Is America ready for a woman of color to be president?

close

Video

Is America ready for a woman of color to be president?

Fox News contributor and former DNC chair Donna Brazile on presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris and the 2020 election.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: So, look at this scene, everybody. Back in October of 1998, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Speaker the House at that time was Newt Gingrich, who presided over the vote. He will join us in just a few minutes to talk about this moment, 21 years later, only this time the party's roles are reversed with House Democrats preparing to vote on their resolution to begin a formal impeachment inquiry into the Republican President Donald Trump.

But aside from the party in power, not much about the language surrounding this process seems to have changed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a charade of justice.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: And in its time that we bring this charade to a close.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Thousands of pages of hearsay, accusations, gossips.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: That's hearsay. Do I believe something based on a statement that hasn't been tested?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: It is time to move on and solve the problems facing the American people.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: We should move on. But the people that are hurting, the American public, because the work that is not being done in Congress today.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Similar lines, different times. So, the question now is will the rest of history repeat itself? Former Speaker of the House and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich joins me now. He's also the author of a new book, Trump Versus China: Facing America's Greatest Threat.

Not too much discussion about China in these moments. So -- but, we'll get back to that in time. Newt, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.

NEWT GINGRICH, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you.

MACCALLUM: I want to start with -- you know, we've got the outlines now because we have this resolution that Nancy Pelosi and the House are going to vote on, on Thursday that lays down the rules as they see them. And they've had a lot of pushback from Republicans about the way they've handled this process so far. What do you think about the rules as you see them now?

GINGRICH: Well, I was looking at their proposal solution. I thought it was very appropriate that she was bringing it up on Halloween because I think, frankly, it's a joke. And I think that Schiff probably ought to come on the floor as the scarecrow. You remember when the Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow has no brain, and it is Halloween.

The fact is that they're not doing anything that's serious. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader is already listed a whole series of things wrong with what they're doing. They're not giving the president real access for his lawyers. They're not allowing the Republicans to have real parity. They're also are not releasing all the stuff.

Remember they've had months now of gathering secret information, totally controlled by Adam Schiff, and what is almost a Stalinist model of a closed system. All of that should become public as part of this. And now they're basically trying to say, now that we've done all this work and laid all this groundwork and have all the secret information, now we want to talk about things.

Part of the deal ought to be, make available to the Republicans and to the White House every single memo, every e-mail, every interview that they've undertaken in secret. And I think it's a -- this is totally -- this totally fails the test they'll sent by Lindsey Graham in the Senate.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: All right, let me just put -- push back on that and a couple of things. I would imagine then, they'll say, you know, we'll give you everything as long as the White House turns over every document that we have requested in this process.

I mean, and also Republicans have been saying for the past couple of weeks, we want to vote, why is there no vote? Now, you're going to get a vote on Thursday. Why is that -- why are those the two things not satisfying to you?

GINGRICH: Well, the vote they're going to get is a charade -- it's phony. Is that I think what Republicans were saying and what the Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell resolution in the Senate said was they want an orderly process, they want real opportunities for the president and for the Republicans.

You know, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution guarantees us due process. This president has been denied due process. This is an unusual proceeding, neither the Democrats in 1973 nor the Republicans in 1998 did anything as one-sided, secretive, and destructive as what Pelosi and Schiff have done.

And you can go back and look at the record, you can read a terrific book by Jim -- Congressman Jim Rogan called catching the flag. Those two terms, Democrats 73, Republican 98 were dramatically fairer than what Pelosi and Schiff were trying to do.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, for one thing, the president has not had an attorney allowed to be part of this process and that was the case in prior -- in the prior impeachment processes. And also the ranking members have very limited powers in the course of this resolution and that is also very different in terms of the parody as you say in terms of -- you know, the way they'll go through this, this process.

They basically have to beg to get what they want. The ranking members, they don't just get it automatically, they've got to go through a process to get, you know, sort of equal time in this process.

Let's switch over to the political side of this because Nancy --

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: Well, but let me just ask you one -- let me just say one other thing, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Yes go ahead, please. Yes.

GINGRICH: Because today, who was reported that actually Schiff -- Chairman Schiff, has been telling out witnesses not to answer Republican questions.

MACCALLUM: Yes, yes. Yes, he's saying, you don't have to answer that.

GINGRICH: This is crazy. I mean, the people need is have -- this is totally crazy.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, it's kind of like he is the lawyer sitting next to the witness, right? Who's saying, you know, you don't have to answer that.

GINGRICH: Right.

MACCALLUM: When this is supposed to be a deposition process where you would have both sides available. And everybody is basically taking notes and letting the person say what they want to say.

GINGRICH: Right.

MACCALLUM: That's a part of this process that we're at right now. And as you rightfully point out, the reports are that Adam Schiff is, you know, telling, don't, don't answer that. You don't have to answer that, which is just weird.

So, let's talk about the politics here because Nancy Pelosi was resistant for quite some time on impeachment. So, why do you think now she is moving forward? What has changed for her? And do you think she's made a smart calculation as a politician?

GINGRICH: Well, no. And look, I think they're now trapped at a dead-end that they can't get out of. I think that the Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell resolution served notice that they had to do something or was literally dead on arrival in the Senate.

I think the White House blocking them and refusing to do things until there was a vote moved them. But she has a real problem, and I said months ago, now having been Speaker of the House, she can probably pass this resolution if she's suicidal, which he's going to kill their majority.

I mean, if you're Congressman Peterson and you're in northern Minnesota, and you're in a 30-point Trump district, voting yes on Thursday, basically is the end of your career. And you go through district after district.

Then, the numbers when you go out to individual districts -- you know, in Los Angeles and in New York, there's overwhelming support for this. You go out into marginal districts held by Democrats that Trump either carried or came close. There's not support for this and I think that she would destroy her majority.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You know, it's -- yes, it's fascinating. And we all know from -- you know, watching her and how she operates all these years, she's generally pragmatic. She's numbers-oriented, she knows when she has the votes when she doesn't have the votes.

GINGRICH: Right.

MACCALLUM: In this case, I think it's very interesting that she sort of rested the project away from Jerry Nadler and gave it to Adam Schiff. Is she's sort of setting him up here as the potential fall guy if it doesn't go their way?

GINGRICH: No, I think, Nadler failed so badly in his two public hearings were so embarrassingly bad. That she had to do something just to catch -- just to sort of reclaim the momentum.

But here is the core problem. This is a sore loser impeachment process. 70 percent of the people who favor impeachment favored it the morning after the election. The fact is we've never in American history had this kind of process where people are saying, I'm against Trump as a person, I don't care if he did something or not impeach him anyway.

And so, she has a huge base of her party that absolutely insists that they move forward on impeachment. And people like AOC now probably have more emotional power in the conference than Nancy does. She is presiding over it but I don't think she anymore has the capacity to lead it. I think their left is leading it and they're leading it, I think, in a disastrous direction.

MACCALLUM: Newt Gingrich, always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you for being here tonight.

GINGRICH: Good to talk to you.

MACCALLUM: You too.

So, coming up next, all roads to impeachment are starting to raise questions about what this man, on the right-hand side of the picture, John Bolton, would say if he were to testify? Is he a potential problem in all of this if he comes forward and speaks his mind? We will talk about that with Ari Fleischer. Coming up next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, there's one name that keeps coming up in the impeachment hearing's discussion and that is John Bolton. Today, a top NSC Ukraine expert became the latest to invoke the name of the president's former national security advisor.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, recounted a key meeting with Ukrainian officials in July, claimed that Bolton was present, but that he stopped the meeting short after hearing what sounded like a quid pro quo from the E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland. Prior witnesses who claimed that they raised similar concerns to Bolton testified that he directed them to talk to legal counsel at NSC, adding, "I'm not part of whatever drug deal, Sondland, and Mulvaney are cooking up." Now, that quote comes from the testimony, not from Bolton himself, but that was the recollection of two people who testified.

Now, the question now is does he become key in this process? And considering his less than amicable exit from the White House, whose side would he be on?

A new CNN op-ed puts it this way, "As a private citizen, Bolton doesn't have to coordinate his testimony with anyone and no longer being at the White House, probably isn't worried about retribution."

Here now, Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary under George W. Bush and a Fox News Contributor. And just happy he didn't have to deal with impeachment when he was at the White House, but these folks do.

So, what you make of John Bolton? Always an interesting person, an interesting dynamic. Very -- you know, sort of strong in his belief system, very conservative. What do you think here?

ARI FLEISCHER, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I served with John. I know John well.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FLEISCHER: I admire John. I think he is very sharp and independent- minded. He has his own sense of values, but if anybody is thinking that John is going to put a (INAUDIBLE) on the president's back, I don't see it coming.

I think John is going to explain what he saw, what his conclusions were about. But he's going to do so in a guarded way. Don't look for him to go to Capitol Hill and make explicit hard news.

MACCALLUM: So yes, I mean, you know, I'm just imagining, you know, the potential scene because now it looks like we're moving to the stage of this where you have open public hearings and John Bolton being questioned about all of this. What do you see him -- I mean, you know, you can't put yourself obviously in his mind, but you know, is it the "this is not an impeachable offense, this is what happened but I don't see it that way," is that what you would --

FLEISCHER: no, I think you -- first of all, we have to assume that he goes which is an open question. He still might be covered under executive privilege and that's the decision he and his lawyers will have to make so we shouldn't get too far ahead. But if he goes, I think on the key quote which has been attributed to him about a drug deal, I think what he's going to say is the obvious. He had some questions.

There were some things he heard that gave him pause and he thought it was appropriate not to pursue that but it's the President's judgment at the end of the day that gets to make those decisions. I think knowing John, that's where he's going to go on this. If he had doubts, he kept them to himself, and he excused himself from participating any event that led to something he didn't support.

MACCALLUM: Interesting. All right, I want to switch gears a little bit and talk to you about what happened at the World Series game the other night. The President was booed by a lot of people that were there. It has been the fodder for a lot of late-night comedy. Here's one piece of that, how they interpreted this on The Late Show. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take him out of the office. Drag him out if you must. Go back to Trump steaks and lousy hotels. Please take Eric and Junior as well. We all root for impeachment. If Trump's not removed, it's insane. For its one term, is more than enough. You're a shame, shame, shame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So I just want to make it perfectly clear. You know, the President points to Adam Schiff's parody of the phone call that was also a parody that did not actually happened.

FLEISCHER: Right.

MACCALLUM: Quite that way at the Nationals game. But you know, it just struck me, you know, 24 hours after that Baghdadi raid and there's no, you know, celebration about that mission in a genuine way across the board. And then he goes to the baseball game and the President of the United States gets that treatment.

FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, you got to be tough to be President of the United States --

MACCALLUM: That's for sure.

FLEISCHER: -- any sports event. I remember when Barack Obama threw out a baseball at a ball game, and people, artists drew a silhouette comparing the way he tossed the ball, how Miss America tossed the ball. So don't go if you don't have thick skin. Everybody gets booed.

Now, the difference was post 9/11, the country's mood was entirely in a different place. It was not at all like it is today. When President Bush went to ground in the New York City at the Bronx and threw out that first pitch, game three, 2001 World Series --

MACCALLUM: We have that video. We'll play it while we were talking.

FLEISCHER: It was a metaphor to help America feel better. We were in such a different place after September 11th, and thankfully we're not there anymore because we've recovered substantially from those attacks. We feel good about ourselves.

MACCALLUM: But there's also parallels, you know, because there's this moment, right, that should be unifying for the country when this horrific al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, I mean, you have to remember everyone at home what he did. I mean, he was a murderer, a rapist. they beheaded Americans on video.

And it feels that, you know, those moments have parallels but we, as you say, we are just in such a different place.

FLEISCHER: And if the President had gone to a military base and if he was surrounded by military leaders and he talked about the raid, he would have gotten massive applause and would have been one of those feel-good moments. But when you go to a ball game, except for that September 11th part, presidents typically do get booed.

I remember presidents get booed at NASCAR tracks. I mean, it's just a part of the environment. President Trump went to the Atlanta -- he went to Atlanta two years ago for the college football playoff championship game between Alabama and Georgia, two red states, there was a little bit of booing going on, not much but a little.

MACCALLUM: Well, I guess everybody in America, right, you can say what you want, you can boo if you want to boo --

FLEISCHER: Sports fans like to boo.

MACCALLUM: Exactly. And the President have to take it one way or the other.

FLEISCHER: Umpires get booed too.

MACCALLUM: They do. They do, for making a bad call. It's well deserved, don't you think? All right, thank you very much. Always a pleasure to talk to you.

FLEISCHER: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here. Great to have you in New York. So one day after Joe Biden said that the world's most notorious terrorist was killed despite President Trump's "ineptitude," the former vice president now says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, he's saying we're going to keep troops in Iraq to protect the oil field. So we're going to take the oil. That's like putting up a 500-foot banner, a recruiting banner for ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: General Jack Keane on whether or not that is true when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: ISIS is reeling from a one-two punch tonight amid news today that an operation by U.S. forces not only took out the terror group's leader, Baghdadi, but also killed his number two and potential successor. That's big news.

National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin has the story for us from the Pentagon tonight. She's been covering this all throughout. Jennifer, good evening to you. Thanks for being here.

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. There have been two significant U.S. raids since Saturday night, one which killed Baghdadi, another which killed his likely successor. The President tweeted that Baghdadi's number two is now dead.

Senior defense officials tell me he was referring to an operation that occurred following the Baghdadi compound raid when U.S. forces targeted the so-called ISIS spokesman Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir whom Kurdish SDF leader General Mazloum tweeted about two days ago.

Muhajir was killed by a joint U.S.-Kurdish operation. This individual, I'm told, was more than a spokesman. I'm also told the killing of the two top ISIS leaders in Syria is significant because beneath them are much weaker successors and killing these top two leaders will leave a leadership vacuum inside ISIS in Syria.

Intelligence from Baghdadi's compound is still being exploited. Baghdadi's number two was living about three hours from Baghdadi's compound in Idlib province also just miles from the Turkish border. General Mazloum, the Kurdish general who leads the Syrian Democratic Forces who partnered with the U.S. military to defeat ISIS told fox's Ben Hall that Kurdish intelligence had a source inside Baghdadi's inner circle inside the compound who led U.S. special operations forces there.

The source even collected Baghdadi's dirty underwear and a sample of his blood for DNA verification before the raid. According to Mazloum, the Kurdish intelligence asset in Baghdadi's inner circle was one of the two adult males captured alive and mentioned yesterday at the Pentagon press briefing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF: There were two adult males taken off the objective alive and they're in our custody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: We expect a briefing with CENTCOM Commander General Frank McKenzie here at the Pentagon on Wednesday. The Pentagon hopes to release drone video from the raid. There are issues with declassifying those videos and we are told not to expect images of Baghdadi to be released.

President Obama, you'll remember, never authorized the dead Bin Laden photos to be declassified after that raid, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Jennifer, thank you very much, Jennifer Griffin, at the Pentagon. Joining me now, General Jack Keane, Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and a Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst. General, always good to have you with us.

GEN. JACK KEANE, RET., SENIOR STRATEGIC ANALYST: Good to be here.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating to hear those details about what the Kurdish intel folks were able to do on the ground. I mean, it reminds me a lot of the kind of information that we got on Bin Laden before we went in.

KEANE: Yes, this is really quite extraordinary to have somebody buried right inside the organization like that and collect clothing so that it can be examined and blood samples and confirmed that he's there, and then give them all the locations of the room layouts, the tunnels, etcetera. That is remarkable intelligence and that's some of the best I've actually seen.

And it just goes to point out how important this relationship is that we have with the locals. When you have the locals on the ground dealing with ISIS, they're going -- my definition, get more information. They're in the culture, they speak the language, people talk to them. And having that presence there and having the United States there, I may say, even in smaller numbers truly makes a difference. If you're not on the ground, you're not going to get the intelligence.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, just an extraordinary risk that Kurdish member of the SDF who was able to go undercover. He took an enormous risk, obviously, to do that. Now, obviously, you know, it's interesting to me when you dial back you know just a couple of weeks. We're talking about pulling out of that area and the concerns that ISIS would rebuild, right? That these that the prisons where they were being held we're going to be released.

So now in this short period of time, you have al-Baghdadi out, the top lieutenant under him also out, what's the structure look like of ISIS right now, and how concerned are you about that rebuilding at this point?

KEANE: Well, clearly, it's a major setback for the organization.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KEANE: You know, iconic operational, spiritual leader is gone, number two was gone. It'll affect morale, recruiting, and resourcing, getting money. But at the end of the day, this administration will not make the mistake that you Obama administration made. When they kill Osama bin Laden, al- Qaeda was dead, not just Osama bin Laden, the organization was done, and that was the furthest thing from the truth.

This organization has 14,000, 18,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria as stated by the President's special envoy to Syria Ambassador Jeffries, and there's 10,000 in detention. I'm not talking about the families in detention. These are the fighters that by themselves in detention. That's a significant number and we have got to keep our foot on the throat of these guys.

So bringing troops into the eastern part of Syria, secure oil fields but they'll also be making certain that ISIS does not re-emerge. That terrorist network, (INAUDIBLE) the institute I'm associated with, they track it every single day. And every single day, they are working on coming back.

They actually have a plan that brings them back by the end of next year where they believe they're going to be taking territory again. So they're committed. But this is a setback here. This is a huge victory for the United States, a huge victory for the Brits and the French who are on the ground with us there and also will run an airpower with us and for the region at large.

MACCALLUM: Obviously, we're in the middle of a political season. This is Joe Biden talking about this operation today in an interview. Watch.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The president should stay in his lane and listen to the military and not get off on his rants he goes on about why he's going to pull up everybody -- and now what is he doing?

Now he's saying we're going to keep troops in Iraq to protect the oil fields, but we are going to take the oil. That's like putting up a 500-foot banner, recruiting banner for ISIS.

(END VOICE CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I assume he meant Syria and not Iraq here, but is this a recruitment opportunity, given what we just watched? I mean, you know --

JACK KEANE, SENIOR STRATEGIC ANALYST: No.

MACCALLUM: -- is their incentive to inspire critics?

KEANE: I think it's, Martha, it's just the exact opposite. I mean, they are going to have trouble now as a result of it. Look at it. This year they lost their caliphate after four years of defending it. Now they've lost their number one leader and obviously -- we haven't had a leader like Baghdadi. He stormed onto the scene, built a terrorist army, invaded a country with 40,000 troops and had his headquarters in Syria.

No other modern terrorist organization has ever achieved that. That's why worldwide he had 30 or 40 affiliates. He conducted dozens of attacks outside of the region. He conducted multiple attacks on nine NATO nations to include the United States. Either directed or inspired.

This will impact him adversely. Are they going to go away? No. They are in ideology. They don't go away into these youngsters who were drawn to this fanaticism no longer see that as a purposeful life.

But in the meantime, we have to -- we have to be very serious about them when we get the opportunity to kill them, and we have to be honest about that word. Because they want to kill us, they want to take our life away from us, they want to kill our children and our grandchildren.

When we have the opportunity to do that, we do that and we capture them if we can. But also, we have got to have some presence and some determination.

And I will give you -- listen, I don't like the politics stuff of criticizing President Obama should never have been criticized. I don't believe he was when he made the decision to conduct that attack. And this thing here, I mean, we know for a fact that President Trump deserves some credit not just for the decision but for his dogged determination to pursue Baghdadi.

He kept bugging his national security team, when are we going to get this guy? When are we -- you can just hear him, knowing his personality that we see on television all the time.

So, they felt that presence. You know, the boss really wants to get this guy, and let's make sure -- and that helps analysts, you know, who are working in those cubicles 24/7.

MACCALLUM: Yes, who did an amazing job.

KEANE: Trying -- my God.

CHURCH: Amazing job. Coordinated from the White House and all the way down through those people on the ground.

KEANE: Yes, a lot of credit.

CHURCH: A lot of credit all up and down that chain of command. General, thank you very much.

KEANE: Yes. Good seeing you, Martha.

CHURCH: Always great to have you here. Thank you.

So, coming up, Democrats have the most diverse roster in the history of presidential primaries, so why are there minority voters -- in some cases we look at these polls, it looks like they are snubbing some of those candidates, lining up in droves behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

Donna Brazile on what to make of that coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, the early stages of this campaign, Democrats boasted that they had the most diverse presidential lineup ever and they are making history, but when it comes to who's ahead and who's behind, a different story starts to emerge. Take a look at the front runners right now, anyway. It could change. You got Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

The New York Times pointing out today the Democrats have the most racially diverse field ever, but their top tier is all white. So why aren't candidates like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris polling better? Here's what Senator Harris told Axios on HBO earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Talking about what I describe and what I believe to be the elephant in the room about my campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is that?

HARRIS: Electability.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you mean?

HARRIS: Electability. You know, essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Donna Brazile, former DNC chair and now a Fox News contributor. Donna, good to see you this evening.

DONNA BRAZILE, CONTRIBUTOR: Same here, thank you.

MACCALLUM: Is she correct or is that kind of a cop-out?

BRAZILE: There's always some truth to the type of obstacles that women and minority candidates face, especially running for the presidency. We know from the traditional barriers that they face from raising the kind of money and getting the kind of endorsements.

But look, I really do believe that the likability argument also goes -- go to the point about who can defeat and who is best prepared to take on President Donald Trump.

It is very difficult to be the sitting incumbent, even one that is not as popular, but I still believe that Kamala, Cory, Julian, and some of the other candidates still have a good chance of being in the final four or the final six as we approached the Iowa caucuses in February.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it's interesting, let's put up the numbers from the most recent CNN poll on nonwhite voters. Joe Biden is at 42 percent, Bernie Sanders at 16, Elizabeth Warren at 13, Kamala Harris at six. You know, I mean, you can kind of go down that row and I think regardless of color, you can figure out a little bit of what's going on there.

Joe Biden has enormous name recognition, he's former vice president. Bernie Sanders almost got the nomination last time. He has a lot of attention out there, and Elizabeth Warren, you know, everybody says is running the best campaign in the group, so I find it hard to believe --

BRAZILE: That's true.

MACCALLUM: -- that if Kamala Harris wasn't running the best campaign and wasn't, you know, more dynamic, perhaps, as a candidate, that she wouldn't be in the same spot, regardless of her color.

BRAZILE: Well, nonwhite voters, speaking as one, we are just as strategic as white voters. We want the same thing, in many ways.

MACCALLUM: Of course.

BRAZILE: But we also want a candidate who we believe can win and when you look at the numbers for Joe Biden, remember Joe Biden was Barack Obama's -- President Barack Obama's running mate and there's a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He's earned that respect as well in terms of his years and dedication to civil rights, et cetera.

But again, I still believe that it is early. I remember back in 2008 when people kept saying hey, Donna, you should be supporting Barack Obama because you're black. you should be supporting Hillary Clinton because you're a woman and I kept telling people I'm getting old and I've got gray hair, maybe I could support John McCain. The truth is --

MACCALLUM: Exactly.

BRAZILE: -- voters will make up their mind and as you know from some of the polling we've seen, especially in the early stage, some voters are saying I like the candidate I've been talking to, but I'm still open to falling in love with someone else, so this is still early, let's talk in a couple months.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, there's also a lot of reporting out there, a piece by Katrina Vanden Heuvel today saying that the Democratic establishment is right to panic. "Unlike their centrist opponents, Sanders and Warren have proved that their loyalty and principles cannot be bought, they are committed to defeating the orthodoxy that Democratic leaders largely under the influence of donors have clung to for too long."

However, it looks like a lot of people look at this field and they wonder if somebody in that vein, the Elizabeth, Bernie Sanders vein, can actually win a national election.

BRAZILE: We won't know until the voters are given an opportunity to compare one of those candidates with the alternative. I don't buy this argument -- I know I'm here and you know the folks on the left are saying this, the people in the middle are saying that.

You know, at the end of the day I trust the American people, I trust the voters. I've worked for both liberal candidates as well as moderates to conservative candidates in my years as a Democratic Party strategist. I worked with them because I believed in their values. I understood what they wanted to accomplish as Americans.

And so, I like that we are having these conversations within the Democratic Party and perhaps in the larger country, but at the end of the day, I trust the voters. They tend to get it right.

MACCALLUM: To the voters one Hillary Clinton to get in this race?

BRAZILE: You know, I think this is a decision that Hillary Clinton will have to make. I know we keep speculating, but as you know, she got the majority of voters in 2016 and she won the Democratic primary by a very convincing margin, so I think if she decides she wants to put herself back out there, that's her right --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Wow. All right.

BRAZILE: -- that's up to her. I don't make decisions for Secretary Clinton. I have enormous respect.

MACCALLUM: But you're not discouraging it. Thank you, Donna.

BRAZILE: I'm not -- hey, you know what, I can come up to New York tonight and talk you into running. Let me tell you that.

MACCALLUM: No, thank you.

BRAZILE: But I won't do it. See? See?

MACCALLUM: I'm sure you probably could, you could talk me into it. A lot of people under a lot of things. Always good to see you, Donna, thank you very much.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Very persuasive. All right. So, coming up, a Catholic priest denied Joe Biden communion over the weekend on Sunday because of his stance on abortion. And Judge Napolitano joins me to talk about that coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: I'm prepared to accept for me personally -- they defeat a doctrine on my church. But I'm not prepared to impose that on every other person who's equally God-fearing, cares about life, and that's why I strongly support Roe v. Wade and will try to codify it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, 2020 front runner Joe Biden is a Catholic who is also pro- choice. And this weekend he came face-to-face with that conflict that that presents when South Carolina Reverend Robert Morey denied him communion at mass because of those views on abortion.

Later explaining, quote, "Holy communion signifies we are one with God, each other, and the church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of church teaching. I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers." Said the Reverend Morey. Here's Joe Biden today.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

BIDEN: I'm a practicing Catholic, I practice my faith, but I've never let my religious beliefs, which I accept based on church doctrine, I call it de fide doctrine, to impose that view on other people.

(END VOICE CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst. Good to have you here, Judge. Also, a practicing Catholic.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Martha.

MACCALLUM: That's one of the reasons that we brought you into talk about this beside your legal expertise. But we've seen similar things with John Kerry --

NAPOLITANO: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- Nancy Pelosi is also pro-choice --

NAPOLITANO: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- and claims to be, you know, an active Catholic.

NAPOLITANO: You know it's really --

MACCALLUM: How do you square those?

NAPOLITANO: It's really up to the discretion. As I understand the church teachings, it's really up to the discretion of individual priests so the priest judgment is you're not judging a person's soul, he's judging whether or not the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament, which as you know we believe his body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, will give scandal when it is delivered to a person who purposely and publicly rejects a core teaching of the church.

Now not all priests agree with that. Some go even farther. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke when he was the archbishop -- you're chuckling, I don't know why -- was the archbishop of St. Louis ordered priests to deny the Blessed Sacrament to Catholic politicians who favored abortion and he named them by name. This is 2008. Then Senator Biden running of the Democratic primary for president, he was one of those named.

MACCALLUM: All right, onto another topic tonight. The Alabama law, federal judges now blocked the very restrictive Alabama abortion law, your thoughts on that?

NAPOLITANO: Well, the federal judge really had no choice because of the status of Roe v. Wade today. Roe versus Wade, to which Vice President Biden referred, and the cases that followed it, have basically said the states may not outlaw, at all, abortions pre-viability.

Their only concern pre-viability is the health of the mother, not the life of the baby. The Alabama statute did outlaw abortions pre-viability. Under the natural law that you and I follow, the Alabama law is respect for human life, but that's not the law of the land.

Why did the Alabama legislature do this? It did after Justice Kavanaugh joined the court because they want to set up a test case and hopefully the Supreme Court will take it and revisit Roe versus Wade.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But in that case the federal law supersedes the state law because --

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: It absolutely does.

MACCALLUM: -- they also have the same --

NAPOLITANO: The federal judge really had no choice and had he not done that today he would have been reversed by the appeals court tomorrow.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right. One last question for you on a different topic. The court has blocked the release of the grand jury testimony from the Mueller investigations and transcripts. What do you think of that?

NAPOLITANO: I think that the original decision, which ordered the release of those transcripts to the Congress, will be upheld. I think that because Congress' right to impeach can't be impeded to the court rule.

That's the language in the Constitution where it says the House shall have sole authority for impeachment, so that would Trump any court rule that might -- such the secrecy of grand jury materials that might interfere with it. That doesn't give the House the right to publish these. They are still to be kept secret but they can be --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I'm sure they will stay secret.

NAPOLITANO: I doubt it. I doubt it.

MACCALLUM: Once they release them.

NAPOLITANO: I think they can go to the floor of the House and release anything they want and do so with impunity. Senator Feinstein did that on the floor of the Senate with the torture report. But they have the right to it. Otherwise they would have to interrogate those witnesses themselves and reenact all of the investigations.

MACCALLUM: But the impeachment is really based on this new question with regard to Ukraine. That is from the Mueller investigation and it seems to me that's a DOJ investigation, it should be separate from the political process of impeachment in the House.

NAPOLITANO: So, when you look -- this is a great question. When you look at the resolution that Mrs. Pelosi offered today, which will certainly will pass on Thursday, it includes everything under the sun.

MACCALLUM: Yes, exactly.

NAPOLITANO: Including the president -- including the president's finances.

MACCALLUM: Right. Let's go back and relitigate the entire Mueller investigation as part of the --

NAPOLITANO: Nothing to do with Ukraine.

MACCALLUM: Al right. We got it. We will keep talking after the break.

NAPOLITANO: You got it.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Judge. Good to see you tonight.

NAPOLITANO: Of course.

MACCALLUM: So, a whole new ball game for college athletes where the sky is the limit now and the stars will get paid. That is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BENJAMIN WATSON, TIGHT END, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: They are adults, and as adults there should be afford to life as any other adult has which is to profit off of their notoriety, profit off of their ability. That's what it (Inaudible) that there needs to be something done.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

WATSON: That is simply not fair and it's not allowed to go even to have athletes that cannot profit when they are making so much money off of their likeness.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: That was new England Patriots tight end, Benjamin Watson reacting to a sweeping law out of California allowing NCAA athletes to be paid. And today, and even more seismic change in college sports.

The NCAA board of governors voted unanimously to allow all college athletes to profit off of their names, images, and likenesses.

Here now sportscaster, Jim Gray, also, a Fox News contributor. Jim, always good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight. What's your reaction to this?

JIM GRAY, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Martha. Well, it's long overdue and they follow the lead of California and they were forced by California to do this and there should have been reformed so long ago and this is a good first step, but I only see it as a first step because they are generating all of this revenue, billions of dollars.

The coaches touch it, the institutions touch it, the television networks, the sneaker companies, all profit here. Everybody except for those who are preventing the service.

And now this is an opening and it's just a sliver. Those people who own their own likenesses they should be able to be commercial and profiteer on themselves. So, it's a good start.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's take a look at what LeBron James said. It's a beautiful day for all college athletes going forward from this day on. Thank you, guys for allowing me to bring more light to it. I'm so proud of the team uninterrupted bringing focus to this and everyone who has been fighting this fight, not a victory, but a start.

And here is a look at some potential payout to some of the big stars. Zion Williamson could get 2.5 million for one NCAA season. Jalen Hurts, the Oklahoma Sooners player -- $250,000 per national ad campaign.

But one of the things that, you know, people I've spoken to who are very much against this, Jim, just talked about the change that it has on the team. You know, when you've got one or two guys on your team who are making all this money, everybody else is putting in the same amount of effort, the same amount of teamwork, and yet, it will, you know, sort of, will it break down the fabric of the college athletic experience?

GRAY: Well, there is the potential for that but like LeBron said and like I just said, this should be a first step. These guys and gals who produce all of this revenue should be paid. You know, they are not student athletes, they are athlete students.

And if you and I can go to college for whatever we want to pursue, they should go and be able to pursue whatever they want to pursue. Forget that the odds are long to make the NBA or make the NFL. If that's what they want to do that and that's why they're there, then they should be able to pursue that dream and they are generating all of this cash. So, this is just the start. I mean, we had guys --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But a lot of the cash goes to -- I mean, --

GRAY: -- that make peer when he won the champion got up there and said he couldn't afford a pizza.

MACCALLUM: No.

GRAY: A pizza. After he won a national championship.

MACCALLUM: Which is ridiculous. Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying a lot of that money goes to support other teams at the universities. You know, it goes to repay the recruitment fees, we need to cover the scholarships for a lot of those players so, you know, it doesn't always just sort of fall into the profit margin. Quick thought.

GRAY: But why should it? Why should it? Badminton brings what? Why should it?

MACCALLUM: I don't --

GRAY: Why should they have to support everything else? In any other walk of life, you would not have this going on.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Because that's the rule. I mean, you know that's the rule.

GRAY: Well, the rule is wrong. It's been wrong for a long time.

MACCALLUM: All right. Well, the teams have to support the other teams in title nine and all of that.

GRAY: But they need to change and reform.

MACCALLUM: All right.

GRAY: And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those sports and I'm not saying those ports shouldn't be supported. What I'm saying is, if the major institutions are a profiteering from football and basketball --

MACCALLUM: All right. I'm about to run out of show --

GRAY: -- that's bringing in all of these dollars, those people who bring it in should be able to share in it.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Yes, all right, I am about to run out of show. We'll talk -- Jim Gray, thank you very much. That's THE STORY, everybody. Have a great night. We'll see you tomorrow.

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.