Gaetz: Katie Hill's Democratic colleagues failed her

close

Video

Gaetz: Katie Hill's Democratic colleagues failed her

Katie Hill blames resignation on 'double standard'; Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz on his support for Hill.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 31, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Thank You, Bret and congratulations to your Nats' awesome game last night.

So, tonight, breaking on “The Story,” Democrats vote to move forward with impeachment. They call it a sad and somber Halloween. But is it going to turn out to be more of a Texas chainsaw massacre? We will see.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a very grave matter.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: It's a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We take no joy in having to move down this road,

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: This is not a celebratory moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, you get the idea. So, while Democrats say that this will bring, the process is going to bring everything out from behind closed doors. Republicans are saying they think that's a bit of trickery.

Republican Congressman Mark Meadows has been cut out of this process and he says that Democrats want him and Jim Jordan back in the shadows. Meadows also will tell us about the latest testimony today which he believes is not what the Democrats were hoping it would be. We'll discuss that.

And is Adam Schiff dressing as Ken Starr this Halloween? Starr is here to tell us what he thinks of that tonight on THE STORY. Plus, Tom Rogan on what he says is underneath all of this. What is the actual Ukraine policy of the Trump administration and is that what has some in the State Department and the NSC concerned?

And Matt Gaetz on the resignation of Katie Hill and more. By the way, we did invite 30 Democrats, they're usually very welcome and come on this show all the time. But we invited 30 Democrats to talk about the impeachment decision today. They said no but they were apparently traveling tonight. That was the response we got for most of them. So, hopefully, they'll be on tomorrow night to talk about with us.

So, joining me now Congressman Mark Meadows, member of the House Oversight Committee. Congressman Meadows, good to see you this evening. Thank you for being here tonight. Do you --

(CROSSTALK)

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Yes, great to be back with you. Thanks.

MACCALLUM: Yes, it's good to have you. So, do you -- do you think that you and Jim Jordan in particular, on Oversight and are -- and committees -- and your committees are going to be cut out of this process?

MEADOWS: Well, based on what they pass today, we know that it's going to be the Adam Schiff show. You know, and when we look at this, Adam Schiff will be in control of everything.

And you know, it's interesting, you know, the lead-up to this particular segment, Martha, as you were talking about where they were saying this was a somber day, not something to be celebrated. You know, that's just all a mystery to me because on the House floor, just a few feet from where I am right now, earlier today, their whips were going, don't applaud, don't cheer when they get to 218. They were trying to have a different narrative, and you know why that is? Is because they know that this is a sham.

Actually, I had to come out of one of those hidden bunkers in the basement of the Capitol where we were having an impeachment inquiry to vote on an impeachment inquiry. You know, this is -- this is all just really a partisan attack on the president of the United States that they've done not once, not twice, not three times, this is the fourth time, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, I know that you and -- you know, your colleagues are very unhappy about the process in all of this.

MEADOWS: Sure. Yes.

MACCALLUM: But let's talk a little bit about the substance of it. Today, Tim Morrison who was Russia expert in the National Security Council, he testified and you expressed that you felt like he was a good witness for your side of this. Why?

MEADOWS: Well, he was an outstanding witness for our side and I think what I said earlier today is that was if the Democrats were sucking lemons, the more he testified, the more they puckered up with their lips, where they started to look at this that they couldn't believe what they were hearing.

Not only was there not leverage put forth, but we do know that this particular witness who was in the know, who was really there on the call -- listening to the call and in subsequent meetings, we know that indeed leverage was not provided in terms of the quid pro quo that everybody's talking about. But more importantly that the aid was released without the Ukrainian government doing anything. So, you can't have an impeachable offense if it wasn't a deliverable.

MACCALLUM: Right.

MEADOWS: And so, hour after hour today, it got worse and worse for my Democrat colleague.

MACCALLUM: So, but again, I think the -- you know, the public suffers from not really hearing this themselves.

MEADOWS: Right.

MACCALLUM: Is because people come out and everybody sort of gives their own side. The Washington Post saying tonight that if Republicans are jubilant essentially over the Morrison testimony that they believe that you're mistaken. They say that Morrison confirmed that military aid had been conditioned on Ukraine announcing an investigation into the company that employed Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings.

MEADOWS: Well, I'll say two things is I was in the hearing all day today, I didn't see a single Washington Post reporter in there with me. And I would say the second thing is, is what they're referring to is a confirmation of a conversation that was not between the president, it was second or third hand.

And so, that is a Democrat spin.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That is true. That's what they're reporting.

MEADOWS: And I can promise you that's a Democrat spin. We want to release the entire depositions from all the witnesses, but let's start with the one today. And you know what will happen when that happens, we will see Democrats peeling off left and right, not voting for impeachment going any further just based on today's testimony.

MACCALLUM: We will see. Let's put up these poll numbers. Americans want -- according to these poll numbers, they do want this inquiry.

MEADOWS: Right.

MACCALLUM: They want the investigation according to these numbers. But in terms of those supporting of removing -- impeaching and removing the president, 52 percent oppose that and these are the battleground states. Which I think, you know, is a very interesting measure here.

And I think when you do open up this process and you start having these opening hearings, you're going to get a lot more reaction from the rest of America who hasn't been privy to this so far.

MEADOWS: Well, you're exactly right. If the rest of them, America, your viewers, the people that are watching right now could have been in that room today, they would have said shut this thing down immediately.

However, we will -- we will start to have some public hearings. But her is the interesting thing, Martha when you talk about public opinion, the greatest public opinion happens in November, every four years when we talk about a president. We're 12 months away from our presidential election.

Let's have the oversight, let's do proper oversight, but let's not try to take the vote -- a vote away from the American people.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. Now, I --

MEADOWS: And that's what the Democrats were trying to do.

MACCALLUM: I think that's one of the most interesting elements here, you know when we get to see whether or not people in the country want that part of this decision decided by you all on the Hill or whether they want to wait 12 months to make that decision in the voting booth.

Apparently, we have some new sound from Adam Schiff on CBS, talking about whether or not he thinks the rules have been unfair as you all have been saying. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORAH O'DONNELL, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: Republicans say the rules are unfair, are they?

SCHIFF: No, in fact, the rules are very much the same as they were during the Nixon impeachment, during the Clinton impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you say to that?

MEADOWS: Well, I can tell you that yesterday, we were asking questions in a deposition -- excuse me, day before yesterday, asking questions in a deposition, and Adam Schiff shut us down. As we started to get more and more closer to evidence that actually would exonerate the president, he shut it all down.

In fact, to the point where we've actually had to appeal the ruling of the chair, listen, he's the judge, the juror, the prosecutor, and really the person that is in control of all of this. He's the Ken Starr of this impeachment hearings, and yet, he's just a member of Congress.

So, I would strongly disagree with his characterization that it's fair. In fact, it has been so unfair to the president of the United States, the American people of demand and should expect better.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this. You know, this discussion of what went on in there when people -- when Republicans wanted to cross-examine a little bit and ask their own questions. It's been reported that you got into a pretty heated argument with Congressman Swalwell over that. A, can you confirm that? And B, was the line of questioning that they were objecting to having to do with the whistleblower only or was it outside of that as well?

MEADOWS: Well, one there's two things. One, the Republicans don't know who the whistleblower is. And so, for us to say that we were asking about the whistleblower, we don't even know the identity of it. So that, that line of argument doesn't work. But I'd say the other thing is as we look at this, I can tell you that I know the rules very well, and so, many times I'll appeal the ruling of the chair.

And on this particular occasion, Mr. Swalwell took issue with that. The last time I check, he's not president of the United States and he doesn't have a gavel in his hand. And so, I made the appeal to the proper person which was Adam Schiff in the room.

MACCALLUM: So, you're saying that there were things you wanted to ask that had nothing to do with the whistleblower and Adam Schiff shut those lines of questioning down as well, just to be clear?

MEADOWS: That's correct. He put anything that relates to the Intel committee off-limits.

MACCALLUM: OK.

MEADOWS: Anything that relates to the Intel community -- excuse me. And when we look at that, that's the only jurisdiction that his committee actually has. So, anything that's under his jurisdiction, he put off- limits and said, look at everything else. It's just not fair, right or even problem.

MACCALLUM: All right. Well, now, we're going to get what -- you know, Republicans have said they wanted, which is a more open process, open hearings, and you know, that could start I guess as early as next week. So, we'll be following it.

Thank you very much, Congressman Meadows. Always good to have you with us, sir.

MEADOWS: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, former independent counsel Ken Starr, who says that Adam Schiff has inadvertently made himself a witness in this case. Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Here is my challenge to Mr. Schiff. You want to be Ken Starr? Be Ken Starr, come to the Judiciary Committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Well, Republicans got what they asked for, a vote on impeachment. But now, they want to hang that process around chairman Schiff's neck and kind of make him own it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Here is my challenge to Mr. Schiff. You want to be Ken Starr? Be Ken Starr. Come to the Judiciary Committee, be the first witness and take every question I ask of you.

Starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower. Folks, this ain't over, get ready.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, here now the person who was invoked by Congressman Collins there, Ken Starr, served as former independent counsel under President Clinton. And he was questioned by Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall in the Judiciary Committee back in 1998.

KEN STARR, CONTRIBUTOR: Right.

MACCALLUM: And Ken, now, we're going to take a look back in time here. Here's what that look like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID KENDALL, THEN-CLINTON ATTORNEY: Nothing in this overkill of Investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the President of the United States. There has been no case remotely similar to this in terms of the massive leaking from the prosecutor's office. And I think --

STARR: I totally disagree with that. That's an accusation and it's an unfair accusation. I completely reject it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Some of the language on both sides there sounds pretty familiar, Ken Starr. Here we go again, right? Do you think that Adam Schiff should be questioned by the President's attorney about this whole process so far?

STARR: I think, there's a very strong argument. It's not going to happen but that it should happen. Again, the House has total power. You just can't stop the House from doing what it wants to do, whether it's fair, unfair, or whether -- and I think this is something that's a little bit lost in the conversation. The appearance of fairness, what we heard today in the back-and-forth is it's fair, it's unfair, but we need to hear but do the American people, when they see all this, is there the appearance of fairness and even-handedness, which is so -- these are very important and basic values.

But his relationships specifically, Martha, with the whistleblower where there seems to be a conflict that he had no relationship, he being the chairman, Chairman Schiff, and then well, maybe he did. And perhaps that whistleblower came in a very disorderly way to the House of Representatives rather than going through the chain of command and going to the Inspector General.

That's all very questionable. And if the Chairman was guiding the whistleblower, hey we can help you -- and I'm saying if -- we could have --

MACCALLUM: He says he never spoke with him, that he came to one of his staffers and that they informed him that he had to go to an attorney. I mean, that's what we know. There could be more there but that's what we know.

STARR: Well, that hasn't been tested, right? These things where you have allegations, and that's what cross-examination is for, and someone can say hey, the light was red and guess what, it wasn't red, you know, it was green. That's why you have cross-examination.

And so yes, let's move to more public phase. But there's such a cruel irony today with the vote on let's open it up -- and there's going to be a real test is that truly going to happen, and at the same time here, are closed testimonies continuing? And so there's -- it's I think been a very disorderly process when they had the roadmap of Henry Hyde and Peter Rodino in the past impeachment hearings.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I think people have a pretty good sort of smell test for these things. And I think you're right. I think the American people are going to look at this, and it's so incumbent upon those who are running this process to give people a sense that it is fair. And I think if they feel like it's not fair, it's not going to sit well with them.

And I don't think that any sort of amount of haranguing on either side will be more powerful than people's own gut check on this when they actually start to watch this process. I'm going to be you know sort of watching the meter on that very closely.

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post wrote an editorial. He was critical of you and that he says, is there anything Republicans won't say to make impeachment go away. Comes now to Ken Starr responsible more than any other person on earth for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton to tell us what a dreadful thing impeachment is. Do you think that you were more responsible than any person on earth for the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

STARR: No. Bill Clinton was responsible for his committing perjury and obstruction of justice and the other offences. I report it. And the report that we gave was complete and accurate and it was fair. What Dana is doing is a very effective twist to say oh Ken Starr was this instrument of impeachment.

I was duty-bound to send to the House. The House was the instrument of impeachment. I have said in my book, I think it would have been valuable for the House of Representatives to have had a conversation about was there something short of impeachment such as a resolution of censure.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you one more question. I got to go but quickly if you can. What do you see the vulnerabilities are for this president? You say it was Bill Clinton's fault or is their fault here from President Trump?

STARR: Oh I think people can fault his judgment. Why would you raise Joe Biden in this call? I think that's an appropriate thing to talk about to have oversight over. But I don't think my view were nowhere close to treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

MACCALLUM: That's what David Kendall said about president -- the charges against President Clinton. So we'll see where it all comes out. Ken Starr, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

STARR: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So speaking of whistleblowers, whistleblower protection is designed to make sure that a person who comes forward does not lose their job or suffer any consequences from their superiors in their work. It protects them from that, but does it protect them from the media. Brit Hume weighed in on this last night. We're going to go further with this question this evening.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So who is the whistleblower? There are some reports out there that might sound convincing, but the fact is it so far we do not have any official confirmation of his or her name. Now, many Republicans say that the American people deserve to know who the whistleblower is. Their identity could shed light on his or her underlying motivations.

Democrats have resisted that pressure so far arguing that lives could be at risk and releasing the name could scare off future whistleblowers. There's also the question of the law pertaining to this. Whistleblowers are protected from government retaliation which means they can't be demoted or fired. They also have a limited right to remain anonymous. Government officials cannot reveal their name. But when it comes to the media, as Britt Hume pointed out last night, all bets are pretty much off.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIT HUME, CONTRIBUTOR: There's an internal government system designed to protect people inside the government from being retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing by their superiors or by others in their - - in their agencies. It is binding on people inside the government, it is certainly not binding on the news media.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now Charlie Kirk, Founder and President of Turning-Point USA, and Richard Fowler nationally syndicated radio host and Fox News Contributor. Good to have both of you with us.

RICHARD FOWLER, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Richard, let me start with you. So Brit Hume says and he knows all, of course. He's been around a long time. He says, you know, the media has no responsibility to keep this person's name under wraps if we learn it and can confirm it.

FOWLER: But he's right, we don't have to. If the media finds us out, they can report it. Hopefully, they won't because this person's life is in danger, right? Because he could be subject to threats against him or his family or she could be subject to threats against her or her family.

And I think it speaks to largely -- a larger problem that we have is that what whistleblowers do each and every day is they protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. And they've saved the American taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars.

And the fact that we're focusing on the whistleblower and actually not about the July 25th call is problematic to me because now we don't need the whistleblower complaint anymore. We have people who were on the call who was indicated that what the President's behavior was inappropriate. We have the president's own White House transcript that indicates his behavior was inappropriate.

So I think this ideal of the whistleblower is once again attacking the process and actually attacking the facts of the July 25th call.

MACCALLUM: Charlie, what do you say about that? Because there's plenty of people, we've watched a whole parade of them who basically say the same thing which you know, really makes you think that this was -- this story was going to come out one way or the other regardless of this whistleblower it looks like.

CHARLIE KIRK, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, TURNING POINT USA: Well, look, the whistleblower triggered this entire thing. And the more information we know about this into this individual where we believe it to be too highly politically motivated individual, it's more like a Democrat operative than an actual whistleblower. This person worked with Adam Schiff and then Schiff lied about it, had connections to Biden. He might even went to Ukraine with Joe Biden and worked in the Ukraine Russia desk.

But look, more broadly, Richard is correct in one sense that there shouldn't be retaliation against whistleblowers. But we're talking about the impeachment of a President of the United States and he plays not just an important but a critical role in how this entire thing got started. What conversations did he have? What were his motivations? What communications, what meetings? When you are being accused of something as high as high crimes and misdemeanors, you have the right to face your accusers, due process.

These are things that the President and his team are not being afforded right now and it is a double standard process as --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: John Brennan says that you know, that this is an attack on you know, CIA folks on the so-called deep state. Here's what John Brennan said about this morning. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CIA: The reason why Mr. Trump has this very contentious relationship with CIA and FBI and the deep state people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you.

BRENNAN: And me, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Specifically he's targeted you.

BRENNAN: It's because they tell the truth, because they cannot be manipulated like clay in his hands, because they will stand up and speak out what things are wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Richard?

FOWLER: A couple of points. Charlie, what you can't get away with is making up things that aren't actually facts. We do not know if this whistleblower went on a trip with Joe Biden. We do not know this whistleblower was a Democratic operative so you can't tell the American people these things and say they're facts because we don't know this. Here's what we do know.

MACCALLUM: Charlie Kirk has this person in mind. We're not reporting any person's name. we have not confirmed anybody. There's more than one person out there who people think this could be. That's fine, but go ahead.

FOWLER: And here's what -- here's what we do know. We do know that this whistleblower followed the law. We know this whistleblower's complaint has been corroborated by many other sources. We know that he's credible by the inspector general's office of the Intelligence Community. The DNI who was appointed by Donald Trump has also indicated that the Inspector General is credible and the whistleblower is credible, and that's been corroborated by a number of witnesses.

MACCALLUM: Charlie, you know it seems to me that it in some senses it really doesn't matter, the phone call has come out. We have all these other people who you know, also had concerns about the call. Charlie, do you really think that if this whistleblower had never come forward, that one of these other individuals wouldn't have pushed this story or leaked this story out somewhere in another way?

KIRK: Well, it's impossible to know but it's still very important because it seems as if there was congressional and executive branch collusion against the president that has now resulted in an impeachment --

FOWLER: Collusion against the President?

MACCALLUM: But the call is the call. I mean, you know, and the President says the same thing, you know, that he feels there's no problem with the call, the call is out there.

So, you know, I think this concern about how it got out there is of course, you know, it's interesting and it goes to motivation, but you know, we all know what was said on the call at now the debate becomes whether or not it was, you know, above board --

KIRK: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- which the president claims it was and the Democrats say it wasn't.

KIRK: I want to finish something really quick.

MACCALLUM: Final thought.

KIRK: Number one, Ken Starr mentioned that he didn't go to the I.G. and still went to Congress is an unusual path. Number two, I have yet to hear what specific U.S. criminal code the President of the United States violated.

There's nothing about perjury, obstruction of justice as Ken Starr said in his impeachment recommendation, instead it's inuendo and that's why they keep on calling out all these witnesses.

FOWLER: No. Well, let's deal with that.

MACCALLUM: Real quick, Richard.

FOWLER: One is it's a violation of campaign finance rules. You should not get any foreign entity to help you in a domestic campaign, number one.

Number two, to your point about this --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRK: That's not at all what --

FOWLER: -- executive congressional collusion, there is no evidence or no reporting of points to the fact that this whistleblower --

MACCALLUM: All right.

FOWLER: -- spoke with members of Congress. This is ridiculous.

MACCALLUM: You know what? We're at the very beginning of this, so we really can't, you know, you don't -- you put things out there and we'll see what happens. That's what this process is all about.

Charlie Kirk, good to see you tonight. Richard Fowler, always a pleasure as well.

FOWLER: Good to see you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. So, coming up next, the internal war festering among Democrat front runners over who will pay for health care. Andy Puzder has some ideas on that. And look where he is? Right here in the studio, coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want Joe to explain to the American people, how much will the premiums cost? How much will co- payments go up? How many more people will go bankrupt because they cannot afford medical bills because they were dying of cancer, heart disease, or some other illness?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American -- how much you are going to pay more and how much is on they're -- I don't think I have to do that right now. But at the end of the day we will pay for every nickel of Medicare for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Every nickel.

ANDY PUZDER, FORMER CEO, CKE RESTAURANTS: Every nickel.

MACCALLUM: So how does Medicare for all get paid for exactly? Irritation at that question a lot when it comes up on the campaign trail, but it's a good question. And look who thinks that his competition is vulnerable on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Unlike a lot of people I tell you how much my plants cost. OK. It doesn't cost $3.4 trillion per year. It will cost us somewhere the estimates range between $600 billion a year -- I mean, $600 billion total to $720 billion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Sanders wasted no time hitting back on that. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: I would hope that Joe Biden explains to the American people how under his plan, which maintains a dysfunctional, wasteful, and cruel health care system. A system today which is costing us twice as much per person as through the people of any industrial country pay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Andy Puzder, former CEO of CKE Restaurants. Andy, you're always good at looking at the economy and how much things cost, what the reality check is here. I know you think that Joe Biden, you know, you said that was the smartest thing that he's done so far in this campaign, right?

PUZDER: That was a low bar, but yes, this was the smartest thing he's done so far. Look, last year we took in -- excuse me 2018 we took in $3.5 trillion in total revenue for every source for the government. We spent about --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: We spent 4.5 trillion.

PUZDER: Yes, we spent 4.5 trillion. Right. So, we spent a trillion more than we brought in. Medicare for all would cost according to the Mercatus Foundation which did a very good analysis after all the cost savings, said it would cost 3.26 trillion a year on average for 10 years. Well, you basically have to double the amount of money that we'd bring in through taxes.

MACCALLUM: So, it's more than every single dollar that the government takes in just on Medicare.

PUZDER: And you still would have a trillion dollars shortfall.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PUZDER: And that, we are not even talking Green New Deal and college tuition and all the other things Sanders wants to do. Look, there's only one way to make health care better. There's only one way to improve the quality and decrease the price. That's competition. It's the only thing in the history of the world that has ever increase quality and decrease price.

And that's the one thing Sanders wants to take completely out of the system. Get rid of all private health care and give it all to the government. And what do we know happens when the government gets involved? Prices go up, quality goes down. We can't pay for this. It's a bad idea and I think Joe Biden is on the right track.

MACCALLUM: I mean, why can't they just say it? You know, why they just can't be -- because if the idea is that -- you know, you've got 20 percent of Americans who are interested in socialism, right, why not say well, here's what the deal is.

Yes, you, everyone in the middle class would have to chip in to support this program. That's the way it would be. And if you like that idea and everyone would be covered by this program, vote for me.

PUZDER: Well, I think what scares them is the percentage in taxes that those middle-class people would have to pay. Nobody who hears what that percentage is going to vote for Bernie Sanders. You know, if you took --

MACCALLUM: He is just to charge all the rich people.

PUZDER: Well, if you took every penny that rich people earned, it was $2.3 trillion last year, $2.3 trillion doesn't even pay for Medicare for all. You know, which is $3.26 trillion. So, you could take every penny that everybody who makes more than $500,000 a year earns and put it towards the social programs -- it wouldn't even come close to paying for them. That's not where the money is. The money is in the middle class.

MACCALLUM: Well, I love how all of these candidates get so irritated with the question. It's such an obvious question that absolutely needs to be asked and they need to be pressed on it on all these campaign stops.

So, you know, one person who may be looking at this whole thing from the wings is Hillary Clinton. She had an original health care plan when her husband was the president. Here is Bill Clinton last night talking about whether or not Hillary is going to get in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: I'm the only one that's not running for anything and ever, or at least, look, she may or may not ever run for anything but I can't legally run for president again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: She may or may not.

PUZDER: She may or may not. Look, they're looking for somebody. I mean, you watch the debate. I mean, nobody on that stage could take on Donald Trump in a fair election and win. So, they've got to come up with something and I think impeachment is one solution that they're trying to take across the finish line.

The other thing is to find a candidate that actually can run against Donald Trump. It's not Hillary Clinton, and it's not any of the people that run that debate stage so they've got a real quandary here.

MACCALLUM: It's like the door with a big question and they still await on it.

PUZDER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Who, who is this person? So, we'll stay tuned to see. Andy Puzder, always good to see you, sir.

PUZDER: Great to be here, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much.

So, coming up next, has the impeachment cloud overshadowed the administration's efforts to help Ukraine combat Russian aggression. Because this is the heart of the matter under this whole story with regard to Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Here is what I know. If you're looking for an administration that has been tough on Russia, helped the Ukrainian people, helped the Ukrainian leadership, fight back corruption, do the things that that country needs to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, what we do know about the fight over Ukraine policy, is that there were a number of folks in the State Department and at the NSC who didn't like the way that the president was treating Ukraine.

But last night, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo was here and he argued that the administration has actually done far more to support and strengthen Ukraine against Russia than the prior administration ever did.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

POMPEO: I was on the call, I listened the call. I thought the way the president handled it was appropriate. We were incredibly focused. On a couple of things with respect to Ukraine's strategy, and we've executed on that.

Don't forget, Martha. This is the administration that provided defensive weapon systems to Ukraine. The previous administration --

MACCALLUM: That's true.

POMPEO: I couldn't tell you why. I couldn't answer if it's because of Hunter Biden and Barack Obama and Vice President Biden didn't give defensive weapon systems to Ukraine. They'll have to answer for that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Tom Rogan, commentary writer at the Washington Examiner. Tom, good to have you with us tonight. You know, obviously this is separate from the phone call. Right?

But it goes to this issue of what these individuals at the NSC and the State Department, what they wanted for Ukraine and what they felt they weren't getting in terms of their own policy that they wanted to put forth. When you look at the actual policy of this administration has it strengthened Ukraine's hand against Russia?

TOM ROGAN, WRITER, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes, look, I mean, personally I have a problem with the phone call.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ROGAN: I think it was inappropriate. But on the specific question of American support for Ukraine under President Trump and under President Obama, there is simply no question that the Trump administration has provided greater support to Ukraine. It's really not debatable.

And whether you look at the lethal aid, whether you look at the intelligence side of things which Mike Pompeo the former CIA director doesn't really want to talk about that. Whether you look about pushing back against France and Germany who's been pressuring Ukraine to cut a deal on Russia's terms. There is no question that the Trump administration has provided a great measure of support.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, and just to, you know, underline that, Europe has been pushing Ukraine to do deals with Russia.

ROGAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: We, as the United States of America under the current administration have been discouraging them from doing that --

ROGAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- trying to strengthen them by selling them javelins which the Obama administration refused to do. They refused to sell them any lethal aid. Correct?

ROGAN: Correct. But I think it also goes beyond that. There is a pattern. You know, I was speaking to some -- I won't say which country but politicians from another country and that part of the world that's said the same thing that the Trump administration has been much better than the Obama administration for similar issues.

But if you look at MH17, the Malaysia Airline that was shot down by a Russian missile system operated by pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels. President Obama, the Netherlands and the Australians wanted to go in there and secure the site. President Obama wouldn't do that. So, the Russians GIU intelligence service let the bodies rot those innocent people and clean the site of missile fragments. Fortunately, we caught them.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Why did they do that? What was their policy? Why wouldn't they help the Ukraine more strenuously?

ROGAN: I think President Obama ultimately, it's a simplistic argument but the basic top line is, I think President Obama was scared of Vladimir Putin that he would be out escalated. That if he pushed back against Putin, then Putin would push so far --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ROGAN: -- that the United States that he wouldn't be able to deal with that. I think that's the only logical explanation.

MACCALLUM: I mean, one of the most vociferous defenders of a more active participation on our part in helping Ukraine was Senator John McCain. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: You can't stand by and watch people being slaughtered with superior equipment, you know, blankets don't do very well against tanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, you know, when you hear people who are against the president and they say that this is a national security issue, right, and they say that, you know, in terms of defending Ukraine against Russia, that we were weakening Ukraine against Russia. That part of all of this is pretty tough to say.

ROGAN: Yes. I mean, and it's obviously sad and that's the frustrating here. Because, you know, again, aside from the phone call we have, you know, we have the nuts and bolts in terms of the provision of equipment. And equipment that is specifically designed to defeat Russian combined armored columns, right, javelin tanks and high-powered site rifles to break down the sort of less armored.

So, things that would kill Russians we've given to the Ukrainians. It doesn't get more supportive than that

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it's just interesting, you know, because you think about what really matters underlying our country's policy versus this country. It makes some of this other stuff which, you know, I think -- it's very clear that you agree.

You say that that was the phone call was egregious, but it's interesting to peel it all back and look at the policies underneath as well.

ROGAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Tom Rogan, thank you very much.

ROGAN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

ROGAN: You too.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, Democrat Katie Hill exits Congress with a stinging rebuke of President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KATIE HILL, D-CALIF.: I voted on impeachment proceedings not just because of corruption, obstruction of justice or gross misconduct, but because of the deepest abuse of power including the abuse of power over women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Congressman Matt Gaetz has spoken out in the Katie Hill story and he's here to respond.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Congresswoman Katie Hill delivered a fiery farewell speech today as she resigns from Congress amid an ethics probe in a potentially inappropriate relationship with a male congressional staffer.

The freshman Democrat also face controversy after nude photos resurfaced revealing a relationship with her female campaign aide. And today she blasted a so-called double standard that she says forced her out of office while taking aim, she did, at President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Yet a man who brags about his sexual predation, who's had dozens of women come forward to accuse him of sexual assault, who pushes policies that are uniquely harmful to women and who has filled the courts with judges who proudly rule to deprive women of the most fundamental right to control their own bodies sits in the highest office of the land.

As my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz joins me now. Congressman, thank you. It's good to have you here tonight.

On October 24th you said about this situation. This is absurd. The only person who seems to have a gripe against Katie Hill is her soon-to-be ex, who among us would perfect if every act leaked every photo and text? Do you believe that she was the victim of a double standard in the House?

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: I don't know that it's a double standard by gender, I think it's a different standard by generation. This is an issue where a lot of millennials I think sympathize with Katie Hill because a lot of young people who grew up with a smartphone in their hands took pictures, sent them, shared messages and materials that are now recoverable later in life.

Katie Hill's problem is not with Donald Trump. I wish she had not lashed out at him. Her ire should be directed at her fellow Democrats. You know, Katie is a California Democrat, the only thing worse for a California Democrat that not having a single of your own colleagues defend you is having only me defend you.

But I don't know why the woke left wouldn't stand up for our colleague, our co-worker when the only person complaining, the only aggrieved party was Katie Hill's ex who is releasing information to try to ruin her life.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, Nancy Pelosi started to speak up on her behalf, you know, sort of when it was too late.

GAETZ: Right.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that Nancy Pelosi nudged Katie Hill out based on this? I mean, when you look, you know, there's a lot of other stories that, you know, have a similar ring to them and she was sort of cut out of the picture very quickly, do you think Nancy Pelosi encouraged her to leave?

GAETZ: I think that there is a dynamic on the left where they want to be able to weaponize the Me Too movement so badly against Republicans that they are willing to sacrifice people like Katie Hill or Al Franken on the altar of political correctness so that they can preserve the sharpest dagger for Republicans that they don't like.

And I don't think these issues should be partisan in nature, I think that if someone is trying to destroy one of your co-workers that you should not weaponize the House ethics process against your co-worker, you should sympathize with the fact that the only reason that this information is in the public square is because someone is committing the crime of revenge porn. And I just think that Nancy Pelosi is she held those use should have said them sooner rather than later.

MACCALLUM: Yes. It's surprising in a few ways when you look back at this story.

Switching gears here for a moment. Last night you mentioned rule 23 regarding Adam Schiff. You know, do you believe -- and now you've brought an ethics complaint against him, how does all that tie together?

GAETZ: Well, rule 23 of the House's says that a member cannot act in a way that brings discredit on the House and I can't think of anything more discrediting than Adam Schiff performing a fake transcript to try to get the American people's minds polluted about a conversation between Trump and Zelensky that never even happened.

President Trump has released this transcript. The American people can view it for what it is. My view is that the president is innocent but all of this secrecy is intended to try to make people think that there is something worse than what is actually right before us in plain language.

MACCALLUM: Are you think you're going to get anywhere with that ethics complaint?

GAETZ: I don't know, I wanted to raise the point on the eve of this vote that vested authority in Adam Schiff that has never been vested in the chairman of an intelligence committee. It should be the judiciary committee developing these facts.

But because Nancy Pelosi has such little trust in Jerry Nadler and because Democrats lost to Republicans with Mueller's testimony, you see a perverted process to try to frontload an outcome that isn't supported by the evidence.

MACCALLUM: All right. Congressman Matt Gaetz, always good to have you here. Thank you very much.

GAETZ: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, before we go tonight first up on the Halloween theme, Democratic Congresswoman Katie Porter, that's her today, from California, she graces the halls of Congress today, she was decked out as bat woman. She wants to make it very clear as someone said you're just as batman. She said, no, no, this is absolutely bat woman. That takes courage to dress up like that for work on Capitol Hill. I don't know. Something like that. Anyway, that's Katie Porter making an interesting scene today on the House.

But our costume of the night award goes to this one -- this little beautiful girl, one of our youngest viewers in Vero Beach, Florida. Little Kinley (Ph) is a package of savory butter rolls and don't you love those squeezy rolls on the arms of hers? She has like extra dinner rolls all the way up and down her arm. And we love Kinley (Ph). So happy Halloween to her.

That is “The Story” of Thursday, October 31st. We will see you back here tomorrow night. Tucker Carlson coming up live from Washington, D.C. right now.

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.