENRY: Yes.

THORNELL: -- and would be a very valuable addition to Joe Biden's ticket if he chose to go this way. Again, there is no -- it's just speculation. But it's not --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Real quick.

THORNELL: -- you know, look, to say that she is checking -- that she is checking a box is a little disrespectful to her.

HENRY: Well, Marc, when I hear, while she has a lot of charisma she brings.

THIESSEN: Yes.

HENRY: Nancy Pelosi was asked about Beto O'Rourke and his accomplishments, and said, he brought vitality, as if that were a qualification.

THIESSEN: Well, I mean, at least Beto O'Rourke served on the House on services committee, he's got more some experience at least, he's got more experience than Stacey Abrams does.

Look, I'm sure I take you at your word that she is a talented person and she ended up in, rising person, this is probably the worst thing that could happen to her, to be picked for the vice presidency because her lack of experience, her lack of knowledge about foreign policy would be exposed. She'd be much better off running for Senate and getting serving on the Senate relations committee, running for governor, getting some executive appearance, and then running for president one day.

HENRY: Very quick last point from Colin, which is what about Stacey Abrams running on her own. Is it sort of condescending to say, maybe I'll pull her in? She could run for president on her own.

REED: Yes. Maybe she doesn't want to be attached to all of Joe Biden's baggage, because she'd be attached to a loving ship. Who knows, you know? So she could just jump in on her own and make a go of it herself.

HENRY: Colin, Marc, and Doug. I appreciate you all coming in.

THIESSEN: Thank you.

REED; Thanks, Ed.

HENRY: It's being called a full-blown epidemic, the use of e-cigs quickly skyrocketing among adolescence. Next, a story exclusive with the outgoing FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, on what's being done to curb it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: Well, an exclusive now. The e-cigarette craze now an epidemic proportion. New numbers show an 80 percent increase in teen e-cig use over the past year alone.

Now the FDA has presented a plan to the Trump White House that could effectively ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in convenience stores all across the country and help keep them out of the hands of teens.

Here exclusively, Dr. Scott Gottlieb. He is the commissioner of the FDA. Good to see you, sir.

SCOTT GOTTLIEB, COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: Thanks for having me.

HENRY: You announced at the beginning of this month, and I haven't seen you do a whole bunch of other interviews, that you are stepping down soon.

GOTTLIEB: That's right.

HENRY: You've got nothing to lose. What do you want parents and teens in our audience tonight to know about e-cigarettes?

GOTTLIEB: Well, look, we believe these e-cigarettes to be valuable tools for currently addicted adult smokers to help them transition off of combustible cigarettes on to something that probably doesn't have all the same risks as smoking combustible tobacco.

But the availability of these products can come at the expense of addicting a whole generation of kids onto nicotine. Some proportion of which of these children are now going to become future smokers.

And so, we are taking steps to try to limit access to the products that we find are the most appealing products to kids. And these are the flavored e- cigarettes, and particularly, the pod based or cartridge-based e-cigarettes like JUUL, by putting in place heightened age verification requirements for the sale of these products in convenience stores and online.

HENRY: But is there a specific health risk from the e-cigarettes or are you talking about it being sort of a gateway to actual cigarettes with harmful ingredients?

GOTTLIEB: Well, it's both. We know that nicotine, which is in these e- cigarettes, has effects on a developing brain, so it does have an impact on young people. We also are seeing increasing evidence in toxicology studies in both animals and humans that the e-cigarette vapors do have an effect on the lungs, so they are not safe.

We believe they are less harmful than smoking combustible cigarettes, but they're not safe. And so, we do have concerns about the use of these products by children. And it is the other factor that you mentioned --

HENRY: Yes.

GOTTLIEB: -- which is, that some proportion of these kids will become future smokers now.

HENRY: Well, I don't have to tell you, Mr. Commissioner, that there are people who are allied with this White House who simply do not agree with you. I want to read quickly from a letter, and this is from conservative groups to the president.

They say, "Private-sector initiative and sound public policy should not be held hostage by prohibitionist impulses. The FDA's current efforts and attitude toward the e-cig industry make America a less appealing place to invest and do business. Simply put, we are not a public health leader on the issue of utilizing the free market and innovation for tobacco harm reduction." Quite simply, sir, were you pushed out?

GOTTLIEB: Absolutely not. And the White House is very supportive of the plan that we put forward. And in fact, you saw tweets from the White House press secretary and the White House put out a fact sheet detailing the plan that we put out last week.

Nobody in this administration wants to see children become addicted to nicotine through e-cigarettes, and the secretary and I, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar and I had an op-ed yesterday in the Washington Post talking about this plan.

So, this has broad support in the administration. Remember, these e- cigarette manufacturers have only themselves to blame. They were marketing these products to children, and we've seen nothing short of an epidemic rise in the use of these products by kids.

This is an existential threat to the industry, and the first step I took as FDA commissioner was to try to take accommodative steps recognizing that these products could be valuable tools for adult smokers, and then you saw nothing short of an epidemic use in the rise of these products by kids.

HENRY: Yes. Real quick. I want to widen the lens because you also had to deal sadly with this opioid crisis. What did you learn?

GOTTLIEB: I learned that we play a role, the FDA plays an important role in trying to reduce the rate of new addiction by reducing the utilization of opioids in the medical setting, and I also learned a valuable lesson that when you see a burgeoning epidemic you have to take very aggressive action upfront.

And that's why you saw the FDA act aggressively when we saw the epidemic rise in the use of e-cigarettes by kids. And why we've also taken aggressive taken we see other epidemic emerging like use of kratom, another botanical product that's an opioid that's also potentially leading to a new addiction crisis in this country. You have to act early and you have to act --

HENRY: All right.

GOTTLIEB: -- hard.

HENRY: Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, we appreciate you coming in for this exclusive. I know you also cited the fact that your family has been in Connecticut while you have been working on these big issues in Washington. We certainly wish you --

(CROSSTALK)

GOTTLIEB: And I miss them. Thank you.

HENRY: We wish you and your family well in the days ahead. Thanks for coming on tonight.

GOTTLIEB: Thanks a lot.

HENRY: All right. Border patrol agents on track to apprehend more than 600,000 illegal immigrants in 2019. The highest on record in more than a decade. That's leaving Democrats with a bit of a political dilemma. Will they admit to the problem at our southern border or not? That debate, those two, on deck, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, D-CALIF.: I think this whole border issue is manufactured. The crisis on the border is a manufactured crisis.

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-NEW YORK CITY: And it is absolutely a manufactured crisis. Everyone knows this is a man-made crisis made by one man in particular.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Well, that's been a talking point, but now Democrats are facing a bit of political conundrum. The border patrol is on track to apprehend the highest number of illegal immigrants in more than 10 years.

Just this week, El Paso agents apprehended more than 400 illegals in five minutes, 400 in five minutes. The Washington Post noted, quote, "Democrats who have railed against President Trump's national emergency as a manufactured crisis are now weighing whether to sound heightened alarms or play down the rising numbers in risk of appearing indifferent or negligent."

That sets up nicely to talk with Jason Chaffetz, former Republican chair of the House oversight committee, now a Fox News contributor. And Xochitl Hinojosa. She is a spokesperson for the DNC. Good to see you both tonight.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Good to be with you.

HENRY: Xochitl, I want to start with you.

JASON CHAFFETZ, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks for having me.

HINOJOSA: Yes.

HENRY: You hear those numbers, even from the Washington Post, how can you still call it a manufactured crisis?

HINOJOSA: Well, first of them -- first of all, I would appreciate if you would not call them illegals, they're undocumented immigrants. These are human beings. But what I will tell you is that --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: I believe they are human beings, but they are coming to this country illegally. Please acknowledge that.

HINOJOSA: But they should not be called illegals. But anyway, --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: They are human beings, but they are coming here illegally. Please make your point.

HINOJOSA: But they are undocumented immigrants. When the fact to the matter is, is that when it comes to immigration, do we agree that our immigration system is not working? Yes. We agree. Do we believe that the way to fix that is to have comprehensive immigration reform? Absolutely.

I think what you are seeing right now is people fleeing Central America because they are in danger. They are seeking asylum. A wall is not going to fix that, and I think that's where you see Democrats right now saying very clearly, and frankly, you see the president in both chambers of Congress saying right now that this is not a national emergency, and so, yes.

HENRY: OK.

HINOJOSA: We do believe that the wall itself and what the president has done at the border with separating children is a manufactured crisis. That is ridiculous and it needs to stop.

HENRY: OK. I want to come back to that point about the wall. But I want to get Jason here first. Jason, go ahead.

CHAFFETZ: They are illegal aliens, that is the way they are recognized by law. Yes, they are human beings. The reason in part that they are coming is that they're all these perverse incentives that are bringing them here. There is law on the books that needs to be enforced now.

I do think there are some things that we could do to fix the law, but there is a duty and obligation to enforce the law right now. And I want to know what the Democrats think is going to be a legitimate crisis.

These are hundreds of thousands of people, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and Democrats want to take down the wall. They want sanctuary cities. And they are on the wrong side of this issue. Let's do what the border patrol wants, not what the Democrats want to do to pad their voting numbers.

HENRY: Xochitl, I want to come back to you. Because look at what the -- so we cited the Washington Post. Here is what the New York Times is saying.

"U.S. on track for nearly 140 million border apprehensions this year alone. In February, southwest border apprehensions reached an 11-year high. And in the month of February, family unit apprehensions -- you mention families coming, in fairness to you -- up 561 percent from February of 2018. How can the border patrol deal with this sensibly, fairly, efficiently when it's up over 500 percent?

HINOJOSA: So again, the president agrees with that. He does not believe a wall is a national emergency. He said it himself.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: I didn't mention the wall. Here's what I want to get at with you.

HINOJOSA: He said --

HENRY: You keep saying --

HINOJOSA: OK.

HENRY: -- it's a manufactured crisis. Let's forget about the wall for a second. I'm telling you look at the numbers. Doesn't that suggest -- again, I'm not mentioning the wall -- based on the number of illegal immigrants coming in, isn't that a crisis?

HINOJOSA: Well, I think right now what I've been saying, and I think what Democrats are saying, is that our immigration system is broken. OK, fine, let's fix it. Let's go ahead and fix it. In 2013, we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: OK. Six years ago.

HINOJOSA: It was a bipartisan effort.

HENRY: Six years ago.

HINOJOSA: But you know what happened, is the Republicans in the House had to vote and they failed to take it up.

CHAFFETZ: No, no. no.

HENRY: OK. Jason was there, so let's let him --

(CROSSTALK)

HINOJOSA: Democrats had tried to come again to pass something.

CHAFFETZ: You ignored --

HENRY: Go ahead, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: You're ignoring the fundamental problem. You're ignoring the fundamental problem. You leave too, hey, we want to do some other things with the law. You need to enforce the current law right now.

It is illegal to cross the border and come into the United States. And it is immoral for the Democrats to not fund the necessary beds, to not fund the necessary number of people in border agents that need to be there.

HENRY: Xochitl --

CHAFFETZ: To add more immigration judges so they can you go through that process.

HENRY: OK. You have made your point.

That's what the Democrats should --

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Xochitl, I'll give you the last word.

HINOJOSA: So, Democrats have supported border security, and you saw that in the latest bill.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: No, they haven't.

HINOJOSA: And I think that Donald Trump's own administration, especially the marines, are saying right now that this ends up hurting their efforts. It hurts the military when you declare this a national emergency, which it is not.

HENRY: Xochitl, Jason, I appreciate you both coming in.

HINOJOSA: Thanks for having me.

HENRY: Next, how Robert Kraft's legal team is taking some interesting steps to make sure a video of him allegedly soliciting prostitution never, ever goes public.

Criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh, he's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HENRY: The legal team for NFL Patriots owner, Robert Kraft, and 14 other defendants who face charges in a Florida massage parlor prostitution ring now urging the judge to block the release of police surveillance video that allegedly shows their clients caught in the act.

Now arguing that release of the video would violate the state's public records law.

Here now criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh. I want to get that right. I think I mangled it on the way out. Mark, good to see you tonight.

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Perfect. Hi there, Ed.

HENRY: So, everyone in this country is and should be innocent until proven guilty.

EIGLARSH: Right.

HENRY: But when your legal team is trying to suppress evidence like videotapes, does it suggest you've got a problem?

EIGLARSH: No. It's exactly the move that I've made in the past that I would make if I'm representing him. You don't want it out there. But I wouldn't expect to win this motion.

We have some of the most liberal and strongest rules governing public release of information. Florida Sunshine Law requires this to be released. It's not a matter of national public security or safety. It's an embarrassment issue. And under the law, it has to be released.

HENRY: So, and there's another issue here which is not just the legal case, but what's going to happen with Bob Kraft in terms of whether or not the NFL commissioner Roger Goodell may try to kick him out or suspend him, whether or not he is going to make the hall of fame which he may be up for soon.

So, he's fighting two battles which is he may be able to stay out of jail, especially as a first-time offender. But if he admits guilt, that could cause a problem with the NFL.

EIGLARSH: Without question. But I want everyone to think of this as a much bigger issue. We get access to evidence in criminal cases because we want accountability and transparency. And if in this case we don't release the video, then we've got problems down the road.

HENRY: But what is in the public interest to see whether or not there was prostitution? If they can prove it in court, they can provide evidence, but why does that video need to be out there?

EIGLARSH: We don't need to see it. I don't want to see it. But it's because if they don't turn it over in this particular case, then the very next case when you do want to see it, all of a sudden there's some kind of exception and there's going to different rules to be had.

Listen, in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting case, even though law enforcement didn't want that to be released, it had to be released. The judge ordered it released.

The Pulse shooting in Orlando. The 911 calls, the body cam footage. Over objection from law enforcement, that got released.

HENRY: Absolutely.

EIGLARSH: Here, law enforcement and prosecutors are saying we want it released.

HENRY: Mark --

EIGLARSH: It's going to be released.

HENRY: Mark, I think the smartest thing you said in there is that you don't want to see that video. I'm not sure a lot of people do.

EIGLARSH: That's true.

HENRY: Thanks, Mark.

EIGLARSH: No one does.

HENRY: I appreciate it.

EIGLARSH: Yes, thank you.

HENRY: That's “The Story” on this Thursday night. We'll see you back here tomorrow at 7:00.

"Tucker Carlson" up next.

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