Lara Trump: We would love to beat Hillary Clinton for a second time

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," October 24, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Hey, there, Bret. Good to see you

Tonight on “The Story,” everybody, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham is here. Today, he called out what he sees as a shameful double standard in the impeachment process.

Also, the new Peter Strzok e-mail exchange that was uncovered tonight where he predicts that there will be quote, a crescendo of leaks that will come out in defense of James Comey right after he was fired by President Trump.

And just moments ago, the Inspector General Michael Horowitz has broken his week's long silence on the status of his highly anticipated report on FISA abuse. We'll tell you about that.

Gregg Jarrett is going to be here as well. Also, he will join us on the subject of the meetings that Attorney General Barr has been having overseas, and some of the feedback on what's going on there.

So, good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story.”


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: If we were doing this, you would be beating the -- out of us. I think, if a Republican we're doing to a Democrat what we're doing, you would be all over me. And I think it says a lot about people in your business, with all due respect.


MACCALLUM: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham joins me now. Senator, good to see you. You're pretty fired up in there. What had you -- what had you feeling so passionate this afternoon?

GRAHAM: This is still America, I hope. You know, everybody in America deserves due process including Donald Trump. What's happening in the House should worry every American about the future of the presidency.

They had an impeachment inquiry vote and it failed. A 130 something Democrats voted against an impeachment inquiry. So they started this behind-closed-doors process. It's not going through the Judiciary Committee; it's in the Intel Committee. They're interviewing people behind closed doors, the president can't confront his accusers and Democrats are selectively leaking out information to drive down his poll numbers.

This is a sham. This is -- this -- that every American should be bothered about what they're doing to President Trump. And my resolution today calls on the House to embrace the process that was given to President Clinton. The ability to call witnesses on your behalf and to ask questions of your accusers.

And by the way, who the hell is the whistleblower and when we going to know and what's their bias? So, yes, I was fired up because whether you like President Trump or not, what they're doing to him is basically un-American.

MACCALLUM: All right, so, a number of the questions and one of the questions that I think, you know, got you incensed in there today with the comparison to the way the process went back in 1998 with Bill Clinton.

And going back to then, you said the depositions I think will determine whether or not we go forward with the hearings and I think that that's a very smart thing to do. So, the question is, you know, what's the difference? How is the process different now?

GRAHAM: Well, in October of 1998, the House as a whole voted to open up an inquiry. We had 31 Democrats on record authorizing the House to hold hearings. We did have depositions, but President Clinton was included completely.

The bottom line is you can have depositions outside of public, but the entire impeachment process was in public. Ken Starr spent five years investigating Bill Clinton. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee before the whole country was asked questions under oath.

President Clinton was given the ability to call witnesses on his behalf.


GRAHAM: And to cross-examine those who accused him of misdeeds. None of that exists. They had an impeachment inquiry vote and it went down in flames. This is a shadow substitute. A transparent process was shot down and you got now, I think, a closed-door process -- all the difference in the world.

MACCALLUM: So, I guess one of the things that people on your side of the aisle are asking about what happens now is you have this resolution that people are signing on to it. But what changes in the process? Because you have said not too long ago, you know, let's get Kurt Volker and let's have him testify in public -- on the Senate side.


MACCALLUM: Even Rudy Giuliani, you mentioned today, people don't understand his side of “The Story” and he's getting piled on in these hearings as well. Can you make that happen?

GRAHAM: Well, here is the point I'm trying -- I'm trying to stop what I think is a political hit job on President Trump. What they're doing is calling witnesses behind closed doors like Bill Taylor.

They give you a 15-page opening statement, but they don't share with you questions like, have you ever met President Trump? Do you know personally there was a quid pro quo? How do you explain the fact that the president of the Ukraine denies that there was a quid pro quo?


GRAHAM: The cross-examination by Ratcliffe is, is missing here. The whole process is designed to hurt President Trump politically. So, calling somebody in the Senate is not what I'm trying to do right now. We'll have Horowitz, you'll find out about 2016 here soon enough. I'm trying to stop a process in the House that will destroy the presidency over time if this allowed to continue. Now that -- all I've got --


MACCALLUM: But can you do that? I mean, it's really all in their court right now, isn't it?

GRAHAM: Well, yes, yes -- no, not really.

MACCALLUM: I mean, what can you do?

GRAHAM: Well, OK, where does -- where does it go? It goes to the Senate. I've got 46 U.S. senators on record right now, saying that the process in the House is wrong, is flawed, and it's lacking in a due process.

All I'm asking is to give President Trump the same rights at Nixon and Clinton had -- the ability to defend yourself. How would you like to be accused of something that could destroy your presidency and they won't even tell you who the witness is? The whistleblower is still anonymous to this day.

How would you like to be on the receiving end of a process where they selectively leaked information and you have no idea what's going on behind closed doors?


GRAHAM: The House stormed the place because they're shut out. If this were being done by a Republican to a Democrat, they would be tearing this town apart.

MACCALLUM: Here is one of your colleagues asking -- you know, answering the question about what can be done on the Senate side and, you know, putting some pressure on you with it -- with that regard -- in that regard. Here is this.


SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY: He needs to go and exercise his power. We've been waiting a long time on this. He needs to use his clout, and only he can do it.


MACCALLUM: What do you say to that, Senator?

GRAHAM: Well, number one, the whistleblower complaint was sent to Intel. With all due respect with Senator Paul, think this thing through. I'm not going to call Adam Schiff. Anybody who thinks that a senator is going to call a congressman to testify doesn't understand our constitutional democracy.

He may be a fact witness but so is President Trump. Do you really want to call President Trump as a fact witness? We've got a process in place in the Senate where the Intel committees looking the whistleblower complaint.

What I can promise your audience is I'm going to do everything I can to shed light on -- light scrutiny on the House process. Every Republican should be behind my resolution, and hopefully, some Democrats condemning what I think is a kangaroo court in the House.

What does it matter, if we can get enough senators to say, we don't believe the process in the House is legitimate, I will move to dismiss any article for impeachment that comes out of this sham process. That's why this is important.

MACCALLUM: You pointed out today a couple of times that you're not making a judgment on whether or not the president did or did not do anything wrong.

GRAHAM: I am. Right, I am. I am telling the whole world that phone call is just fine. I've seen no evidence of misconduct, but I'm speaking for myself. The resolution is condemning the House process.

This fundamentally flawed, it lacks due process, and it's completely different than what Clinton was able to be able to do when the Republicans were in charge.

MACCALLUM: All right. Before I let you go, one quick question. This is a headline from Bloomberg today. "John Bolton silence hangs over impeachment inquiry." A lot of people speculating about which way he may go in this when his testimony comes out. Do you have any thoughts on that?

GRAHAM: Yes, I can tell you in about 30 seconds. As far as -- OK, quid pro quo means, you know, if you do something for me, I'll do something for you, is kind of a threat. The president of Ukraine has said he was not threatened by President Trump regarding conducting an investigation tied to accepting military aid.

At the time of the phone call, they didn't even know that the aid was suspended. So, I don't care what Bolton says, I don't care what Taylor says, you can't have a crime unless you have a victim. There is no victim here. We can talk about this that the cow has come home.

Mueller went enough, they're trying to destroy this guy's presidency, it's always something, and this is a bunch of B.S. And I'm standing up for due process against a kangaroo court in the House, and I hope all Republicans will help me.

MACCALLUM: Senator, thank you for being here. But I want to ask you one more question because I'm just getting some information that's coming through from the White House with regard to Syria.


MACCALLUM: And I want to get you to weigh in on that. That story is that the United States is considering sending tanks to Syria to protect our troops -- Tanks and other equipment to protect our troops there in a -- in a bit of a reacceleration I guess of our force on the ground there. Any thoughts on that, is that does surprise you? I would guess not?

GRAHAM: No, no, it's not. So, I met in the Situation Room today with President Trump --there about eight or 10 senators.

Let me just say this. I know you got time, but president was very together today. General Milley presented a plan to protect us against the rise of ISIS, keep the oil fields out of the hands of ISIS and Iran -- there's like $45 million a month. Secure those oil fields so the money won't go to our enemies, make sure it goes to our allies like the Kurds.

The president has a plan in place, I'm very encouraged about what I see. And when the Russians and the Iranians make a play on this all if they do, they're going to meet an iron fist from President Trump.

MACCALLUM: Thank you so much. Senator Lindsey Graham, always good to talk to you, sir. Thanks for being here tonight.

GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Up next, Italy's prime minister says that intelligence officials in his country played quote, no role in so-called Russia gate. But there is one problem with that and Gregg Jarrett is up next with THE STORY.


MACCALLUM: Italy's prime minister distancing himself from the investigation of the investigators into the 2016 Russia probe. Confirming that Attorney General Bill Barr and DOJ investigator John Durham met with, with the Italians on at least two occasions in recent months, but insisted that his country played no part in the events that set off the Russia probe.

Correspondent Gillian Turner, following that story for us from Washington tonight. Hi, Gillian.

GILLIAN TURNER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. So, for the very first time, Italy's prime minister going on the record to confirm Italian intelligence officers did meet with Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this summer for two secret meetings that happened in Rome, the first on August 15th, the second September 27th. And Conte describes both as "legal and correct."

He's also shooting down reports that he personally spoke to either President Trump or Barr about their investigation into the origins of the 2016 Russia probe.


GIUSEPPE CONTE, PRIME MINISTER, ITALY (through translator): President Trump never spoke to me about this investigation. I repeat from the American side, their request goes back to last June and it didn't come from President Trump, it came from Attorney General Barr.


TURNER: Conte says both meetings happened at the request of the Trump team and he's really eager to clear as government of any association with the Attorney General's probe.


CONTE (through translator): It was clear that we didn't have any information that we are extraneous to any involvement.


TURNER: Conte says, Barr wanted two things in these meetings, info about U.S. intelligence officers operating in Italy in 2016, and info about a professor named Joseph Mifsud who was a key figure in events that led to the launch of the Russia probe.

Now, in the spring of 2016, Mifsud told a Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had "thousands of Democratic e-mails that could damage Hillary Clinton if used in the right way publicly." But Papadopoulos told you earlier this month, he insists his encounters with Mifsud were a setup by President Trump's opponents. Listen.


MACCALLUM: Do you believe that they knew or that they put these two individuals up to reaching out to you and trying to dangle some information in front of you to see if you would nibble?

GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISOR, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: I absolutely believe that. And I'm basing my statements simply on my interactions with these people.


TURNER: These meetings have stirred up some major criticism on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. sources say this bombshell news from Conte cast some doubt on that theory Mifsud has ties to U.S. intelligence and was working with the intel community to hurt President Trump's campaign.

This theory for a time, Martha, was pushed hard by allies and President Trump, who believe in a deep state conspiracy against the president. Martha?

MACCALLUM: All right, Jillian, thank you very much. Joining me now, Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and author of Witch Hunt: “The Story” of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History. Based on your work and your writing, I'm guessing that you believe that there's more to this story.

GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think Bill Barr believes there -- enough to investigate, and Jon Durham, who's his chief investigator. You traveled to Italy and meet in a secure room at the embassy to review the videotape deposition of Joseph Mifsud, you had reason to believe that something bad had been going on.

And there is some evidence and you've talked to George Papadopoulos, that Mifsud was part of this operation, this organization to feed disinformation into the Trump campaign so the FBI could use it as a pretext to launch their investigation of Trump. We don't know the answers to that, but it seems Bill Barr wants the answer.

MACCALLUM: Well, it also strikes me that obviously, none of these countries are going to want to immediately jump up and say, oh yes, our Intel folks, they helped try to trash you know, your election process. It's not something that any country is going to want to embrace easily, and that the leadership in Italy is no different than it was in 2016. Is any of that relevant?

JARRETT: Oh, it's totally relevant. I mean, the Prime Minister wasn't prime minister back then. He was teaching at a university so he wouldn't have access to that information. He can only rely on his intelligence agents who are all about secrecy, and you know, they don't always tell the truth. So he's not exactly a reliable source of information.

Now, Barr, when he was over there, did meet with Italian intelligence agents so we don't know what he found out.

MACCALLUM: We'll see what they find. Interesting tonight that we got another trickle of e-mails from Peter Strzok that have just been revealed. And this one has to do with a story that was coming out that was part of this e-mail, it was an attached story that came -- that was coming out around the time that James Comey was fired. And Page says, did you see this story? He says, No, I hadn't seen it, but thank you for sending it. I think there will be a crescendo of leaks and articles leading up to Thursday.

Now, Thursday was when Jim Comey was going to testify right in front of Congress and Page says to him, they're already happening. What do you make of it?

JARRETT: These people with the FBI were leaking information damaging to Donald Trump, and it was a concerted effort. Of course, James Comey, it turns out was among the biggest leakers of all stealing presidential memos, leaking them to the media. McCabe was fired for lying about leaked information, and Peter Strzok. These text messages indicate and there are other ones we already knew about that he was aware of leaks if he wasn't even behind them and he may have been.

MACCALLUM: So in terms of Horowitz, you know, these are the two elements that everybody's watching and waiting for, he put out sort of a slightly cryptic message or vague messages, maybe a better way to put it to Congress saying that they are, you know, the release is coming and that when it comes there will be some redactions.

I was digging through it trying to find out if there's a -- it's coming on in two days, is coming on Friday. Timeframe obviously is not revealed here. What it was you learned from this?

JARRETT: The important part of the letter is he says there are few redactions. So that's really important for people in America who care about honesty and transparency, want to know the answers to the lying and spying which is an entire chapter in my book about how the FISA court was lied to judges, deceive it -- deceived evidence concealed.

They're going to get the answers in this. I suspect this is going to be a damning indictment of corruption and dishonesty and wrongdoing on the part of people at the FBI and the Department of Justice.

MACCALLUM: What's the time frame?

JARRETT: Well, he has to make sure that all the redactions are completed so that they cannot be actually read. There's a comment period. So people who are targeted in the report get to offer their comments. But -- so I can't give you a timeframe. I mean, it could be a matter of ten days to two weeks. I'm hoping --

MACCALLUM: I expect. That's really helpful. That's what I was looking for.

JARRETT: I'm hoping -- I'm hoping it's a short is that.

MACCALLUM: We are -- everyone is anticipating what's in there so we can finally get the answers to some of those questions. Thank you very much.

JARRETT: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight as always. So the Trump administration waiting into the NBA China controversy as the Vice President now blasts the league for losing its very open voice on most things when it comes to free speech when it comes to this issue of Hong Kong. Is China getting more concerned about where this whole thing may be going? That's next.


MIKE PENCE, UNITED STATES: When American corporations, professional sports, pro athletes embrace censorship, it's not just wrong, it's on America.



MACCALLUM: Vice President Pence today slamming the NBA on its cozy relationship with China in the strongest language that we've heard from the Trump administration since all this began. Pence blasted the league with this.


PENCE: And some of the NBA's biggest players and owners who routinely exercise their freedom to criticize this country, lose their voices when it comes to the freedom and rights with the people of China, and siding with the Chinese Communist Party and silencing free speech. The NBA is acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the authoritarian regime.


MACCALLUM: So here now Robby Soave, Associate Editor at Reason. Robbie, good to see you tonight. It's interesting, you know, obviously on the one hand, the President is working on a trade deal with China. But then on the other hand, you have this very strong language coming from the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who has been pretty forceful on this, and now the Vice President as well. What message are you seeing here?

ROBBY SOAVE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, REASON: Right. I think it's a very strong message and one that many Americans agree with. I think the Vice President was speaking for a lot of people who are frustrated, who are sick of seeing these big wealthy businesses, sports franchises, gaming companies -- in some ways Blizzard that gaming company was, I think, the worst defender from a few weeks back -- sick of these companies kind of lecturing Americans about who are insufficiently progressive and then when the shoe was on the other foot with their -- they discover their cowardice, that they are not going to stand up to China. And they're in fact going to go out of their way to do every little thing to comply with an authoritarian government. I think Americans are really outraged by that and Mike Pence speaks for a lot of them.

MACCALLUM: This is Mike Pence talking about Nike. Watch this one.


PENCE: Nike promotes itself as a so-called social justice champion. When it comes to Hong Kong, he prefers checking his social conscience at the door.


MACCALLUM: You know, it's interesting, because I'm just looking at Twitter and apparently Charles Barkley has made some comments responding to Vice President Pence tonight. And he says Vice President Pence, this is according to Howard Beck who covers the NBA for Bleacher1 Report. So I'm quoting this from him.

It says -- it says that Barkley said -- there it is -- Vice President Pence needs to shut the hell up, Barkley says at NBA on TNT, noting that, Many American companies do business in China, Robby.

SOAVE: That's really disappointing to hear. I often think Berkeley has pretty good takes. That's not a very good one. I mean, Nike, don't you remember believe in something even if it costs you everything, wasn't that the line? Am I getting that wrong?


SOAVE: It seems to be a pretty straightforward example of hypocrisy. I mean -- and that's you know, par for the course again. Blizzard, the gaming company had like a plaque that said all voices should be heard, except the ones I guess, that are even slightly critical of China.

It's just -- and you know, these companies, remember, they don't want to do business in states that were going to extend religious freedom rights to social conservatives. They were happy to stand up to those people. But then when there's something really at stake, they've lost their voices, so to speak.

MACCALLUM: We'll see where it goes. Robby, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, Robby Soave.

SOAVE: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: From Reason. So coming up next, the inside scoop on Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Wall Street big wigs. She had dinner with him last night apparently here in New York City after Clinton -- Hillary Clinton says that Republicans are grooming her for a third-party run. Charlie Gasparino with the scoop, as always and Lara Trump reacting from the campaign on the Hillary news coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So, tonigh,t rumors are swirling after a Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, was spotted at a high-end New York City restaurant dining with nearly two dozen Wall Street executives. Some now speculating about a possible third-party run days after Hillary Clinton suggested that the Republican Party is grooming her to do just that.

Fox Business Charlie Gasparino broke this story and has the exclusive details. So, what did you see and what did you hear, Charlie?

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: I wish I was inside the room. I wasn't inside. This was -- this was reporting. I mean here's the bottom line is this. I mean, Robert Wolf is a prominent Democrat, cohost to her to speak to about, you know, two dozen or dozen people, Wall Street guys, people that generally raise money for political candidates.

So, there is an ulterior motive as to why she's showing up and they came out this really interesting time in the campaign. I mean, those place that Tulsi Gabbard is not an establishment Democrat in terms of like what the party likes.


GASPARINO: She is often critical of the party. She is very critical of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton recently came out and said she's a Russian asset that basically is going to run for a third party. That's what she said.


MACCALLUM: Let me ask you about that. Because I heard from somebody in the Democratic circles that the reason that Hillary said that is because she wanted to, you know, sort of throw some shade on her, so to speak, because they are concerned that she is going to run as a third-party candidate. Here's the Hillary sound.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's a favorite of the Russians.


GASPARINO: I mean, she's obviously talking about Tulsi there.


GASPARINO: Because as you know, Tulsi met with the Syrian dictator who is a pawn of Putin. I will say this. Tulsi has not said she's running as a third- party. As a matter of fact, that during the meeting from what I understand last night, she said pointblank that she has no plans to do that. That doesn't mean -- that doesn't mean she won't do it in the future but she has no plans.

And here's something really interesting with, about her. That crowd was largely establishment, right, middle -- moderate Democrats and a lot of conservatives, and they loved her. The -- she -- I mean, listen, she has a name recognition problem, you know, running for a national office but when she gets in front of people, from what I understand, she offers -- she offers sort of commentary and positions that transcend the liberal conservative sort of dynamic.

She is liberal on some things, she's pretty conservative on other things, and she's -- she could -- she had those guys eating out -- basically, they loved her. I don't know how to say it.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, she -- I mean, she's a person of her convictions, whether you agree with them or not.


MACCALLUM: She is very solid, you know. And she presents herself very well and she said what she thinks and she backs it up with the reasons that she thinks it.

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: A lot of those folks can't necessarily do that. It looks like they may be fishing around for some other ideas given the current field. So, we'll see.



GASPARINO: I think it's hart for her to run as a third-party though. If you really think about it.


MACCALLUM: For anybody. Yes.

GASPARINO: I mean, yes, how do you get in there now?


GASPARINO: I mean, it's just it's very difficult.

MACCALLUM: Well, she said --


GASPARINO: Watch Mike Bloomberg.

MACCALLUM: -- emphatically that that is not what she's doing and she is tired of answering that question so she's probably trying to get some traction ahead of the next debate --

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: -- and see if she can leverage, you know, this exposure that she's getting this week.

GASPARINO: Good point.

MACCALLUM: Charlie, thanks.

GASPARINO: Any time.

MACCALLUM: Always good to talk to you.

GASPARINO: All right.

MACCALLUM: So here with more from the Trump campaign perspective, Lara Trump. Camp 2020 senior advisor. Good to see you, Lara. Good to have you here tonight.


MACCALLUM: What are your thoughts on Tulsi and Hillary and the possibility of either Hillary getting back in, which he she has suggested --


MACCALLUM: -- for her fully run as suggested on Tucker last night, what you make of it?

TRUMP: Well, we would love to have Hillary back in, we'd love to beat her for a second time, Martha.

MACCALLUM: She said she won last time.

TRUMP: Well, I know she thinks that but unfortunately the numbers and the Electoral College vote do not reflect that sadly for Hillary. But if she wants to run, we are ready for it.

I do think it's interesting, the idea of Tulsi because she does seem when you watch these debates to be one of the very few that makes a little bit of sense sometimes.

I think I agree with what Charlie was saying there that some conservatives I can see saying some of her views as acceptable. Now a lot of the other stuff she says I think would totally turn people off and I don't know that they would get the vote but --


MACCALLUM: What is your boss, President Trump think about Tulsi Gabbard because there's always a lot of speculation that maybe she should be in the cabinet for this administration. Is he interested in her as a potential cabinet member?

TRUMP: That I don't know about. I know he's pretty sure she's not a Russian asset. He has definitely --


MACCALLUM: he said that?

TRUMP: he said that for sure. But I don't know. That's an interesting idea. We'll have to see how things shake out.

MACCALLUM: Al right. So tonight, Joe Biden sat down with Norah O'Donnell and took some jabs at members of the Trump family in terms of their positions and their work and you know, the employment that they hold in the White House. Let's play some of this and we'll get Lara's response. This just came out just moments ago.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's just simply improper because you should make it clear to the American public that everything you're doing is for them. It's for them.

And the idea that you are going to have -- go to the extent that he is gone to have or, you know, his children, his son-in-law, et cetera, engaged in the day-to-day operation of things they know nothing about. Just think --


NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: You don't think Jared Kushner should be negotiating a Middle East peace solution?

BIDEN: No. I don't. I don't. What credentials does he bring to that?


MACCALLUM: What credentials does he bring to that?

TRUMP: Well, I will say first and foremost, that I think Jared and Ivanka do such a great job at the White House. Neither of them takes a paycheck. They work day in and day out under intense scrutiny from everyone.

And you know what, I think Jared has shown that some of the things that he's working on right now, some of the folks he's met with, and again, I don't work in the White House, but I know that he's gotten farther than a lot of folks in the past with the pedigree that I think Joe Biden has probably referring to.

But, you know, it's a little ridiculous to hear Joe Biden claimed that the president or somehow our family isn't working wholeheartedly for the American people.

Donald Trump gave up an incredible business career, spent millions of dollars of his own money to run for president in -- whenever he became president, the Trump family got out of international business, much different than the Biden family who, whenever Joe Biden became vice president, you saw that Hunter Biden got into international business.


MACCALLUM: Well, it's interesting that the argument that he uses against Jared and his position is that he doesn't have the credentials or didn't have the background to do it which is the same argument that is being used against Hunter Biden in terms of his roles with Burisma.

TRUMP: There's a huge difference there. I mean, Hunter Biden was getting $50,000 a month to somehow be influential. We're not sure what they wanted, but I mean, it's very puculiar that this dad is the vice president and somehow with absolutely zero experience he gets paid that money to work for a company which he has no background whatsoever.

Jared and Ivanka, I think are very different. Listen, they are worldly people, they've traveled the world, they know a lot of different groups of people. They have a lot of different friends, and whenever you put them in a position like Jared and Ivanka have put themselves in. Again, with no pay, Martha. They are not taking any money to do these jobs, you know.

I think they get criticized nonstop. I don't think it's fair. You look at the incredible stuff that Ivanka particularly has done with women, with doubling the child tax credit, with so many of the things that this administration has done, and yet, she gets no credit for it, instead, they always get criticized. You know, and who's -- who's --


MACCALLUM: Well, there is no doubt that, you know, the answers have to be ready on all of those aspects because the conversation has gone to Hunters -- to Hunter Biden, Vice President Biden's son, and obviously he's getting asked about that tonight. He hasn't punch back a lot on it. It looks like he's starting to do that now.

So, Lara, thank you. Always good to have you with us. Lara Trump joining us this evening.

So, coming up next, some mixed reviews as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle open up parenting like in the spotlight, and Princess Diana.


PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: Every single time I hear a click, every single time I see a flash, it takes me straight back. So, in that respect, it's the worst reminder of her life as oppose to the best.



MACCALLUM: A new documentary featuring Prince Harry and Meghan Markle providing a rare glimpse into their lives and the media scrutiny that has haunted the royal family for decades.


PRINCE HARRY: For me, and for my wife, of course there is a lot of stuff that hurts, especially when the majority is untrue. I'm not being bullied into playing a game that killed my mom.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now in London is Dominic Green, life and arts editor of Spectator USA. He wrote a piece critiquing the documentary about the royal couple titled, "How Meghan Markle lost her sparkle and why Prince Harry will pay. A hypocrite, entitled beyond the dreams of the grandest duchess."

Pretty rough stuff, Dominic. Good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here. Why do you think Meghan lost --



MACCALLUM: -- Meghan Markle lost her sparkle?

GREEN: Well, this is really the worst kind of woke celebrity entitlement. How can somebody claimed to be a victim when they are by their own admission in a happy marriage with a lovely new baby, having become a princess, married to a prince worth some $50 million, able to fly all over the world on Elton John's private jet whenever you like.

How can this person claimed then to be a victim of the very media that she has courted?

MACCALLUM: Well, let's play that sound bite. The one where she asks -- you know, she's asked if she's OK. Let's play that.


MEGHAN MARKLE, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: You add this on top of just trying to be a new mom or trying to be a newlywed, yes. Well, I guess and also thank you for asking because not many people have asked if I'm OK but it's -- it's a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the answer is, would it be fair to say not really? OK? And it's been a struggle.



MACCALLUM: I was very surprised that she said that. I thought she was going to say no, I'm OK. You know, I mean, I've got all these things that you just pointed to and going through a little bit of a rough patch but I'm OK.

You know, it's interesting that the other thing that leaked out about this was that William, Prince William says that he is worried about them and that they are something along the lines of, you know, being in a fragile state and they do both appeared to be somewhat, you know, in a fragile state I guess.

GREEN: I think they both are but this is completely of their own making. They didn't -- nobody was forcing them to go on Instagram, nobody was forcing them to bring in their own team, Meghan's advisors, and replace the palaces advisors.


GREEN: No one was forcing her to go and edit a copy of Vogue. No one is forcing them to make a documentary about how terribly difficult their lives are.

They are choosing to create this story in which they are being victimized and so on. But it's really unpalatable to most of their subjects because the royal family has a job. And when you take on that job, there are certain conditions attached.

And just as Meghan Markle probably read the contract before she signed up with suits, she must have been aware of what the contract was like when she joined the biggest soap opera in the world.


GREEN: The job of the royal family is not to lecture us with various left- wing identity politics issues of the day. The job of the royal family is to be symbols of our better selves, to turn up at schools and hospitals and military events and so on.

In other words, to unify people. And part of the developing tragedy of this story is that the wedding of Harry and Meghan, which really unified people all over the world, has now given way to the situation where they're politicking and their search for attention is very becoming divisive.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, I thought it was interesting watching her speak that way and it reminded me of Diana when she gave that interview after they split up and she said, you know, there are three of us in this marriage really.

And that was such a vulnerable moment and it did win her hearts in the United States for sure and I have heard a lot of people who watch this documentary here in the U.S. who said, you know, that they change their mind about Meghan Markle after they saw this. So, it seems to be working on this side of the pond.

GREEN: Well, I have to say, Diana was in real pain and in a very unhappy marriage and she did her best to use that to draw attention to real issues, to real suffering.

What I think is happening here with Harry and Meghan is the other way around. They are, by their own admission, happy. They are using real pain, the suffering of children in Africa, for instance, to dramatize what is really a kind of millennial narcissism of feeling that the world is not pampering them enough.

This is not what the job is. And if they don't want to be that much in the public eye, all they have to do is not be in the public eye, not seek out coverage, not dramatize their moves, not act out for the cameras.

MACCALLUM: Well, she --

GREEN: And yes, they both look completely wrong out and Prince Harry looks like a shadow of him. And if I was his brother, I'd be worried.

MACCALLUM: Maybe it was jet lag? Thank you, Dominic. Very interesting. Great to hear your perspective tonight.

GREEN: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Coming up next, an Ivy League publication facing the wrath of campus outrage is forced to apologize for reaching out to ICE to get a comment on a story that they were doing about immigration because you're not even supposed to speak to them.


MACCALLUM: So, in a campus of Harvard University, roughly 100 students rallied last month to abolish ICE in covering “The Story,” the student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson followed standard journalistic protocol. They reached out to ICE for comment on that.

And that simple act triggered an intense backlash on the campus with calls to boycott the Harvard Crimson, as well as a petition that was signed by hundreds of students that reads, "We are extremely disappointed in the cultural insensitivity displayed by the Crimson's policy to reach out to ICE in this political climate. A request for comment is virtually the same as tipping them off." They said.

Joining me now Harvard student and Campus Reform correspondent D.J. Lacy. So, D.J., does this surprise you?

D.J. LACY, STUDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here.

LACY: It did surprise me to some extent. You know, I saw the article about the -- I read the article about the protest. I remember the protest. And then you know, I was just kind of sort of confused when I saw this call to boycott the Crimson.

And that, you know, the Crimson is a student publication on campus with the stated goal of informing students of what's going on and that includes, you know, going out and getting all viewpoints on stories. And you know, they were simply adhering to standards of journalistic integrity when they were going out and contacting the government agency like ICE to make sure that all perspectives are put into this story.

So, I find it, you know, frankly, problematic that these activists on campus think that they are able to, you know, police who the Crimson is able to contact for stories.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it would appear that if you are studying journalism and you're writing pieces for the Harvard Crimson, you know, some of the basics of your journalism class would be that you would want to call both sides of “The Story” and get them to weigh in. I mean, that --

LACY: Absolutely, yes.

MACCALLUM: -- is that a notion that, you know, is anathema to the people who are speaking out and suggesting that you wouldn't even call the other side?

LACY: Absolutely. I mean, I agree. I mean, the Harvard Crimson is a publication that is, you know, training the next generation of journalists. So of course, they are going to have their journalists adhering to principles of journalistic integrity and that includes anyone who was mentioned in the story has the right to issue a comment. Simply by reaching out to ICE, that's what they were doing. So, I support -- I support the Crimson and everything that they've done.

MACCALLUM: Let's put this survey up. This is from the campaign for free- speech survey. It says, that of the folks that they surveyed and they were millennials in the survey, you can see what the results are. It appear, 51 percent believe that the First Amendment is outdated and that it should be rewritten. Forty-eight percent said that hate speech should be illegal and 80 percent say that they don't know what the First Amendment protects.

LACY: Well, I find -- I mean, I just frankly find those results, you know, very alarming. This is an issue that I've covered with the leadership institute and Campus Reform.

A great example was last night at the University of Pennsylvania. Another elite, Ivy League institution. The former director of ICE was scheduled to speak and unfortunately student activists there shut down his speech completely.

So, I find it alarming that you know, you have students who are willing to go against fundamental American values of freedom of speech, freedom of the press. And in Harvard's case, and I think it's our job as a conservative on campus, as you know, a freedom of an American to stand up for these values of free speech and od freedom of the press. And I think millennials really need to learn these fundamental values and college campuses --


LACY: -- are not doing a very good job of holding up these principles.

MACCALLUM: Do you feel -- I got to go in a minute -- but -- in a second. But do you think this is getting any traction? Because I know you've been behind this movement. Just to sort of get people to look at both sides on campuses. Do you think that there is a little bit of a movement in that direction that it's coming back to just at least be part of the equation?

LACY: Yes, I really hope so. You know, this is an issue that I care deeply about. You know, like I said, as an American, as a conservative, I care deeply about this.


LACY: And you know, I think it's on all students' jobs to ensure that no matter what college campus there on and no matter where they are, that they should be open to hearing all viewpoints and making sure that, you know, all perspectives are heard.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Those are the --


LACY: And you know, that's calling again a further --

MACCALLUM: I would imagine Harvard was founded on that. I've got to leave it there. Thank you very much, DJ.

LACY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: That is “The Story” on Thursday, October 24, 2019. Tucker is up next.

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