Gowdy on Schiff's interaction with the whistleblower
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Good advice. Thank you, Bret. Good to see you tonight.
All right, breaking just moments ago, we just received word that Bernie Sanders -- Senator Bernie Sanders, candidate for the nominee for Democratic Party has been released from a Nevada hospital. But they did confirm that candidate Sanders did suffer a heart attack and that was what led to his admission to a Nevada hospital.
They put two stents into Senator Sanders and he is doing well, according to all the reports and has been released. But confirming that what sent him there originally was indeed a heart attack. We'll keep you posted as developments come in on that this evening.
And also breaking tonight, Rudy Giuliani responding to the latest in the impeachment probe. President Trump trying to convince the country that it is corruption and not politics that led him to insist that the new Ukraine leader look into the Bidens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Everything to me is about corruption. We want to find out what happens with 2016. And as you know, there's a lot of work going on to that. I don't care about Biden's campaign but I do care about corruption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, that is the message of the day coming from the White House and from the Trump campaign. Just remember the key part -- one key part of the Trump-Zelensky phone call in which President Trump said, "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me," he said.
And then, President Zelensky says, "The next prosecutor will be 100 percent, my person. He or she will look into the situation specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
And then today, we have a new prosecutor in Ukraine. He has announced that he will be doing exactly that. He will reopen the Burisma case and several other cases that have been dismissed when Joe Biden successfully got the previous prosecutor fired. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSLAN RIABOSHAPKA, PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE (through translator): We are now reviewing all the cases that were closed or split into several parts, or were investigated before, in order to be able to rule to reverse those cases where illegal procedural steps were taken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, the new prosecutor, says he is doing all of this absolutely on his own. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIABOSHAPKA: Not a single foreign or Ukrainian official or politician has called me, or tried to influence my decisions regarding specific criminal cases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, that could be big news. Rudy Guiliani also is saying tonight that this was not about 2020, but a corrupt Biden legacy, he says that he was looking into long before Joe Biden decided to run.
He sat down with me earlier to try to convince everyone that this is all about corruption and not about 2020 politics. You listen and decide.
MACCALLUM: What's your reaction to the fact that they have -- that this new prosecutor has been put in place and they decide to reopen these cases including Burisma?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Thank God. I mean, the fact is that this case was closed in October of 2016, right before the presidential election of -- by pressure from Joe Biden, bribe to Poroshenko.
If they reopen it and they do a thorough investigation, it may lead right to the president of Ukraine, who allegedly may have been paid something for doing this. He was paid a lot for a lot of things, and they know that they ran against him.
But the reality is that this has to be investigated. And what Democrats have been doing for 2-1/2 -- three years is covering it up. And a lot of what they're doing with this impeachment thing is to cover up Biden. There's a couple of steps.
Biden gets the prosecutor Shokin, fired.
GIULIANI: The new prosecutor comes in and he does three corrupt things. He dismisses the Soros case, he dismisses the Biden case a couple of months later, and he dismisses the Burisma case.
The only thing I know by knew is that it was going to dismiss the Burisma case. But it had the effect of dismissing the other case as well. Frankly, I don't think Biden knew it. But I can't exclude it, it's never been investigated.
MACCALLUM: All right.
GIULIANI: But because he did it, maybe on purpose, maybe inadvertently, he cut off all kinds of evidence that would have explained the Steele dossier and made it probably impossible to ever have Mueller. Because it would have been started -- it started to be revealed in 2016. And you would have seen Glenn Simpson, you would have seen some of the false stuff attributed to Russia. Remember, Steele was never in Russia. These people told me how stupid are you people.
MACCALLUM: Well, we heard from Kurt Volker yesterday was that he has also been around a long time -- spent a lot of time in Ukraine. He says that Joe Biden never did anything wrong.
GIULIANI: He wouldn't know that.
MACCALLUM: He said -- I'm just telling you what he said. This is an eight-page transcript that he just put out.
GIULIANI: Yes, but --
MACCALLUM: He said that he believed that you were being spun in the Ukraine and that they were leading you to believe that there was -- you know, things going on that weren't going on, and that, that is what you ended up putting into this document, and hope that we all just --
GIULIANI: I've -- I
MACCALLUM: Hold on, I let you talk, I want -- I just only ask you this so that you can --
GIULIANI: I get that. Yes, please.
MACCALLUM: So that you can respond to it. And that he also wanted to make -- he was concerned that some of what you were pursuing was going to make it look like Ukraine was not only involved in 2016, which I think everybody understands the desire to look into 2016. But that he didn't want it to appear in any way.
If they started looking into Biden again that the Ukraine was also -- Ukraine, excuse me, also trying to get involved in 2020. He was very concerned that there might be that confluence that would really reflect badly on this new government that wanted reform.
GIULIANI: Well, well, Kurt never said that to me, ever.
MACCALLUM: It's all in his transcript. I just telling what he said.
GIULIANI: You had said it to me. I don't know what's in his transcript, he never said to me. Now, here's why Kurt is wrong. Kurt, first of all, with all due respect, he's a great diplomat. He doesn't know anything about investigating, he doesn't know anything about crime. Kurt never investigated it.
MACCALLUM: Well, he's a diplomat.
GIULIANI: But he never investigated.
MACCALLUM: That's what he does.
GIULIANI: If he had said that to me, you know, the first thing I've asked, it was, show me the investigation.
GIULIANI: They never investigated. They are taking the word of people who have an interest in covering it up, and they're not investigating it. I asked for only one thing from them. I don't ask for a result, I ask for an investigation.
For three years, these very dramatic allegations of corruption have not been investigated. And I beg to differ about Biden being 2020. Biden did what he did from 2014 to 2016. He did it as vice president of the United States.
Let's just say it's true, then, it's one of the major sellouts by a vice president in the history of our country. How could a president of the United States not want that investigated?
Remember, this all started and our desire to have it investigated goes back to November of 2018. It ended -- my investigation ended in March of 2018. Go look at the documents. I investigated this for a sole purpose of defending Donald Trump.
MACCALLUM: I've heard this (INAUDIBLE).
GIULIANI: I want it investigated for the sole purpose of Donald Trump. And at the time that I did it, Martha, I got to -- I got to --
MACCALLUM: It's because you think that the Biden's move --
GIULIANI: I got -- I got to finish the final thought because it's one of the reasons why they are lying.
MACCALLUM: Go ahead.
GIULIANI: At the time I began this investigation and at the time I ended it, he was not a presidential candidate. In November of 2018, when the first --
MACCALLUM: But he is now.
GIULIANI: But, how did I know that in November 2018 and tell me why -- tell me why --
MACCALLUM: No, I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that the concern is that --
GIULIANI: But -- no, but the concern is fraudulent, the concern is political spin. How would I say as a lawyer, in 2018 that they're explaining to me how the crime that my client is being investigated for was committed by others? And the vice president of the United States committed a very big crime.
I'm supposed to say, I'm not going to investigate that because Joe Biden is sitting at home, thinking of running for the president of the United States two years later? Isn't that ridiculous?
MACCALLUM: I understand. No, I think it's a good point, and I understand what you're saying. I want to look -- I (INAUDIBLE) for one of these --
GIULIANI: But they are covering up -- the Democrats are covering up corruption. Massive corruption.
MACCALLUM: But don't you understand -- don't you understand, people at the situation -- that people say, you know, I understand completely that you want to look into and Bill Barr wants to look into, and the president wants to look into, and the president wants to look into the origins of the 2016 investigation.
GIULIANI: And what about Joe Biden's corruption in 2016.
MACCALLUM: Everybody, everybody want (INAUDIBLE). OK, but I -- but that triggers something different.
MACCALLUM: He is running for president against the current president, President Trump.
MACCALLUM: And it triggers concerns that what is being requested is a little bit of a dig to open this.
GIULIANI: It does. OK.
MACCALLUM: Everybody knows that the Hunter Biden situation is very sensitive. It's something that was absolutely going to come up during the course of this one, as you say.
GIULIANI: It's not sensitive, it's very corrupt. It's not sensitive. It's --
MACCALLUM: Well, there are different elements to the Hunter-Biden story. OK, and you know that, that --
GIULIANI: Yes, but you have to be naive.
MACCALLUM: All right, listen.
GIULIANI: You have to be naive not to think the --
MACCALLUM: All right, listen. All right, I've been -- I've been saying I'm going to bring up these text messages, this is from July 25th. Kurt Volker --
GIULIANI: July -- I'm sorry, the date -- I got it (INAUDIBLE) to when I got involved.
MACCALLUM: July 25 -- July 25, Kurt Volker to Andrey Yermak, who is associate of Zelensky.
MACCALLUM: Right, exactly. Kurt Volker, says, "Good lunch, thanks. Heard from White House, assuming President Zelensky convinces Trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a date for a visit in Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow."
So that's all --
GIULIANI: That's very good.
MACCALLUM: You're happy with that.
GIULIANI: Does it say 2016?
MACCALLUM: This is -- yes, absolutely.
GIULIANI: It doesn't say 2020.
MACCALLUM: Then it goes on --
GIULIANI: Martha, it doesn't say President Trump wants you to interfere in the 2020 election. It says President Trump wants you to investigate substantial allegations of federal crimes, partially committed in the Ukraine by high-level American officials. Exactly, what an honest president should do and exactly what Obama didn't do five years ago that could have stopped the whole thing.
MACCALLUM: One thing that you guys have absolutely succeeded in doing is pushing this to the forefront and I think that it will. It already is flashing out this question. You should be delighted, as I -- you said you are because now, the prosecutor is going to do another 15 minutes -- 15 cases.
GIULIANI: We haven't even started -- we haven't even started. I'm going to tell you another thing I never did. I never investigated China for the very reason that you criticize me for investigating China. Because you may think the link --
MACCALLUM: I didn't criticize you with regards to China.
GIULIANI: No, no, you would, I mean, they would -- that the media would criticize me. Look, I'm getting criticized for investigating a situation in which he put himself. I didn't pay the bribe. I didn't know about Joe Biden when they says information was given to me. I'm being criticized for investigating that.
Imagine if I started investigating China? I know I could prove China.
MACCALLUM: Have you looked into China.
GIULIANI: I have not investigated China?
MACCALLUM: Have you talked to people in China about Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: So, I convicted --
GIULIANI: I convicted the commissioner of the mafia, 1,000 mafia members,
MACCALLUM: What an amazing resume.
GIULIANI: (INAUDIBLE). 200 crooked politicians, Democrats, and Republicans. Would you give me credit for having a nose for corruption and crime? I can --
MACCALLUM: I absolutely give you a credit for having a nose for corruption and crime.
GIULIANI: I can smell it. I can smell it. Here is what I smell. China is a bigger sellout than Ukraine. I can prove it. And the Democratic Party is scared out of their minds because this pay per plays game doesn't just involve Biden.
The big questions that has to be asked is in 2015, when The New York Times first exposed the enormous conflict that Biden had in Ukraine, and criticize him -- how could you have your son taking money from a corrupt oligarch and --
MACCALLUM: Anyway, he was asked about that many times.
GIULIANI: Why didn't Obama stop it? Any honest president would've stop it.
MACCALLUM: You know, if there's -- if there indications that they were concerned in the Obama White House about it, that they talk to him about it several times that they didn't want to --
GIULIANI: Why didn't he stop it? Why?
MACCALLUM: That they didn't want to step in.
MACCALLUM: Maybe they wish they had.
GIULIANI: Wish they have no sense of (INAUDIBLE).
MACCALLUM: Maybe they wish they had. But let me ask you something. So, you're suggesting that --
GIULIANI: Wait, it is -- is this very similar to Hillary and Clinton Foundation?
MACCALLUM: Yes, let me just stay with this for one moment. You --
GIULIANI: Is it similar to Hillary and Clinton Foundation?
MACCALLUM: Is -- absolutely there are parallels. Absolutely.
GIULIANI: We start to see a pattern now?
MACCALLUM: Perhaps. I'm not going to read anything into --
GIULIANI: Is it possible -- is it possible if we break this open, we're going to find out the Obama administration might be one of the more corrupt administrations in a very long -- is it possible?
MACCALLUM: We will see. I mean, we're going to follow -- we'll follow (INAUDIBLE). Does it bother you?
GIULIANI: And is it possible that Democrats -- is it possible that Democrats cover that up and fight for their lives? And have Schiff going out violating laws in order to frame the president of the United States?
And make no mistake about it. The president of the United States is extremely serious, and there are lawyers working on it right now about suing those guys directly, individually.
MACCALLUM: You said that, yes.
GIULIANI: And not a -- not a joke, not a threat, it's a difficult legal endeavor. And we've got lawyers working on it as we speak. And thank you, Schiff, because you keep lying every day. He knew about the whistleblower.
MACCALLUM: We reported that.
GIULIANI: And even lied about it for four weeks?
MACCALLUM: We reported that. Let me ask you this. I guess a lot of people look at the situation from the State Department --
GIULIANI: Schiff, keep talking.
MACCALLUM: Let me ask you a question. From the State Department to -- you know, all of these diplomats who have a lot of experience in Ukraine and spent many years there, who have feel very differently about this situation than you do. That they don't see under the rocks what you see under the rocks.
GIULIANI: Maybe if they had seen under the rocks what I see under the rocks, it wouldn't be going on with Ukraine.
MACCALLUM: They -- maybe it would, and maybe you're going to fix it all. And maybe you're going to fix it all. But my question is why --
GIULIANI: And I really -- I'm not going to say I'm going to fix it, maybe Donald Trump is going to fix it all because he's a disruptive president who knows how to break up the swamp.
Rudy Giuliani is not going to fix it. Donald Trump is going to fix it. And the reason he's president of United States, and they are just walking around with their suits on, and haven't done damn thing about corruption in Ukraine, except to contribute to it.
Do you know what they say in the Ukraine when we talk about corruption? They say, bull. You had Joe Biden pulling down (INAUDIBLE).
MACCALLUM: Oh, I'm sure they do. I mean, they --
GIULIANI: They think with the biggest hypocrite. Don't you think an American president has to crack that open?
MACCALLUM: Let me ask you something.
GIULIANI: And do you think he's going to crack it open with the very diplomats that couldn't find it in the first place.
MACCALLUM: Well, maybe President Trump is going to solve all the corruption in Ukraine and you are going to --
GIULIANI: No, he's not. He's got to solve the American corruption.
MACCALLUM: You just said he was. You said I'm not going to do it, he is going to do it.
GIULIANI: The American corruption has to be solved.
MACCALLUM: You just said that I was just repeating what you say. So, a lot of people look at the situation and they say, what exactly are doing in this situation? There's a state department, we have ambassadorial level that -- that's involve in all of this. Why are you, the president's personal attorney, what is your personal mission? What's your mission?
GIULIANI: Wow! To disrupt the world. My mission is to defend my client, and the best traditions of the legal profession. It would give you --
MACCALLUM: So, it's in the interest of your client to find out what happened with Joe Biden and Burisma, not the country.
GIULIANI: No, no. Please, that's a mischaracterization, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Will you tell me?
GIULIANI: It's in the best interest of my client to unravel a corruption in the Ukraine, which will involve mostly collusion in the election, into which Joe Biden inserted himself.
MACCALLUM: It isn't that what Bill Barr is doing? Isn't that his job and the Justice Department?
GIULIANI: Well, Bill Barr wasn't there when I was doing it.
MACCALLUM: What is different from your role and Bill Barr's role? Can you answer that?
GIULIANI: There was no Bill Barr when I did it.
MACCALLUM: What is the difference between what you're currently doing?
GIULIANI: Did you hear what I just said? There was no Bill Barr --
MACCALLUM: You started before he did, I get it. I get it.
GIULIANI: Bill Barr wasn't there. I started the investigation on November 2018.
MACCALLUM: You said -- no, I understand all of that.
GIULIANI: I ended the investigation in March of 2018. Every fact that I have goes back to then. How could it possibly be to affect the 2020 election? How would I have known back then that he was going to run?
And why would I have not investigated him as he was central to the whole story, and they gave it to me? I was going to say, no. Take the Biden thing, put it aside because the American and press will attack me if I go after that.
MACCALLUM: I got -- well, you know what? It's going to be very -- I mean, we, we have covered it and we continue to cover it.
GIULIANI: But I'm very disparaged that somebody has to be examined why this wasn't stopped in 2015 because it could have been stopped then --
MACCALLUM: You're doing it. You're doing it.
GIULIANI: -- if we had an honest president.
MACCALLUM: OK. Congressman Will Hurd who also served as an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency responds to the Rudy Giuliani interview coming up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: What is your personal mission? What's your mission?
GIULIANI: To disrupt the world. My mission is to defend my client in the best traditions of the legal profession. If I were defending a terrorist, and I would -- I would go in to ask questions of world leaders that would prove that the terrorists was innocent or being tortured, the ACLU --
MACCALLUM: So it's in the interest of your client to find out what happened with Joe Biden and Burisma, not the country.
GIULIANI: No, no, please -- that's a mischaracterization, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Well, you tell me.
GIULIANI: It's in the best interest of my client to unravel the corruption in Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: OK. Here now Texas Congressman Will Hurd, a former undercover CIA agent who now sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight.
REP. WILL HURD, R-TX: Good evening.
MACCALLUM: So the message of that is that it is not about politics according to Mr. Giuliani, it's all about their deep desire to root out the deep corruption in the Ukraine and also as it extends, he believes to the Democratic Party.
And his argument for why Joe Biden is relevant to the larger corruption pictures that because he fired the prosecutor and all those other cases fell away, one of those other cases may have led to the big 2016 corruption that he is seeking. How does all that sit with you? What do you think about that?
HURD: Well, that's a lot to unpack there.
MACCALLUM: It is.
HURD: And I think that's one of the reasons that we should be having these hearings at the -- at the House Intelligence Committee. We should -- let's start with the whistleblower. I think we should be protecting the whistleblower because they made some allegations, and the just that allegations about wrongdoing that we should pursue.
And I think Mayor Giuliani's perspective on this and understanding what he's doing and what does disrupting the world actually mean, and how is he going about doing that is important perspective. I also want to hear from Hunter Biden. His name is being thrown around a lot. What actually did he do? And we should have that in front of the committee.
I wish the Chairman Schiff was doing this in a way to try to uncover the truth, rather than, you know, trying to end with some preconceived notions. But I think the way the Senate is trying to move forward on this investigation and understand what really went on, what happened, what did the Ukrainians actually believe, so we can ultimately put this to bed.
Because I wish we were talking about how are we working with Ukraine to push out the Russians. The Russians invaded that country, right? That's the whole reason we're having these conversations. And that's where I think we should be talking about U.S. foreign policy, to show the rest of the world that if the Russians did something like that again, we would be - - we would be there to back people up.
MACCALLUM: So you said you'd like to hear from Rudy Giuliani. Will you -- would you be asking him to come before the committee and answer your questions?
HURD: I believe the majority of the House Intelligence Committee have already asked for him to show up. I don't know that -- I don't get a say and who shows up. That's determined by Chairman Schiff. And I'm sure Mayor Giuliani is one of the people that is going to ultimately be on that list.
There's a lot more folks from the State Department, because part of the concern here is a private citizen, you know, pushing forward with U.S. foreign policy. What actually happened? Give some context to the call from July 25. There's a lot of questions.
MACCALLUM: But you know, in his answer to that as far as I can tell, is that he believes that he's the only person who can do it, that he has contacts and that he's going to uncover all of this corruption.
And that you know, the fact that that the Ukraine government -- the prior Ukraine government said that they had exonerated or not found any illegality in Burisma or in the Biden connection, doesn't matter to him at all, because he says, you know, that whole government was corrupt so we got to start over. And that's actually what they're doing right now.
HURD: Well, we may invite you to come and participate in the hearing to unpack some of those things and get to the -- get to the bottom of some of these answers. But yes, there were already several investigations into a number of these countries. We know that there is corruption in Ukraine, trying to understand that. The US government has participated and worked with the Ukrainian government on this issue.
But again, trying to make sure that we understand it -- and the role of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is to understand those allegations made by the whistleblower. And some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to see everything as you know, lens for impeachment, others want to see as a total exoneration. I want to see -- let's get to the truth --
MACCALLUM: That would be nice.
HURD: -- and then we can move forward.
MACCALLUM: That would be helpful. Thank you very much, Congressman Hurd. Good to see you tonight. Thanks for being here.
HURD: Always a pleasure.
MACCALLUM: You bet. So House Republicans blasting Intel Chair Adam Schiff tonight over his panel's reported contact with the whistleblower who sparked this whole impeachment frenzy. And they're not the only ones. Even the Washington Post tonight slamming Adam Schiff for making flat out false comments. Trey Gowdy up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I'm sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised as the law requires by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence just as to how he has to communicate with Congress. And so the risk of the whistleblower is retaliation.
MACCALLUM: So those comments from Adam Schiff a few weeks back landing in the House Intel Chair in some water -- hot water. The Washington Post gave him four Pinocchio's. They call the claim that his committee has not spoken to the whistleblower a flat out lie.
Kimberly Strassel also took up the issue in the Wall Street Journal, asking, if the public can't trust Mr. Schiff to be honest about the origins of his information, why should they trust his claim that the information itself is serious? It's a good question.
Here now Trey Gowdy, former House Oversight Committee Chairman and now a Fox News contributor. Trey Good evening to you. Good to see you tonight. So what do you think about the Pinocchio's?
TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: I think he got four only because you can't get five. I mean, he got the maximum sentence you could get from the Washington Post fact checker and don't you know how hard that was for the Washington Post to give Adam Schiff four Pinocchio's?
MACCALLUM: But they did to their credit.
GOWDY: But they just made it up. Look, the second sound of the Apocalypse when that happen. So, I've got to get my affairs and order. But, yes, kudos to them for pointing out that Adam Schiff totally made something up. But he's also a career offender, Martha.
So same guy who had the parity, a week or so ago, the same guy that says he has evidence that even Mueller couldn't find. The question I have is how long Speaker Pelosi is going to put up with Adam mishandling this investigation. She's already taken it away from Jerry Nadler. I'm sure the guys and gals --
MACCALLUM: That's true.
GOWDY: -- on the judiciary committee are not happy about having Adam Schiff. But if you are going to do it, at least don't screw it up, Adam. And right now, he's made himself a fact witness. He is in the evidentiary chain for what happened with this whistleblower and I hope the Republicans make him testify.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, he easily could've answered that question honestly, and you know, and said yes, he came to our office, we put him through the proper channels, or heard through the proper channels. You know, why do you think he didn't? I mean, does it say something about deeper involvement on his part? What does that reveal, that he wasn't willing to say that, I wonder?
GOWDY: In the words of Patty Loveless, that he's got a little trouble with the truth to quote a country song. I mean, why does anybody lie, because they are afraid the truth is going to get them in trouble. Schiff has received a pass -- the whole time I was in Congress, I don't ever remember a negative word about him.
I remember him complaining Republicans would meet with whistleblowers. I remember him complaining when Republicans would ever meet with witnesses and he wasn't present. So, this is the third mistake he's made -- and may be the most major investigation he's ever going to be part of. I don't know how long Nancy Pelosi is going to put up with these missteps.
MACCALLUM: So, what's the impact of that? What's the impact on the case? You know, how difficult is it that the lead person on this is making these missteps. How serious is it for the whole big picture?
GOWDY: How damning was it that Mark Fuhrman investigated O.J. Simpson's murder? How damning was it that Peter Strzok was the lead investigator --
GOWDY: -- bias or the perception of bias. I'm not prejudging Mark Fuhrman. I will m prejudge Peter Strzok. Bias kills investigations. And for anyone who wondered whether or not Adam Schiff could be objective and dispassionate, I never wondered that. But if any of your viewers did, now you know he makes up facts and openings and he lie about meeting with a whistleblower when the truth would've served him just fine. He just decided to lie about it.
MACCALLUM: This is a sound -- piece of sound from Susan Rice who says that there is an attack on democracy coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Listen to this and I want to get your opinion to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN RICE, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: For the first time that I can remember, our democracy is under assault. Our country is in effect under attack.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You write that in your book, but you still believe.
RICE: And that attack -- that attack is coming now from within. It's coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
RICE: And for all the security threats I saw as national security advisor, all the challenges we face, I never thought I'd see that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: What do you think of that?
GOWDY: I think that might be the same Susan Rice that went on the Fox Sunday morning talk shows and botch every single fact about what happened in Benghazi, Libya to four of our fellow citizens. I think it's the same Susan Rice who threatened to run against Susan Collins because she had the unmitigated temerity to vote for Brett Kavanaugh for U.S. Supreme Court justice.
The biggest threat we have to our democracy is when people who don't like Trump and didn't vote for him want to undermine and reverse election results. That's what's going to do with (Inaudible) in a Republic.
Look, she didn't vote for Trump. I feel really confident saying that. She didn't vote for him, but you still have to respect the fact that lots and lots of people did and he won the electoral college to say that that is a threat to democracy because you happen to disagree with someone? The threat is when you undermine the election by trying to impeach and get rid of someone simply because you wish they weren't in office.
MACCALLUM: All right. Wise words. Thank you very much, Trey. Good to see you tonight.
GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. You too.
MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, the Supreme Court will soon take up an abortion case for the first time with Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. Governor Mike Huckabee joins us with his thoughts on that big move tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Roe v. Wade. Are you familiar with the case?
BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: I am, senator.
GRAHAM: Just how the system works, can you sit down with you and four other judges and overrule Roe v. Wade just because you want to?
KAVANAUGH: Sir, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent to the Supreme Court, been reaffirm --
GRAHAM: Don't you have to have a case, I mean, you just can't.
GARHAM: What are you doing for lunch, let's overdo Roe v. Wade.
KAVANAUGH: I --
GRAHAM: It doesn't work that way, right?
KAVANAUGH: I see what you're asking, Senator. Right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So now for the first time since Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have joined the Supreme Court the high court is about to take up the question of abortion over a Louisiana law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles of their clinic.
Supporters say that the law is about keeping women's safe. Opponents say that it will leave that state with only one abortion clinic. It is the first abortion case that the high courts are going to hear with this new majority in place, will the decision likely come four months before the presidential election. We will see you.
Here now Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and Fox News contributor. Good to see you this evening, Governor.
This is going to be interesting with the configuration of this court and the question that will be before them is whether or not having this rule that stipulates that these doctors have to have admitting privileges at the hospital that's not too far away supersedes the issue that it would limit the entire state to only one abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal, and the federal law that says that abortion is legal.
FMR. GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE, R-ARK.: Well, first of all, it doesn't outlaw abortion. I wish it did. I'd love to see abortion a thing of the past, I'd like to see it go away with slavery. That's something that we stopped doing when we got civilized enough to realize how barbaric this practice is. But that's not what this case will do.
It doesn't even say that there will be one abortion clinic, there may be one that meets this criteria, but it's a criteria that should be met. Martha, this is a serious surgical procedure.
I'm amazed that women don't insist that the abortion clinics have the most sophisticated medical equipment available and that the doctors who perform these procedures should be licensed and should be required to be licensed to have admitting privileges at a hospital in case something goes wrong, which is something does. And women do die in these clinics.
MACCALLUM: You know, given -- absolutely. And I think the more medical care that's close by in these situations, you wanted to be as rare as possible but the safer it is. But it obviously raises these broader questions in a country where abortion at this moment in time is legal, and as you said you'd like to see it a completely overturned.
The Planned Parenthood today put out this statement. "The Supreme Court just announced that it will take up a case which could decide the future of abortion access in this country. Our right to safe, legal abortion hangs in the balance."
So, for them they clearly feel that the big question is on the table here. Do you think it is or do you think that the court sort of finds a way to push that kind of decision off into the future?
HUCKABEE: Well, the court needs to decide whether or not abortion clinics ought to have to have the same kind of medical requirements that, let's say, Botox clinic or a plastic surgery clinic or even some dental clinics have to have depending on the procedures that they do where the people performing the procedures have to have --
HUCKABEE: -- medical admitting privileges.
Again, it doesn't get rid of abortion. I think if Planned Parenthood is so intent on it and apparently, they are, then they should make sure that the doctors are certified, that they have access to hospitals, and that they can admit.
MACCALLUM: All right. We'll see.
HUCKABEE: The abortion issue, Martha, is ultimately going to be settled when we decide on the personhood of the unborn child, not whether or not the doctor has admitting privileges to a hospital.
MACCALLUM: Yes, that's a good point.
HUCKABEE: But this would be one step to protect those women.
MACCALLUM: And when that question comes to the Supreme Court, it's going to be a historic moment on all sides, to be sure.
This was a very interesting moment. I mean, this to me is one of the big stories of the week, it seems like. Obviously, there's a lot of big stories out there this week. But this judge, Tammy Kemp, walked over to this woman, Amber Guyger, who has a -- is headed to jail for 10 years for the killing of a man who lived in an apartment nearby her. She shot him twice.
The judge handed her a bible. An Atheist group came out and said, "It is perfectly acceptable for private citizens to express their religious beliefs in court but the rules are different for those acting in a governmental role. We believe that our criminal justice system needs more compassion from judges but here compassion cross the line into coercion."
What do you say about that?
HUCKABEE: That group needs to get a grip and a life because they don't have either one. Here's what I would say to them. If you'd like to provide a book, go ahead and tell us which one you like to provide to that person.
I was grateful that the judge decided that there was a role for both justice and mercy in the same courtroom and that's what she exhibited and I thought it was powerful. And right after that incredible moment that I think brought the entire nation to tears --
MACCALLUM: I did too.
HUCKABEE: -- where the brother of the victim asked to hug the person who killed her brother and embraced her. We need more of that.
MACCALLUM: We sure do.
HUCKABEE: We need to see God's grace in action. And I just don't know what this group possibly can see wrong with the judge, again extending both arms of both justice and mercy at the same time.
MACCALLUM: Yes, I agree.
HUCKABEE: Thank God for her.
MACCALLUM: It is a beautiful human moment that we need to see a lot more of in this country and they set an example for all of us in that courtroom this week. It's good to see you, governor. Thank you very much.
HUCKABEE: Thank you, Martha. Have a great weekend.
MACCALLUM: You too. So, Hillary Clinton getting very candid this week with a stunning confession about her personal life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the gutsiest thing I've done -- well, personally, make the decision to stay in my marriage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Wow, a special edition of ladies' night with the women of Fox Business Network coming up next.
MACCALLUM: So, the day after President Trump was elected, economist Paul Krugman made this prediction. He said, still I guess people want an answer. If the answer is when will the markets recover, a first pass answer is never. Never.
So, here's what happened. The Dow was up nearly 45 percent. The S&P up 38 percent. The NASDAQ -- look at that, up 53 percent since President Trump was elected and on top of that you've got unemployment at a 50-year low, 3.5 percent.
So, now, nearly three years later, Krugman is out with another prediction, warning people to prepare now for the coming Trump slump. "He may well be the first president," he says, "of modern times to preside over a slump that can be directly attributed to his own policies rather than bad luck."
Join me now, three of my colleagues from Fox Business which had a big refresh this week, we've got beautiful pictures of them all over the building outside. Cheryl Casone, Susan Li, and Kristina Partsinevelos. Great to have all of you with us.
You know, I'm not sure why anybody listens to Paul Krugman. He's made a lot of really false assessments --
CHERYL CASONE, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: Yes.
MACCALLUM: -- of where things are going, so I'm not sure that's the best stop. I would stop at Fox Business, personally. But what do you think?
CASONE: Well, look he made some interesting points in that piece in the New York Times. He isn't wrong that, yes, no president can really take full 100 percent credit for great economy or bad economy. That's --
MACCALLUM: Yes. Everybody knows that. That's no revelation.
CASONE: But Wall Street is not red or blue. But, frankly, let's be honest too. The markets as the numbers just prove they wanted a business person --
CASONE: -- in that chair, in that seat, and they got it. And remember, look at all the regulations that he's rolled back, look at the pro-business policies, look at the tax reforms --
MACCALLUM: Yes, definitely.
CASONE: -- the companies to go out and hire and --
MACCALLUM: They love the president - small business, I can tell you.
CASONE: -- and grow up.
MACCALLUM: I've talked to a lot of business owners who are very enthusiastic. You know, another thing that I think is interesting is I spoke to -- I speak to folks on Wall Street who say that they think the market has factored in a Trump win. Do you think that?
SUSAN LI, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Seventy-five percent of the market actually expects him to win in 2020.
MACCALLUM: That's pretty remarkable given the polls --
MACCALLUM: -- and everything else, Kristina.
KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, you actually see the action when Warren starts to lead, there is a sell-off because they believe that she'll roll back a lot of those regulations that you talk about.
MACCALLUM: Which she's been pretty clear she would.
PARTSINEVELOS: And especially go after big tech which is why you see a lot of reaction in the technology sector but as a whole, I think that Cheryl pointed really aptly that with his -- the economy doing great. The only concern though is this trade war and that would be the self-inflicted wound --
PARTSINEVELOS: -- because business investments wouldn't increase.
MACCALLUM: Yes, definitely. All right. Let's move on to some juicy topics of the night. Let's play this Hillary Clinton's thought which shocked her own daughter Chelsea. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I think the gutsiest thing I ever done -- well, personally, make the decision to stay in my marriage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chelsea, how about you?
CHEALSEA CLINTON, HILLARY CLINTON'S DAUGHTER: No. Goodness, I think I'm so overwhelmed by my mother's answer that I'm a bit out of words.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: I can tell one of the most real movement that I've ever seen from Hillary Clinton.
CASONE: To be honest with you --
MACCALLUM: I thought it was very, very interesting.
CASONE: I mean, I think that is it really a normal marriage though? That's a political marriage and it's been that way for decades.
MACCALLUM: I don't think that's fair of anyone to say honestly. I mean, I don't know. Who knows what goes on --
CASONE: Who knows what's going on?
MACCALLUM: You know what I mean?
MACCALLUM: But I just think that, you know, I think it does take guts to stay in a marriage that has been through that and I think a lot of women would say well you should walk away, you know what I mean, you got trampled on.
MACCALLUM: And you should walk away. But the very courageous tougher choice, Susan, is to stay.
LI: Is to stay. Forty-four years of marriage and we've all been through personal trauma, right, and personal difficulties.
LI: But to be able to withstand that in the public of disdain and scrutiny as well, I thought that was really honestly very truthful and vulnerable of Clinton.
MACCALLUM: What do you think, Kristina?
PARTSINEVELOS: I agree and I think that could be one part, gutsy, because she was lied too personally by her partner and then in front of the public.
PARTSINEVELOS: However, it could -- and this may sound crass, it could come as self-serving because she knew that one day she too would run --
PARTSINEVELOS: -- as a politician, as a president candidate -- presidential candidate. Who is going to vote for a divorcee? That's the --
MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, I know a lot of people think it's not a real marriage. And like I said to you, Cheryl, I mean, it's not an uncommon assessment. I think it's a very strong political partnership, to be sure --
CASONE: It's a partnership and a friendship, I think.
MACCALLUM: But I think there is something there.
MACCALLUM: You know, I think there are some people who, you know, really do horrible things to each other, like, have on some level have like this deep connection, and I remember reading a book about them that they talk to each other three hours on the phone every single day no matter where they are.
I think that they have a mind meld that goes beyond, you know, the normal - -
PARTSINEVELOS: Forty-four years.
MACCALLUM: -- kind of thing or marriage. Yes. So, I mean, here I am like that. I'm a marriage therapist, but that's just my personal assessment.
CASONE: Well, they have a a great daughter, I will say that. I think Chelsea is very impressive.
MACCALLUM: Yes. They do. They do. I mean, and you know, I think that this whole thing is probably part of maybe her political future. We'll see.
Meghan Markle. Holy cow -- this letter, she writes this heartfelt letter to her father who, you know, everybody knows is just like talk to every tabloid about her and she's begging her father the person who brought her into the world, please, dad, back off. "I pleased with you to stop reading the tabloids on a daily basis. You are fixated and clicked on the lies that they were writing about me."
And goes on to say, "especially those manufactured by your other daughter who I barely know. You watch me silently suffer at the hands of vicious lies and I crumbled inside."
I mean, what's next for this one.
CASONE: Well, and Prince Harry is coming out. I mean, they are now suing the tabloids --
MACCALLUM: That's right.
CASONE: The Mail. Good for Prince Harry --
MACCALLUM: As they should.
CASONE: -- for getting there and supporting his wife and going after the British press. President Trump thinks that the American press is bad. Try the British tabloids.
MACCALLUM: They're brutal.
CASONE: They're brutal.
MACCALLUM: And Prince Harry said, look, I saw this happened to my mother and I don't want to see this happen to my wife.
LI: But is this new to media scrutiny? I mean, isn't she an actress, isn't she used to the public -- to the public arena?
LI: So, is she really that surprised that given that she's married what, to the fourth in line for the British crown, that this is what happens to her?
MACCALLUM: I mean, it happened to Fergie, it happened to Diana. You know, playing nicely nice doesn't sell a lot of magazines, I guess. Kristina?
PARTSINEVELOS: But she's a royal now, and royals are normally supposed to be quiet and you're not supposed to invade their privacy, and they're not supposed to talk out and go on tours. That's not the case with this relationship now.
But like you guys talked about. The British press is just crazy. They are so invasive. And so, this is good, it's good that they were going after them because it's not only this. Think of the hacking in the early 2000s, so it's not journalism.
MACCALLUM: Yes, indeed. Let's put up this quick thought from President Trump today and we'll get a quick thought. Go ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Under the Me Too generation, we're not allowed to say it. So, all you young brilliant guys never, ever call a woman beautiful. Please. You're not allowed to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASONE: We've gotten to -- we've gotten too sensitive --
MACCALLUM: I agree.
CASONE: -- we've gotten too sensitive in this country. Come on.
MACCALLUM: We like to be called beautiful, don't you?
LI: Well, I like to be called beautiful. Women are beautiful. We celebrate that.
MACCALLUM: Exactly. Yes.
PARTSINEVELOS: Because I moves here a year and a half ago and I have to say, I'm Canadian. I would say that it's more P.C. here than I ever imagined.
MACCALLUM: I think you are all beautiful. All beautiful. All right. We got to leave at that. Thank you so much, ladies. Congratulations on the refresh, Fox Business.
LI: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: More of “The Story” coming up next.
MACCALLUM: That is “The Story” on this Friday, October 4, 2019. But as always, “The Story” goes on. Have a great weekend, everybody. I will see you back here on Monday at seven. Good night.
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.