This is a rush transcript from "The Story," September 27, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bret, get some rest. You're right, a long week indeed.

Breaking tonight, House Intel chairman Adam Schiff, says be prepared for impeachment hearings to begin as soon as next week. As he and two other Democratic chairmen just issued a subpoena for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to start turning over the documents. While also telling him they've scheduled depositions for five different state department officials. In short, the impeachment inquiry is on.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Ed Henry, in for Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story.”

What a wild week it ends tonight with reports that President Trump huddled with his lawyers today to prep an impeachment defense. Remember the week started with Democrats like Nancy Pelosi continuing their month-long strategy of holding the line on impeachment.

But, in the middle of the week, amid those Ukraine revelations and increasing political pressure from the left, Pelosi is now going all-in and trying to sell it to some of her friends on the left.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.

The president of the United States use taxpayer dollars to shake down the leader of another country for his own political gain.


HENRY: And guess what? Even Hillary Clinton is getting in on the action as a party that was recently all about wait and see is suddenly all about full steam ahead, even though, they don't have all the facts.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: This occupant of the Oval Office poses a clear and present danger to our future.


HENRY: Well, some Democrats like Congressman Al Green have been trying to impeach the president for over two years now, way before Ukraine was even on the political map. Others like California Congressman John Garamendi held out. He waited until after Robert Mueller's July testimony to Congress, a moment that ironically, many thought was a time to sort of hold back on impeachment because the hearing was a dud.

But today, Garamendi, claimed the president's own words in that transcript of the call with his Ukrainian counterpart amount to a quid pro quo.

A Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz is standing by live. He has a lot to say about that one. But first, Congressman Garamendi joined me a short time ago.


HENRY: The president, as you know in the call, said I'd like you to investigate corruption. What's wrong with that?

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, D-CALIF.: Well, what's wrong with that with the rest of that sentence? The rest of that -- proceeding that sentence, he used the word, yes, though, and we go from there. The entire --


HENRY: What do you mean? How does that prove a quid pro quo? Yes, though. A quid pro quo would be, you investigate corruption and then, I'm going to do something else. And in fact, aid to Ukraine was never even raised.

GARAMENDI: That's -- well, in fact, it was. In fact with the issue of aid to Ukraine has been known for a long time between the two participants in that discussion. And it was understood that at that moment the, though, part was that the president wanted to have an investigation.

Now, that's not why we are going to the Ukraine.


GARAMENDI: This trip was planned four months ago and it includes most of Eastern Europe.

HENRY: Right.

GARAMENDI: For the purposes of making sure that we have the resources in place to push back against Russia's incursion and (INAUDIBLE).


HENRY: Sure. What's the purpose of -- I understand you've been playing this trip for a long time.


HENRY: But you've admitted that now that this controversy is out there and the impeachment inquiry is open. That you're going to be talking to Ukrainian officials about what happened with the call with president --


GARAMENDI: No, that's --


GARAMENDI: You know, that's not the case at all. That's not -- if that was interpreted from what I said, that's an incorrect interpretation. We're going to discuss with the Ukrainian military and Ukrainian political leaders the support that the United States must give to and needs to give to Ukraine so that they can successfully push Russia out of their country.

That's the intent of the trip. I don't intend to be an investigator. I don't know that we will be meeting with Zelensky or not.

GARAMENDI: The president.

GARAMENDI: The rest we have -- that is correct. We have scheduled meetings with the foreign minister and the ministers of defense, and other top military. This is about the military.

HENRY: OK. I want to get to something else, sir.


HENRY: Which is that you -- so, you're hanging this though on the idea that there should be impeachment here on the -- on secondhand information from a whistleblower. The whistleblower does not have first-hand information, correct?

GARAMENDI: Well, that leads us to the investigations. That are surely going to take place.

HENRY: Right.

GARAMENDI: The whistleblower clearly identifies the people that -- not the names, but the kind of people that he talked to. And apparently, and this is an assumption based upon the written testimony or from the inspector general that the inspector general corroborated the information that the whistleblower brought fourths.

HENRY: Right. Sure.

GARAMENDI: So, inspector general surely must have talked to one or more of those people. Those are the folks --


HENRY: OK, but Congressman, pardon me one second. You're saying --


HENRY: A moment ago, you said you were hanging problems and this being a quid pro quo on the fact that the president used the word, though, in the phone call.


HENRY: A few seconds ago, you said the assumption is shouldn't you have had these facts and not had assumptions before you actually move ahead with an impeachment inquiry?

GARAMENDI: Well, I can assure you and I can ensure the American people that those facts will be forthcoming. It's a very simple process now to bring into the hearing, under oath, the people with whom the whistleblower communicated. And hopefully, the whistleblower --


HENRY: OK, but shouldn't you -- you say the facts -- pardon me, you say the facts are forthcoming, but how can you not get the facts before the impeachment? You're saying they're forthcoming, shouldn't you have had the facts in this case before you moved in full steam ahead?

GARAMENDI: Well, let's just back all the way up to the Mueller report. Which clearly in the report, although Mueller did a very bad job of explaining what he had found, he had found that there was, in that case, an effort by the president to obstruct justice. So, that's fact one.

We've also hold -- held hearings on the emoluments issue.


HENRY: But, as you know, he did not come to in it.

GARAMENDI: And that's --

HENRY: Hang on. But you say, he saw a cases that could have been obstruction but can't let that stand. Bob Mueller did not make a decision on obstruction and there have not been those charges against the president.

So, now, you're going back in time and saying with Mueller somehow, there should be impeachment when he never proved obstruction.

GARAMENDI: Well, let's be with clear about this.

HENRY: Yes, I'm trying to be.

GARAMENDI: Oh, but -- in the days ahead, these hearings will continue on, and additional facts will be forthcoming. We have very substantial facts before us today. We have the president -- a readout. Not all of the -- not all of the transcript, but a readout of what the president said.


GARAMENDI: And that is damning. And as the -- as the Speaker said, the president has -- his oath of office -- clearly, there was more to this than just a nice Howdy Doody call.

HENRY: OK, and we've seen that. Last question, sir.


HENRY: In terms of you, being one of the people now who's looking at the president's conduct, take a listen to what you said to CNN back in August.


GARAMENDI: If this man was out on the street without the Secret Service around him, some policemen would arrest him and put him on a 72-hour of hold. You know, that's a subject matter for a 72-hour psychological hold in some -- one of the mental institutions.


HENRY: So, Congressman, my last question to you is --


GARAMENDI: Now, you know why that was said --

HENRY: You keep saying this is a serious issue.

GARAMENDI: Slow down a minute.


GARAMENDI: That was the moment in which the president looked at the sky, and said that he was the chosen one.

HENRY: Yes, I'm the chosen one.

GARAMENDI: Exactly, now --

HENRY: Yes, I'll give you that context. But you're saying that --


GARAMENDI: So, that was the context of -- and precisely, if somebody was in front of the White House, claiming that they're the chosen one.


GARAMENDI: Yes, the police would pick him up and put them in a 72-hour hold and that's precisely why I said that. The president may --


HENRY: Sure. So, we've given you a chance to fully explain that. Here's my question, how can you, who just a couple of months ago said, if he were not the president, and he were saying things like this, he'd be in a mental institution. How can the American people believe that you're going to do a fair look at whether or not he should be impeached?

GARAMENDI: Watch, watch what happens over the days ahead. We know now that the president engaged in a conversation with the president of Ukraine.

HENRY: Ukraine.

GARAMENDI: In a shakedown -- clearly a shakedown. There is no doubt about that. He have --


HENRY: How was it clearly a shakedown, sir?

GARAMENDI: Wait down a minute. Now, if you're going to let me --


HENRY: But how is it clearly a shakedown when you said it was hanging on the word about or -- you know, that there was all this -- you said, there was assumptions. The phone call --


GARAMENDI: Well, I would suggest something -- I would suggest something to you, sir, and that is that you read what the president said, and then, read --

HENRY: I read it.

GARAMENDI: Good. Then, read all of the report by the inspector general. You draw your own conclusion. Apparently, you think it's just fine for the president to go ahead and to shakedown the president of another country. You must think --


HENRY: No, here's my problem -- let me -- let me tell you, then I let you finish.

GARAMENDI: You must think it's fine. You must think its fine for the president --

HENRY: You're saying that I think it's OK to first, shakedown, first of all. Here is my real and final question.


HENRY: How can you without all the facts in this, say it's a quote- unquote, shakedown? And you've had some of your colleagues say, he broke the law? When you don't have the facts, number one.


HENRY: Number two, I'll admit that I don't have the facts. So, I don't know whether or not the president did something wrong here. There are clearly is going to be investigation.


GARAMENDI: No, I do know that the president -- I do know that the president --

HENRY: So, my point is, how can you say it's a shakedown without the facts?

GARAMENDI: We have facts. We have facts. We know that the president, just before his phone call withheld nearly a half a billion dollars of critical military aid to Ukraine. The phone call goes on.


GARAMENDI: We have the president's word in the phone call. We have the inspector general's -- and the whistleblowers. We have all of that. I am satisfied that there is enough here for us to proceed with an impeachment investigation.

And the facts as they present themselves today, yes, I am prepared based upon the facts that I know. Not only this.


GARAMENDI: But the Mueller report, the emoluments issues, those things put those things together, and I'm prepared to vote for an impeachment.

Now, we will have --

HENRY: All right.

GARAMENDI: That is the moment. We will have an indictment, we will have the articles of impeachment and they will layout -- I am certain, additional facts including the corroboration of the witnesses that the inspector general and the whistleblower have brought forth.

HENRY: OK. So, we will see if it's a fair look and whether or not you get that corroboration. Congressman, thanks for coming in.

GARAMENDI: You and I will have a chance to do just that.

HENRY: All right. Thank you, Congressman.


HENRY: Looking forward to round two of that. Here now, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz. He sits, of course, on the House Judiciary Committee and he's a close to ally of the president. Good evening, Congressman.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Good evening. I've seen the like, you know, pin the tail on the donkey child's game. But that was like pin the tail on the impeachment theory from John Garamendi.

We went from collusion to obstruction of justice, to emoluments, to the Ukraine, for goodness sakes. I think Democrats will have to have a little bit more cohesive of a message to convince the country.

HENRY: So, do you think it's going to backfire on them? Because there's sort of this conventional wisdom building among Republicans that this could be some ugly headlines for a while, but in the long run this is going to blow up politically because the Democrats -- the Republicans believe anyway, went ahead without having all the facts. What say you?

GAETZ: Remember, Nancy Pelosi didn't do too well at the ballot box after she said, we should vote for Obamacare. And then, afterwards read it and find out what's in it. This is sort of the impeachment version of the same theory. Let's impeach the president, and then, hopefully, along the way, we'll gather the evidence.

But there's something very different here, Ed, than we saw in the Russia investigation. In the Russia investigations, Democrats went slowly because they believed over time, the evidence would get better for them with the Mueller report, with Mueller's testimony with McGahn, or Barr.

Here, they don't want to get the facts. And, in fact, they're so far away from the facts. Adam Schiff literally has to make-up a fake transcript.

HENRY: Yes, we saw that.

GAETZ: And try to read it into the record. And I think that is indicative of Democrats with a strategy of impeachment by rocket docket. They are going to de-carbon through our country with impeachment before they carbon to their Thanksgiving turkey.

HENRY: So, you think it's going to happen that fast. So, here's my next question though to turn it around on you and Republicans, which is another difference from the Republican investigation -- of the Russia investigation with Bob Mueller is that we before did not have a transcript of a phone call where the president of the United States says, I need a favor to another world leader.

Aren't you troubled as somebody who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, by the president, saying to another world leader, I need a favor and it involves another country, apparently, interfering in our elections?

GAETZ: If we're going to impeach every president that asks for a favor from a foreign leader, we're probably just going to have to have a standing committee on impeachment and impeach every one of them. Joe Biden is not - -


HENRY: Sure, but Congressman, (INAUDIBLE). But congressman, we just went through 2-1/2 years, and you've been on many times, saying, you know, there was no collusion, there's no collusion.

GAETZ: There wasn't.

HENRY: And then, the president gets on the phone with Ukraine maybe not last time. But now, here it is in black and white that it looks like whether you call it collusion or what. He's working with Ukrainians against one of his political rivals, you're not troubled by that?

GAETZ: Well, Joe Biden is involved the more. It's not like if you say his name, it -- everyone has to go trembling asunder. You know, the -- there is a treaty that was signed by Bill Clinton, for goodness sakes, where we literally lay out the protocols, layout the authorities for leaders or other entities of the government between the United States and the Ukraine to talk about corruption.


GAETZ: And again, the context is important, Ed, before even -- and mention of Joe Biden or military aid, you've got the president saying to Zelensky that Merkel and Macron aren't doing enough for the Ukraine.

HENRY: Sure.

GAETZ: So, he was there taking up the Ukraine's cause. He's not threatening them.

HENRY: Here is that context. The last question, Congressman. There's a new report out today suggesting even more about what we heard yesterday that people inside the White House allegedly were trying to keep this transcript, we've now seen under wraps in some way.

If there was nothing bad there, why did it appear that some in the White House, some around the president wanted to hide it, sir?

GAETZ: Well, if it is, in fact, true that this was transferred from one server to another, one reason might be that you actually had President Trump and President Zelensky throwing shade at two other world leaders that we were absolutely going to need to engage with the Ukraine to drive out Russia, which even Mr. Garamendi says is the objective.


GAETZ: So, I think that there were other sensitive elements of that call that had nothing to do with Joe Biden, where you might not want it widely disseminated. And frankly, it's probably done some damage to those relationships that we've had to go through this catharsis to satisfy the bloodlust of radical Democrats.

HENRY: All right. Congressman Gaetz, predicting we're going to see an impeachment vote before Thanksgiving. We'll see if that holds true. We appreciate you coming in tonight.

GAETZ: Thank you.

HENRY: Next, the New York Times out with a sinister. Assessment of Attorney General William Barr's role in all of this. Remember when the mainstream media tried to make Barr the villain and claim he was going to suppress the Mueller report, even though, he ended up releasing almost the entire report to the public?

Well, The Times is now trying to make Barr the villain again, this time, on Ukraine. Byron York joins us live on that and his eight keys to the Trump impeachment. That is next.


HENRY: Well, Democrats now quickly turning their sights on the Attorney General William Barr in the wake of the whistleblower controversy. Nancy Pelosi accusing him of going rogue saying he tried to help cover up the complaint he was named in by not turning it over immediately to Congress.

A New York Times op-ed echoing those concerns saying, "Under any conceivable ethical standard Barr should have recused himself, but ethical standards mean nothing in this administration. Barr's ethical nihilism is utter indifference to ordinary norms or professional behavior, means that he's retaining the authority to stop investigations into crimes he may have participated in.

Joining me now, Byron York Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner and of course, a Fox News Contributor. Good evening, Byron.


HENRY: So we saw this before, this movie play out where they're all these accusations among media members back when the Mueller report was coming out that Bill Barr was going to cover it up, and then we saw most of it come out. Is this a replay that?

Well, the push here is to get Bill Barr to recuse himself from the situation because from a democratic perspective, that worked pretty well in the Russia affair when they got Jeff Sessions, who was then the Attorney General, to recuse himself. The President was incredibly mad about that. He's still mad about that, I think. And now the idea is to get Bill Barr out.

And I think the Justice Department position is, look, just because this whistleblower complaint mentions the Attorney General, and because the President himself on this phone call mentioned, the Attorney General, it doesn't mean the Attorney General actually did anything.

The Justice Department issued a release saying that -- I got it right here -- the President has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate the Biden's. The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine on this or any other matter and the Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine on this or any other subject. So that's their position right now.

HENRY: Yes. So that's what he's trying to get at, among other things with the Democratic Congressman John Garamendi, which is there's a lot of suppositions. There are parts of this that do not look good for the President, there are other parts of it were Democrats are running without knowing all the facts.

Here's something, a soundbite we have from Fred Fleitz. He used to work in the National Security Council. There's these allegations of a cover-up because the transcript of the call was put in a different server. Here's what he says about that. Watch.


FRED FLEITZ, CHIEF OF STAFF, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: When I handled transcripts of presidential phone calls of foreign leaders when I was at the NSC last year, we put the transcripts into a very secure, top-secret codeword system. I don't see any difference for what this alleged whistleblower is claiming. I don't think there was any change.


HENRY: So I mentioned a moment ago that you just wrote about the eight keys to impeachment. No, you're not going to get to all eight. But as you hear that, and people actually put facts on the table, what should we be looking for in the days ahead?

YORK: That is really the first one because the whistleblower account and now the Democrats claim that the White House took this record of the phone call, and they took it from a relatively open computer storage system, and they put it into a super-secret storage system, and that they say, indicates a consciousness of guilt.

There's a backstory in this. Back in 2017, there were two leaks of presidential conversations. One, a conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia, the other were the president of Mexico, these were appalling leaks to national security experts. And after that, the White House greatly restricted the distribution of records of these calls, and they put them in a much more secure place. The question is --

HENRY: So there may be a lot more facts here.

YORK: Exactly. The question is, did they handle this transcript in a way that was really super unusual or are other presidential communications also in that system?

HENRY: We're going to have to find that in the days ahead. Check out the rest of his Keys to Impeachment, Byron York at Washington Examiner, I appreciate you coming in.

YORK: Thank you, Ed.

HENRY: Moments ago, the 2020 contender Joe Biden holding his first public campaign event since details of the President's call with Ukrainian president came to light. What the former vice president is now saying about those calls for an investigation into his own son, that is next.


HENRY: Well, a short time ago, 2020 contender Joe Biden holding his first public campaign event since a released of that transcript we've been talking about detailing President Trump's call for the investigation into Biden son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine. Our correspondent Claudia Cowan is live in Las Vegas where the former vice president just spoke. Good evening.

CLAUDIA COWAN, CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Ed. Well, anyone hoping that Joe Biden would clarify his role or his son's role in the Ukraine matter left this event here today disappointed. Instead, the former vice president use the controversy to make a campaign point. Listen.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Again, it's not about me. Well, overcome this. This is this is fine. My family handle this. But I'm worried about all the families and all the lives that are at stake in this election because of his failure as a president in terms of the substance of what needs to be done.


COWAN: Biden also accused the president of playing dirty politics to win reelection.


BIDEN: It's pretty clear that he will stop at nothing to hold on to power. And after 70 straight polls have shown me beating him, I think it's not -- it is not surprising that I become the object of his attention.


COWAN: These developments come as Senator Elizabeth Warren gains momentum in the Democratic primary. One recent national poll has her pulling ahead of Biden, another has her closing in here in Nevada trailing by just four points.

This is Joe Biden's third trip to the Silver State in as many months. Nevada is third in line to vote behind Iowa and New Hampshire. Its caucus is just five months away. Joe Biden now attending a fundraiser here in Nevada. Tomorrow, he has additional fundraisers in Utah and in Colorado.

And at this point, Ed, it remains to be seen when or if he will address questions regarding his role and that of his son as they relate to Ukraine.

HENRY: Absolutely.

COWAN: Back to you.

HENRY: Claudia Cowan, thanks for being live for us tonight. Joining me now Guy Benson, host of the "GUY BENSON SHOW" on Fox radio and a Fox News Contributor, Ed Rendell former Pennsylvania governor, of course, former chairman of the DNC and a Biden, surrogate. Good evening, gentlemen.



HENRY: Ed, I want to start with you because I want to give you a fair shot here. On one hand, former vice president making that point he's made before that basically he believes he can beat the president like a drum and that's why the President may be nervous about him. But on the other hand, does he need to have some sort of accounting of his son's business dealings at some point?

RENDELL: Now, I think what he said on this is pretty clear. Virtually every news media outlet in America investigated back when he was vice president, and Hunter Biden had this business in the Ukraine. Investigated to see if there was any connection if there was any wrongdoing if there was any influence peddling and not one of them found anything, not one is either wrong, and I think you should stick with that.

HENRY: OK. Guy, I'm not sure that every media organization investigated this. I'll let Ed make his point. But do you believe this is really the last we've heard of Hunter Biden's business dealings, Guy?

BENSON: No, of course not. Because there is also a China issue, as well here. But just on the Ukraine question, look, I think that we can look at the events of the last week and separate out, did the president do something wrong? That is one question, and a serious one.

There are also legitimate questions to be asked of the former vice president. One just being why is it that his son, when he is the point man of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy, why does his son get hired by this Ukrainian gas company for $50,000 a month with no expertise? That's odd.

And when he is asked, Joe Biden, did you ever talk to your son about these dealings, he said no, never, and then in print in the New Yorker from Hunter Biden's mouth himself, yes, we did talk about it.


BENSON: Those are both I think problems for you Joe Biden and he does need to answer those questions.


BENSON: And hiding out about it, I don't think is transparent, and it's not going to last.

HENRY: Ed, I just asked that a question to a Republican congressman, that if there was nothing to hide in the Ukrainian call, why does it appear White House aides wanted to hide the transcript at first?

I'll turn the same question on you. If there's no problem with Hunter Biden's business dealings, why did Hunter Biden as was just noted by Guy tell the New Yorker yes, I did talk to my dad about those business dealings. And then the vice president when asked by our own Peter Doocy a few days ago said, they never spoke about it. How does he not have his story straight?

RENDELL: Well, again, I don't know how because people don't always remember evens the same. But look, virtually every major news outlet, I again, repeat, has investigated and looked into those charges. And it was asked and answered, there was nothing there.

And look, the issue here is Donald Trump admitted to a crime. You don't have to look any further. You don't have to find a quid pro quo. It is against a law to ask a foreign country to intervene and help in a national election. And he conspired to --


HENRY: Well, it's not clear that he committed a crime. We're going to let you talk but the president has denied there was a crime.

RENDELL: And it's clear to me I was a formal prosecutor.

HENRY: Well, it hasn't been tested yet.

RENDELL: But I think it's crystal clear that he violated the law that said you don't ask a federal -- foreign government to intervene.

HENRY: OK. We'll see if the facts backed that up. Guy, last question. There's a conventional wisdom building. Conventional wisdom can be wrong. The conventional wisdom said Donald Trump wouldn't win in 2016, for example. But this conventional wisdom that Biden is going to knocked out and Elizabeth Warren is going to be the nominee because of all of this. What say you?

BENSON: Well, first, I would just on the previous point, I would say that it's an open question whether or not the president committed a crime.

HENRY: Right.

BENSON: I think what he did is serious and I have ethical problems with it. I think it's a wrong thing that he did. The Justice Department did look at it and did not say there was a crime. So that's not a settled issue. As for Elizabeth Warren --

RENDELL: Bill Barr?

BENSON: -- look, she's had, -- yes, Attorney General Barr who is a serious person.

HENRY: Last point.

BENSON: So, Elizabeth Warren --


RENDELL: Not anymore. He used to be a serious person.


BENSON: OK. That's fair enough, if that's your opinion. I disagree. Elizabeth Warren has had a very good week. It's not a good week for Trump. It's not a good week for Biden. And she is sitting back and letting it play out.

HENRY: But there are people in the president's camp who think if she is the nominee it's going to be good for the president. We'll see how it plays out.

Guy, Ed, we appreciate you both coming in.

BENSON: Thank you.

HENRY: Next, 2020 Democrat Beto O'Rourke, remember him? He tells pro-gun protesters who showed up to his rally with assault rifles, we are going to buy them back. What Sergeant Joey Jones respond to that one, next.


FMR. REP. BETO O'ROURKE, D-TX, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Nobody should show up with one of these weapons to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy. That's wrong. That's wrong.




BETO O'ROURKE: It is not enough to stop selling AR-15s and AK-47s. When there are more than 10 million of those potential instruments of terror, we must mandate that every single one of them be bought back, back home, off the streets, out of our lives.


BETO O'ROURKE: Nobody should show up with one of these weapons to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy. That's wrong. That's wrong.


HENRY: Well, Beto O'Rourke getting fired up this week when pro-gun protesters showed up to his Ohio rally with assault rifles. The 2020 presidential candidate later taking to Twitter to reaffirm his calls for a mandatory buyback, writing in part, quote, "People brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State, where four students were shot dead in 1970. We need to buyback every single one of them."

Here now is Johnny Joey Jones, a retired U.S. Marine Corps bomb technician and a Fox News contributor. God evening, Johnny.


HENRY: You've been outspoken on this issue. And with Beto O'Rourke still pushing it, what do you think about it?

JONES: Well, first of all, there's two issues here that Beto is addressing. One, I absolutely agree with Beto that no one should ever show up with guns as a means of intimidating. If you have a gun, if you point a gun at someone, you better pull the trigger, that's the rule, right? If you're going to have a gun like that, you have to use it in a situation that dictates it.

If you are not in a situation where you need to use your gun, it's up to your discretion depending on the state whether you're going to brandish it or carry it openly.

And the thing Beto fails to mention and the thing that really is a defining characteristic here is, they aren't 10 million, AK's or AR's out there. There are 20 million semiautomatic guns out there that can function essentially the same way with the same ammunition.

And the point there is with 20 million of these guns out there a few dozen in as many years have been used to invoke terror, but it's people like Beto that don't understand guns and fear them, that put fear in other people that are also ignorant of these guns and what they are. Beto lives in Texas. I guarantee you he's never more than a few feet away from a semiautomatic weapon. I live in Texas.

And yet, he's never been hurt by one, and that's the point. The point we have hundreds of millions of Americans here that have constitutional rights and it's our job and responsibility as political leaders and outspoken advocates --


JONES: -- to root out the motivation not the tool. Beto has attached himself to this, in my opinion, taking advantage of a tragedy in his district to invoke fear and hopefully spur votes and to me, that's absolutely disgusting.

HENRY: Well, he believes there needs to be gun control, he's made that clear. There's a retired police officer who testified on Capitol Hill this week and maybe turn the debate a little bit by talking about the Second Amendment. Watch.


DIANNA MULLER, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: My firearm is the great equalizer and levels the playing field. I own and carry firearms, not to take a life, but to protect a life. Please don't legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. I will not comply with the assault weapons ban.


HENRY: She is saying need that as self-defense. And this debate started with a lot of opponents of the Second Amendment saying there's going to be dramatic changes coming. It doesn't seem like they are coming.

JONES: No, I don't think so. I don't think the American people support this. I think those that do -- see, politicians like to confuse you with anecdotal terms like 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. Well, how many of those Americans don't understand the background checks we already have or what universal background checks would be?

And that's the problem in all of this, is that this is a political talking point used, unfortunately, on both sides, to invoke fear in voters and get them to the polls because they either fear for their lives or they fear for their rights. And that's unfortunate. It's not only unfortunate, it's irresponsible, and that's what politicians like Beto make their living at doing.

I'm here to tell you that any conversation you want to have about gun laws, unwilling to have. If you'll take the time to educate yourself and know what we're talking about.


JONES: At the end of the day, we accept alcohol in this country because of its recreational purpose. There is no utility to alcohol outside of having a good time, yet thousands of people die from it every year. It's not to say the two things are equal, but to stay in a country that is free, freedom comes with risk.


JONES: And we root out those that would use it badly.

HENRY: Absolutely. Johnny Joey Jones, we appreciate you coming in tonight.

JONES: Thanks, Ed.

HENRY: Today marks one year since this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?


ACCUSER: One hundred percent.


HENRY: Well, now some Democrats are commemorating that day by renewing calls for Justice Kavanaugh's impeachment. Our ladies' night panel is here on that, next.


HENRY: Well, it's been exactly one year since Christine Blasey Ford took her sexual misconduct allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the American people in an emotionally charged hearing.

Now, Senator Kamala Harris is marking the occasion with renewed calls for Kavanaugh's impeachment, writing in a new op-ed, quote, "We need to get to the truth about Kavanaugh, and I believe the best path to truth and accountability is through a formal impeachment process. We still have a chance to get it right."

For a look back at how all it unfolded, our chief breaking news correspondent Trace Gallagher is here with the back story. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Ed. The confirmation hearing actually began on September 4th of last year, Brett Kavanaugh delivered his opening remarks, and Democrats called for a delay to go over thousands of documents released the night before.

It wasn't until eight days later that reports started surfacing that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee, had gotten a letter detailing an accusation against Brett Kavanaugh.

The media speculation frenzy was on, and then September 16th, the Washington Post made Christine Blasey Ford's accusation public, which was that during a high school party, Kavanaugh and a friend trapped her in a room, and Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

In the days that followed, there were accusations from other women, but they lacked evidence and corroboration. And Brett Kavanaugh gave an exclusive interview to Martha MacCallum. Watch.


BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: What I know is the truth, and the truth is, I've never sexually assaulted anyone. In high school or otherwise.


GALLAGHER: That interview was three days before both Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford appeared before the Senate judiciary committee. Democrats ask their own questions. Most Republicans past their five minutes to an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor. And through it all, Blasey Ford said she was 100 percent certain Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Look.


FORD: I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling.


GALLAGHER: Blasey Ford's testimony also included several lapses of memory, inconsistencies, and straight up contradictions. And when Brett Kavanaugh addressed the committee, his anger was evident. Look.


KAVANAUGH: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed.


GALLAGHER: And the nominee wasn't the only one frustrated. Democrats pushed for a wider investigation, and failed to get it. At one point, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham turned to Kavanaugh and said, if you're looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time. Ed?

HENRY: Trace, I appreciate it. Here now for ladies' night, Cathy Areu, Susan Li, ad Tammy Bruce, welcome all.


HENRY: Everyone has been excited to talk, but Tammy, you are chomping at the bit --


HENRY: -- during the lead up.

BRUCE: It's the reminder of how absurd everything was last year, the ridiculousness of it, what we've also went through a couple weeks ago with the book that came out, that accused him of another assault against a woman who had no memory of it ever occurring.

It is -- this is a man who is probably now one of the most investigated men in the country. And Kamala Harris comes out, look, she's going down in the polls, she's looking for something new, and once again, launches in here in an attempt to destroy that man and his family.

I don't know also, maybe she needs to have a talk with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Ginsburg, who went on the record when she did not have to, saying that justice -- both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh were very decent man.

She called that hearing that Kamala Harris was the ringmaster of dysfunctional. She said that she hoped patriots on both sides of the aisle would make sure it would never happen. And she called it a highly partisan show.

So, this is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To launch back into the absurdity of what we experienced last year I think reminds Americans what we are up against.

HENRY: Cathy, you are coming it from the left.

CATHY AREU, FOUNDER, CATALINA MAGAZINE: Well, I'm coming at it from that's exactly what Kamala Harris wants to do, wants to go up in the polls and she knows that this moment, this reminder of this moment is so important. That getting that feeling that people had last year --


HENRY: Well it speaks to what Tammy was saying, I didn't mean to just categorize you, but your perspective, I mean, she laid out how even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said this is a fine man.

AREU: Right.

HENRY: So how can the left continue --


AREU: I think I was actually on this very show saying that it shouldn't -- it shouldn't happen before the hearing, so many people thought this shouldn't happen to this man because the facts weren't all there. But then when Ford was at those hearings it spoke to so many people on the left. It got them so energized, and I think that's what's happening for 2020, whoever is most energized wins.

HENRY: But is it a question, Susan, of who is energized, or where the actual facts where the truth is -- I was struck by this op-ed and the Deseret News in Utah, a woman Savannah Hopkinson who was a victim she says of sexual assault, wrote this op-ed saying let the Kavanaugh wound heal.

LI: I agree.

HENRY: Why won't some people move on?

LI: It was such a divisive time a year ago and we've litigated this. I mean, how many more times do we need to relitigate with no new evidence, by the way -- I mean, the woman at the center of that New York Times article, she didn't subject herself to an interview, she doesn't even remember the incident.

Let's just let things lie and move on from here. These are political capital for other things.

AREU: But they have the megaphone. This is the perfect opportunity to change the topic --


AREU -- before a new tweet comes out from the tweeter-in-chief.


HENRY: Good point.

BRUCE: When They did this before, of course they not only didn't win the Senate, the GOP gained more seats in the Senate, because the American people --


HENRY: You're saying the Democrats didn't win.

BRUCE: The Democrats did no, of course. And the GOP --


AREU: But they won the House.

BRUCE: Well, but that was in even more of an intense statement that they did not like what they saw happened in the Senate. They didn't like it at all. And if they want to redo of repulsing the American people, they are going to have a -- they're apparently on their way to doing that.

HENRY: Let's talk about another quick point on the Me Too movement. Al Franken kind of disappeared for a while as a Democratic senator after he resigned over those allegations, and he is now sort of trying to stage a comeback. Here he is on Conan's show talking about how he didn't get a fair shot. Watch.


FMR. SEN. AL FRANKEN, D-MINN.: To get a U.S. senator to publicly admit, you know, he or she made a mistake, that's hard, and again, eat. You know, that's unusual.


FRANKEN: And so, they just basically all said that I deserved due process. I believe I did too.


HENRY: He as a Democrat did not get due process, there was a rush to judgment.

AREU: He didn't get due process but there was a photo. And he did the right thing, and he said he felt bad, he apologized. She accepted the apology. Isn't it nice if someone in the White House would apologize for some of his actions?

HENRY: Tammy?

BRUCE: Well, this was the beginning of cancel culture, if you will. And he resigned as he did because he was -- he had been trained that you just say OK and you move away.

AREU: That was the right thing to do.

BRUCE: We began, conservatives began talking about the importance of due process during the Kavanaugh situation, we reminded people to take women seriously, but not to just automatically believe. That due process, innocent until proven guilty, matters.

Democrats were saying Kavanaugh was guilty until proven innocent, and I think that now Democrats and liberals like Mr. Franken must realize that their facilitation of this kind of attitude kind of made that problem worse.

HENRY: Susan?

LI: When the majority of your peers say, you know, either we censure you, we remove you, or you have to go, I think you have to go. You can't keep relitigating everything.

HENRY: Ladies, by the way, last time I hosted a ladies' night panel, I was criticized for not bringing food. So, we're almost in fall. These are pumpkin cheesecake muffins.

AREU: Wow.

LI: Wow.

BRUCE: Wow. The best.

HENRY: I wanted to be a good host. And I figured you could start your weekend -- you know, everybody likes the pumpkin --


BRUCE: Did you make this or no?

HENRY: I might have gone -- I might have sent somebody to Starbucks. I might not --


BRUCE: They smell very good.

AREU: I agree.

HENRY: Well, I hope you enjoy. I hope you have a great weekend.

BRUCE: Thank you.

LI: I don't have that many carbs but I'll have some for you.

HENRY: I appreciate all of your insights, as always.

BRUCE: Lovely.

HENRY: Thanks for coming in. More of THE STORY is next.


HENRY: Well, this Fox News alert. A short time ago, the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was speaking at the New Jersey Democratic State Committee's annual conference. Here's what she had to say about opening the impeachment inquiry.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: So, this is not a cause for any joy that we have to go down this path. It's a difficult decision to make. But we have that obligation. Because in the actions that were taken --


PELOSI: -- that undermine the Constitution and the oath we take to protect and defend.


HENRY: Speaker continuing her comments on all of this. That is “The Story” for Friday, September 27th, 2019. But as always, “The Story” goes on. I'll see you bright and early tomorrow morning on "Fox & Friends." Join us at 6 a.m. Eastern Time. Have a great 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.