Peter Navarro: There isn't a more dangerous company to US economic future than Huawei

close

Video

Navarro: There isn't a more dangerous company to US economic future than Huawei

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro addresses escalating tensions between U.S. and China.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story with Martha MacCallum," May 15, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. 

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is "The Story."

So, we're now a little under six months from the presidential 
election. And President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, the 
presumptive Democrat nominee are entering that ugly phase of the battle. 
And for Biden, that means that he is now under the hot lights for his role 
in the Obama administration, a role once thought to be his biggest asset. 
Now turns into sometimes a difficult line of questioning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: What was your involvement in the 
investigation of Michael Flynn?

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was never part or had any 
knowledge of any criminal investigation into Flynn, while I was in office. 
Not one single time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: We now know that then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told 
investigators that she was surprised to learn in that same January 2017 
Oval Office meeting directly from President Obama that he was aware that 
there was surveillance on the Flynn Kislyak phone call and that Biden was 
in the room when that was discussed.

Biden also, his name at least, is on one of the requests for unmasking. So, 
shortly after that came the potential crime because whoever leaked the 
contents of that transcript with Flynn's name to the press may have some 
music to face.

The President is pushing for President Obama to testify. So, we're going to 
talk about that. Will that go anywhere? Tonight, Trey Gowdy joins us with 
his take on that Oval Office knowledge by the President of what the FBI was 
doing at the time. And then White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro on the 
escalation by China against American companies. This is heating up pretty 
considerably. We're going to talk with him about where all that is heading.

Also, tonight, Susan Rice says that she is humbled to be on the VP's list 
for Joe Biden. We'll talk about that as well. But our top story begins 
tonight with former House Oversight Committee Chairman and Fox News 
Contributor Trey Gowdy, and what the Vice President knew, if anything, 
about the insurance policy that we've talked so much about. Trey, good to 
have you here tonight. Thanks for being here.

TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, I thought we would start by taking a look at this tweet by 
President Trump. He says, if I were a senator or a congressman, the first 
person that I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and 
scandal in the history of the USA by far is former President Obama. He knew 
everything. The President writes in caps. Do it at Lindsey Graham, South 
Carolina. Just do it. No more, Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk. And here is the 
response by Senator Lindsey Graham to that tweet. Let's watch that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): No presence above the law. But we do have 
separation of powers. And I think could be a bad precedent to compel a 
former president to come before the Congress. That would open up a can of 
worms and for a variety of reasons, I don't think that's a good idea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, who do you agree with here, Trey?

GOWDY: Well, let me say this, I understand fully why the President is 
frustrated. I mean, his first term in office has been under a manufactured 
cloud by his opponent. So, I understand his frustration.

I'll tell you what my advice. My other advice to Republicans would be, 
we're five months away from the general election. The House is up and a 
third of the Senate is up. Let's don't fight publicly. Let's don't have 
these internecine battles five months before the general election. This is 
what I think you should do. First of all, get all the documents, get all 
the evidence, Martha. You referenced Susan Rice.

There's a part of that e-mail that no one's ever read because it's still 
classified. How about the Comey emails? How about any text with Andy McCabe 
and Jim Comey? So, there are a lot of documents that need to be 
declassified. And if I call President Obama, he would be the last witness 
because I don't like surprises. I mean, this is not a mystery. This is not 
entertainment. We are trying to persuade and communicate.

You already know what Samantha Power and Susan Rice and McCabe and Comey 
and Brennan and Clapper, you already know what role they played. So, lay 
that out for the jury. And then I would call Biden before I call President 
Obama, because remember, President Trump was impeached for trying to 
investigate his political enemies. Well, maybe that's what Biden did. I 
mean, I don't know it, but if it's good for President Trump, wouldn't it be 
good for Biden? And wouldn't you want to know that?

MACCALLUM: Here's a question. You know, with regard to the names on this 
unmasking list, it's my understanding that it may or may not mean much that 
some of those names are there because someone else asked them to, you know, 
put their name on the unmasking request and that perhaps, you know, the 
person who was behind most of the desire to unmask those, doesn't have 
their name on that list at all. Does that add up to you? Do you agree with 
that?

GOWDY: It does not, I mean I heard that from the Samantha Power, I mean, 
you heard the number of unmasking, she requested what was so far outside 
the realm, and then she said she didn't know about most of them. But that's 
a problem, too, isn't it? If you give the power to someone to unmask and 
they're delegating that power to a cleric or a subordinate, this is the 
question for Joe Biden.

We know you asked to on unmask Michael Flynn's name. We know that. How many 
other unmasking requests did you make? I mean, were you a serial unmasker 
while you were the Vice President or was this the only one? I can't answer 
that question, but I think it's really relevant.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, let me ask you this, because, you know, in 
terms of this battle over whether or not this should go so far up in terms 
of investigation into Joe Biden or President Obama, there's no indication 
that the Department of Justice or that John Durham are considering either 
one of those two people that I just named in their investigation. And we 
know that because of something that the Attorney General said in an 
interview with Hugh Hewitt just a short while, just a short while back at 
the end of April. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: As far as I'm aware, none of the key people 
that these actions are being reviewed at this point like by Durham, are 
running for president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What you think about that?

GOWDY: Follow the evidence. I mean - that's why you put a career 
prosecutor, this apolitical like John Durham in that position, wherever the 
evidence takes. I mean, if Joe Biden didn't make the unmasking request and 
wasn't involved in any of the Flynn decisions, then so be it.

But someone needs to tell us that he's certainly not immune from 
investigation. What I took that to mean is there's no evidentiary support 
for it yet. But I don't think Durham is through either. You won't know 
until you talk to the witnesses. I mean, that's kind of my point with the 
FBI. I mean, you don't know who leaked until you asked them.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know, obviously, Lindsey Graham is going to 
get some pushback from the President's supporters on this, because a lot of 
people look at these situations from the beginning and say, no one has 
actually been held accountable. It's an enormous source of frustration for 
a lot of the President's supporters in this country.

And, you know, they've also pushed back on you about that with not 
subpoenaing, some of your colleagues have asked why you didn't subpoena 
more actively when you had the chance to do so. Do you have any regrets 
about that?

GOWDY: Well, look, Martha, I was part of the investigation from the moment 
I've got to Congress. I did volunteer for them. I was drafted for most of 
them. So, you and I could have an entire hour on the mistakes I made. I was 
not the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Devin Nunes was, and 
he did a phenomenal job. Bob Goodlatte was the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and when it kicked up to him, I think he did a phenomenal job. 
So, whoever thinks that I failed to issue subpoenas either doesn't 
understand the way Congress works or just wants to do a drive-by shooting.

And I'm not running again. So, I don't know what threat I posed to them. 
But there are plenty of things to criticize me for - just don't pick the 
wrong one.

MACCALLUM: One of the things that I remember you saying, you know, Congress 
doesn't have the power to prosecute. So, and that's one of the issues in 
terms of the role of Congress. But one other question for you, because I 
heard you talk about this in the back and forth. You talked about going to 
the FBI and getting assurances about certain things with regard to the 
Russian investigation and then learning a lot more in documents that you 
were able to see at the Department of Justice that changed your mind about 
what you had heard originally in that briefing.

And I thought that that was interesting. And it makes me wonder when you 
look back at that discussion with Christopher Wray, do you think that he 
was misleading to you?

GOWDY: Well, there's no question what Devin and I were told in the 
briefings did not match up with the documents. So, the mistake I made, 
which I will confess to, is believing the word of DOJ and FBI officials 
that came after Trump was elected. Let's be really clear about that. I 
wasn't in the room with Jim Comey and Peter Strzok, I was in the room with 
people that came after President Trump. I should have gotten the documents 
first. I'm glad I've got them three weeks later.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I'm not asking about your actions, I'm really asking about 
Christopher Wray here because, you know, if he was not forthcoming and then 
the documents reveal something separate, do you think that he's the person 
to be running the FBI?

GOWDY: Well, I did not pick him, I will tell you this. The FBI told us that 
nothing happened before a certain date. The Trump campaign was not the 
target. Donald Trump was not the target. You go and look at that 
origination, initiation report from Peter Strzok and it mentions Trump 
campaign. That's when my mind switched. When I looked at the documents, it 
did not match up with the briefing that Devin and Paul and I received.

So as for Chris Wray, the President picked him.

MACCALLUM: Trey, always good to see you.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Thank you so much, Trey Gowdy, always good to have you.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, Catherine Herridge, a former colleague of 
ours, got roasted by the Biden campaign for her part in reporting on the 
unmasking memo. Glenn Greenwald, one of the fiercest defenders of 
journalism, says that we are going down a dangerous path here. We're going 
to talk to him about that when he joins me next live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Journalists are supposed to hunt down and report the truth 
regardless of what they find. That's what Catherine Herridge, our former 
colleague, now of CBS News did this week, breaking the release of the 
Michael Flynn unmasking list, revealing top Obama administration officials, 
including Joe Biden, who had requested there was a record for it that 
certain names be unmasked, Flynn, in this case.

The response from the Biden camp to this reporting was swift. A top 
campaign official tweeted this. Catherine Herridge is a partisan Right-wing 
hack, who is a regular conduit for conservative media manipulation ploys 
because she agrees to publicize things before contacting the target to ask 
for comment.

That was followed by a story published by The Daily Beast today titled The 
New CBS Reporter is driving Democrats and some of her own colleagues crazy. 
Here now, Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-Winning journalist and Co-
Founding Editor of The Intercept. Glenn, good to have you here tonight. 
What was your reaction when you saw that attack on Catherine Herridge for 
that reporting?

GLENN GREENWALD, PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST: Well, first of all, I 
think Catherine Herridge is a reporter of the highest integrity and 
professionalism. I've met her. I've worked in the national security world 
for a long time and have followed her reporting and know it to be extremely 
reliable. I find it extremely ironic because every time President Trump has 
insulted or attacked a journalist popular among mainstream media outlets, 
they proclaim that the republic is coming to an end, that it's an assault 
on a free press.

Every time he says something mean about Jim Acosta or tweet something about 
Chuck Todd or Wolf Blitzer and every reporter stepped forward to express 
their solidarity as though they've been shipped off to a gulag. And here we 
have the Biden campaign viciously attacking a reporter who really isn't as 
straight of the shooter as it gets. She doesn't really ever editorialize. 
She doesn't squabble with anybody. She just reports documents that are 
true. And barely anybody express solidarity with her.

In fact, as you mentioned, The Daily Beast followed in the footsteps of the 
Biden campaign by publishing a really nasty, vicious hit piece on her for 
the crime of just being slightly off key. And I think that's really the key 
here, Martha, is that for years, there has been no dissent and no 
questioning tolerated in the mainstream media when it comes to the Russia 
gate scandal, the Mueller probe. And she doesn't play that game. She 
reports objectively and so she questions and sometimes challenges the 
prevailing narrative, and that's why they want to punish her.

MACCALLUM: Yes, well, I can be the second source on this because I worked 
with Catherine for many years as well and found her to be a person of very 
high integrity, very solid reporting with a tremendous work ethic. So, I 
would second everything that you're saying about Catherine Herridge, Glenn.

I also find it interesting, you know, just picking apart the Biden team's 
response if, as they say, he had no role in any of this and that there, you 
know, and if as many others have said, there's nothing wrong, unmasking 
happens all the time. It's really the leak issue that is the problem. As an 
aside. But that the unmasking in and of itself is no big deal. Why would 
they get so vehemently ruffled up over this report at all?

GREENWALD: Well, I think it's important to remember that over the last 
month, there has been a series of newly released documents that have been 
in strong tension with the conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia that 
have prevailed in the media world for three years now. And several of those 
scoops were imported by her. This is not the first.

She reported, for example, previously unknown FISA documents that called 
into serious question, the veracity of the Steele dossier and what the CIA 
and the FBI knew about it and whether they were honest about what they were 
claiming.

So, what they're really angry about here is that she's been reporting over 
the last month a series of factual documents, authentic materials that 
negate what the media has been peddling about Russia gate for three years. 
And so, they're angry at her for that. But they also want to send a signal 
that as our industry of journalism experiencing severe layoffs, as people 
are losing their jobs, they want to create a climate where nobody can 
dissent from their ability to construct narratives without being 
stigmatized and ostracized, as the Biden campaign signaled to fellow 
journalists that they ought to do. And then they obeyed.

Or imagine if you're a young journalist and you see jobs disappearing, the 
last thing you want to do when you look at how they're treating her is step 
forward and question any of these kind of pieties or orthodoxies that the 
media is peddling. So, I think it's really an attempt by the Biden campaign 
to create a climate where nobody's allowed to be off note or off key.

I personally don't consider it an attack on a free press. If a politician 
insults me or criticizes me. The Obama campaign threatens to imprison me. 
The Bolsonaro government in Brazil did too for my journalism. That's an 
attack on a free press. I don't think insults are an attack on a free 
press, but they've created this standard that when Trump insults a 
journalist, we all have to band together in solidarity in order to defend a 
free press.

Why is that standard being waived when the Biden campaign viciously attacks 
one of their colleagues? It really is a double standard that I think is 
incredibly ignoble and shows some pretty corrupted motives.

MACCALLUM: That's a great point. You know, there is a lot of egg on a lot 
of faces for people who were not willing to look at both sides of this 
story as it has unfolded over the last several years. And I think that's 
very uncomfortable for some people. And Herridge's reporting pointed out 
some of that and yours has as well. Glenn, thank you. Glenn Greenwald, good 
to see you tonight.

GREENWALD: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here.

GREENWALD: Bye-bye.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, China is readying its biggest counterattack yet 
against the United States economy, raising the question of whether or not 
we're entering a new Cold War. White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro 
joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Is the U.S. China relationship altered forever by COVID-19? And 
could our two countries be heading towards a confrontation? One of China's 
top state-run media outlets, Global Times, tweeted this yesterday. Hashtag 
viewpoint, hashtag China to sanction some U.S. individuals and entities in 
retaliation to their COVID-19 lawsuits.

China cannot always make compromises or tolerate those who constantly strap 
troubles in the China U.S. relationship. And today, they put out a report 
that, China readies biggest counterattack against the United States, 
claiming economic countermeasures are now being prepared. Here now to talk 
about this, White House Trade Adviser, Peter Navarro. Peter, welcome. Good 
to have you with us tonight.

PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: Good to be here. And good to talk 
with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Great to have you with us. Thank you. There's a plan for the 
United States to block the shipment of semiconductors to Huawei in China. 
That obviously would be something that would - they would not be happy 
about.

NAVARRO: Well, Huawei is a company that is basically owned by a former 
Chinese military officer, works directly for the People's Liberation Army. 
And it makes software that goes into our phones that can spy on us and it 
makes hardware that can be taken over and disrupt our system. There isn't 
any more dangerous company on the planet to the American people and our 
economic future than Huawei away. The idea that we would Huawei into our 
economy for 5G, that's going to be the Internet of things, all of things 
that are going to drive future growth and innovation.

So, President Donald J. Trump has drawn a firm line in the sand. No Huawei 
and our policy have been consistent on that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, they're not talking about pulling back on deals with 
Apple, canceling Boeing deals. Really going after specific companies, which 
they haven't done as much in the past. What's your reaction to that, Peter?

NAVARRO: Well, first of all, the Global Times, there's no legitimate 
newspapers in communist China. There's only propaganda rags. Global Times 
is that and it's a saber rattler for the Chinese Communist Party. I think 
it's - we generally ignore whatever happens in that paper or we prefer to 
look at the cables and the intelligence. But here's the thing, Martha. It's 
like - it's like they're talking about bad stuff here. Like it's about this 
big compared to the pandemic that Chinese Communist Party has foisted on 
the world. They've already cost us $10 trillion in monetary and fiscal 
stimulus.

They've killed over 80,000 Americans and over 100,000 people worldwide. So, 
when I think about an angry China guy talk about these kinds of 
retaliations, I think it's important to put it in this broader context of 
the biological Chernobyl they've unleashed on the world. And I think that's 
kind of what we should focus on.

Martha, I know you saw that Pew Research poll last month, which was taken 
before the COVID crisis, which showed that over 90 percent of Americans now 
see China as a threat. Over 70 percent see it in unfavorable light. I think 
President Donald J. Trump, history will show that he basically led the sea 
change on that. I think what China is trying to do right now is hit the 100 
percent mark in American public opinion on both of those things. I mean, 
what is this country doing, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. And I think that's why I bring up those specific 
companies and the escalation that we're seeing in this, because what my 
underlying question is, are we now changed forever in this relationship? 
Are we going to see because we saw 70 percent of Americans, you know, 
question the relationship with China now? Are we and I ask this question to 
President Trump in the town hall? And I know that he wants to see what 
happens with the trade deal. That's one of the elements that's still on his 
mind, according to what he said.

Here is something that he said about that question last Wednesday. Watch 
this.
 
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you satisfied with China in terms of how its 
fulfilling the trade deal, phase one?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will be able to report on 
that the end of next week. Hopefully, they're going to keep the deal. We'll 
see. They may, they may not. We're going to find out. We'll know soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, now it is the end of next week, Peter. Are they making good 
on their promises to buy what they said they were going to buy in the 
United States and if not, is this a game changer?

NAVARRO: So, Martha, let's really remember what this phase one deal was 
really about. Yes, it had purchases and those are important. But the bigger 
part of the deal Martha, was getting China to take steps to stop stealing 
our intellectual property, stop forcing the transfer of our technology.

Now let's think about this. We've now got what appears to be credible 
intelligence that China after foisting this pandemic on the world is now 
trying to steal the intellectual property that we need to develop a 
vaccine.

Now, I mean, in terms of the deal itself, that would be the most blatant 
violation of the phase one deal that you can imagine because it basically 
threatens the world. I mean, think about that. China, what they want to do, 
they want to like, they want to take over and be the monopolist on the 
vaccine for a pandemic that they started so that they can protect their own 
people first --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: No. I mean --

NAVARRO: -- and use the vaccine to blackmail the rest of the world?

MACCALLUM: It's incredible. You know, I know that you have always --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: I mean, there's not enough words to describe this.

MACCALLUM: In -- believe me, I understand. You've always been very 
aggressive in your stance towards China. I guess my question that I want to 
leave you with here tonight before I talk to General Keane is, is there a 
real shift as you and I talk here today, are we headed towards a situation 
where we want to pull back dramatically from our relationship with China?

NAVARRO: Look, I think if we've learned anything from the China Wuhan virus 
in this pandemic is that it's a total vindication of President Donald J. 
Trump going back to when he was a candidate. America first, manufacture 
here, protect our workers and economic security is national security.

What does all that mean? It means that starting with pharmaceuticals, 
medical supplies, and equipment, we need to build that here --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

NAVARRO: -- and we are doing that under the leadership of this president as 
we speak, and I think that's the sea change here and it's much more than 
about China, but let's be honest, Martha. There was a famous cover on Time 
where Richard Nixon say we're all Keynesian now, right?

People call me a China hawk but no, no, no, we're all China hawks now in 
the sense that the American people understand that this is a country that 
does not have our interest in their hearts and add to that a pandemic which 
is -- I mean, we need to get through this. With President Trump's 
leadership --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's for sure.

NAVARRO: -- we will get to the other side of this --

MACCALLUM: All right.

NAVARRO: -- manufacturing here, we're going to be strong economically. But 
China we're going to have to address that.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I think there's a lot of support for that in this country.

NAVARRO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And we are watching very closely for all these developments. 
Peter Navarro, thank you.

NAVARRO: Great to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Great to have you here tonight.

Joining me now, General Jack Keane, chairman for the Institute for the 
Study of War and a Fox News senior strategic analyst. General Keane, always 
good to see you. Thanks for being here.

You hear that economic discussion that I had with Peter Navarro. From a 
military perspective, do you see a shift based on COVID-19, what is the 
impact in terms of our relationship with China going forward?

JACK KEANE, FOX NEWS SENIOR STRATEGIC ANALYST: Well, first of all, I mean 
strategically, this administration reset the table when they came in and 
they saw China not as a country that was a competitor which is to be sure, 
not as a country that is one that we should cooperate with uncertain levels 
we should, but they saw China as a predator economically, geopolitically, 
and militarily.

And the change in policy and it's playing out before our eyes is at times, 
we have to confront China and we have to do it with our allies, and that's 
a completely different policy from the past, and that's all pre-pandemic.

Post pandemic, there is -- there needs to be a comprehensive strategy in 
dealing with what China has done and holding them accountable not just for 
the origin and lack of transparency on the origin of human to human spread 
but actually growing a pandemic from an epidemic by permitting 
international flights out of the country. That's criminal behavior in my 
book.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KEANE: So, I think what we'll see here --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I mean --

KEANE: -- is the United States is --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, I just want to ask you, just thinking back to what Peter 
Navarro said, you know, he basically said that China killed more than 
80,000 Americans. I know there are people who would take some issue with 
that, you know, that blame can be in many places perhaps, that's his take 
on it. Do you agree with that statement?

KEANE: Well, let's examine what he's really saying there. President Xi and 
his country knew they had an epidemic. They began to control that epidemic 
in Wuhan city and Hubei province. That's when they knew that.

They permitted an international flight that continue not only out of 
mainland China but out of Wuhan City, multiple flights, and when some 
countries began to object to that, the PRC, the Chinese Communist Party 
bully them into accepting those international flights.

Why does Xi doing that? Why is he insisting on that? Here is what his issue 
is.

MACCALLUM: Great question.

KEANE: He doesn't care about loss of life. He cares about the economic 
contraction that he was experiencing in this country, and he one of the 
other countries to go through that same economic contraction as he was 
going through and he was hoping that he would recover sooner than they did. 
That's what this is about, and he's got to be held accountable for that.

MACCALLUM: I think a lot of people agree with you and the economic 
contraction that they are feeling may be dramatically worse if they lose a 
lot of trade relationships with the United States.

So, General Keane, thank you, always good to see you.

KEANE: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, sir.

Joe Biden reportedly considering, in his words, a dozen different women, he 
said, for his potential running mate. And Susan Rice now apparently on that 
list.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I'm humbled and honored 
to be among the extremely accomplished women who are reportedly being 
considered.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you say yes if he asks you to be his V.P.?

RICE: I would certainly say yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Marc Thiessen and Rochelle Ritchie on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: The Biden campaign has been busy responding to several 
controversies over the past couple of days from the unmasking issue of 
Michael Flynn's name to the latest allegations from Tara Reade.

But there are also indications that the former vice president is trying out 
a few potential running mates this week. He made appearances one alongside 
Stacy Abrams of Georgia for an interview last night and then another one 
with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer at a roundtable event in Michigan 
yesterday afternoon.

And late today, another name added when President Obama's former national 
security advisor Susan Rice said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: I am humbled and honored to be among the extremely accomplished women 
who are reportedly being considered.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you say yes if he asks you to be his V.P.?

RICE: I certainly would say yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar 
and Fox News contributor, and Rochelle Ritchie, former press secretary for 
the House Democrats. Great to have both of you with us today.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Lots to get in here. So, Rochelle, let me start with you. Would 
Susan Rice be a good choice for Joe Biden do you think?

ROCHELLE RITCHIE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I think that Susan Rice is a 
very impressive woman. I mean, her resume and her experience speak for 
itself. But the thing with Joe Biden is he's going to have to pick someone 
that energizes white progressives and even black progressives.

I don't know really where Susan Rice falls when it comes to Medicare for 
all. I don't know where she falls when it comes to free college tuition and 
that is going to matter. Because we have to remember that in 2016, one out 
of 10 Bernie Sanders supporters actually supported Donald Trump and that's 
because they were not happy with Hillary Clinton and the policies that she 
was playing for that they did not feel moved too far to the left.

So, his V.P. pick is going to have to be someone that energizes the Bernie 
Sanders and Warren base.

MACCALLUM: That's a great point. And I just, you know, with her being back 
in the news with the question of this by the book memo, and we weren't sure 
if we could trust the new administration in terms of what we could share 
with them, Marc, is that, you know, a choice that become somewhere that Joe 
Biden doesn't necessarily want to take the conversation all the time in the 
next five plus months?

THIESSEN: Well, I mean, she's got a lot of baggage. She's also got -- she's 
also the person who lied to the American people about Benghazi and blamed 
it on a YouTube video. That's going to energize Trump's base a lot if she's 
picked.

But look, she checks a lot of boxes that are important for Joe Biden 
because she, first of all, she is a black woman who has -- and he needs to 
energized the black --African-American vote and she's got serious foreign 
policy chops as a former U.N. ambassador and a national security advisor.

And look, this pick --

MACCALLUM: Right.

THIESSEN: -- is not a traditional pick. Joe Biden can't look at this as a 
vice presidential pick who's going to help them win a swing state, who's 
going to help him bring out the progressive vote. This is the most 
important pick that a vice presidential candidate has made because Joe 
Biden is the oldest person to ever run for president in American history.

He will be older on the day he takes office if he wins, and Ronald Reagan 
was on the day he left office and he's incredibly fragile. As we are seeing 
from all these videos where he can't string a sentence together from his 
basement in Delaware. So, he is going to be a caretaker president. And so -
- and so whoever he picks has to be a very serious person.

MACCALLUM: Exactly, and Joe Biden has said so himself, Rochelle, he said I 
need to choose someone who could be ready to take over, and people have to 
see that person that way really as sort of a deputy, and I think Susan Rice 
might check that box in a way that some other people on the list, perhaps, 
I don't know, Gretchen Whitmer, Stacey Abrams, with they check that box the 
same way as effectively, Rochelle?

RITCHIE: I think that you have to look at the V.P. pick as a potential 
president of the United States. And look, I don't agree that, you know, 
trying to go after progressives is a bad strategy for Biden.

Clearly, like I said, if you look at the 2016 election, it is clear that 
he's going to have to go after that base, and the thing is that we heard a 
lot of talk about Senator Kamala Harris, she covers, she checks a lot of 
those boxes that represent the Democratic Party as far as race, gender, 
ideological views.

Those are going to be very important. Also, with Kamala Harris, she is 55 
years old so she is younger and she has come out in support of those 
socialist ideas which, you know, are going to be very important again.

So, I think that Stacey Abrams is also a great pick, but what do people 
really know about her besides, you know, what happened in Georgia?

MACCALLUM: Yes.

RITCHIE: So, he's going to have to pick somebody that fully energizes that 
socialist base because like I said, they have come up before and they 
supported Donald Trump and those key states that Hillary Clinton needed to 
win, Pennsylvania and Michigan --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's a great point.

RITCHIE: -- and Wisconsin.

MACCALLUM: All right. Quick final thought there, Marc?

THIESSEN: Yes. I don't disagree that he needs to generate progressives. I 
just say that he just can't pick somebody unqualified for the position in 
order to do that because that person is the president and waiting and would 
be the acting president.

Stacey Abrams her claim to fame as she lost the governor's race and was the 
minority leader of the state's legislature which is a part-time job. She -- 
the idea that she is qualified to be president is laughable.

MACCALLUM: All right. I've to leave it there. Rochelle and Marc, thank you 
both.

THIESSEN: Thank you.

RITCHIE: Thanks, Martha. Good to be here.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, guys. You bet. Good to see you both.

So, President Trump is pushing as you know for schools to open in the fall 
after a bold move out of California to make classes virtual across all of 
their public university system this fall. We're going to talk to the head 
of one university there who is doing exactly the opposite in California. 
That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: President Trump breaking with Dr. Fauci when it comes to getting 
schools up and running this fall. He is, was earlier today in the Rose 
Garden and said this. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think the school should be back in the fall. I think that lots of 
things should happen. I don't think that you should have 70-year-old 
teachers back yet. They should wait until everything is gone.

We want to see our schools back, and we want to see our country start to 
work again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: This, as we learned that the California State University system 
which is the largest in the nation, 500,000 enrolled students will 
transition to online classes. So, these kids are not going to go back, the 
students, I should say, in the fall.

But my next guest runs a private university in that state and plans to 
welcome students back to the classroom, back to campus. Joining me now is 
Dr. Daniele Struppa, president of Chapman University. Dr. Struppa, thank 
you very much. Good to have you here. Why did you make a different decision 
for Chapman than the California University system, sir?

DANIELE STRUPPA, PRESIDENT, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Well, you know, it is 
obviously very difficult to make a prediction of what's going to happen 
three months from now. But Chapman is in a special situation because we 
offer traditional classes. And so, we are quite optimistic that we would be 
able to reopen our classes at the end of August, and we would be able to 
offer our students the kind of education, face-to-face education that we 
know they want.

You know, if there one thing that I heard very loud and clear over the last 
several weeks from parents and from students is that they want to be back 
in the classroom. And I think that we have a plan to make that happen. We 
have a plan that involves obviously safety measures, testing, masks, 
gloves, temperature checks, you know, the entire set of health precautions 
that health authority are recommending. So, unless we have an order or stay 
at home we are going to be reopening.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Very interesting. You know, I wonder how much is the 
financial side of it an equation, part of the equation for you? Because I 
have talked to a lot of parents and students who said that if it was going 
to be online, they don't want to go back, you know. They would rather take 
the semester off or take a year off than go, then not be on their campus. 
Did you hear that?

STRUPPA: Well, you know, clearly, it's something that we have in mind, that 
it is the possibility and we are actually planning for a potential short 
fall enrollment, that's a very natural thing to have planned at this point.

Our decision though, I have to say is completely guided by our desire to 
provide the best possible education to our students. We are going to do 
what is safe. So, if they condition as such that that cannot be done then 
of course we are going to return to an online mode like we are doing now. 
But if there is -- the safety condition as of this time that we're going to 
be open because we think that that's the best education that we can offer 
our students.

MACCALLUM: I know that some schools are considering canceling the fall 
break and maybe breaking a little bit sooner for Thanksgiving so that you 
don't have kids leaving, going back home, going on a trip somewhere and 
then coming back to campus. Is that something that you're considering?

STRUPPA: Yes. That is a very intelligent idea. We don't know yet whether 
that's what we are going to do. But we are considering all kind of 
variations. We are considering the possibility, in fact, as you said, of 
closing the semester earlier.

I think a decision of that magnitude we have can be done later where we are 
closer to the beginning of the semester and we have better understanding of 
where the epidemic goes. But we have several task forces working under my 
direction through all the possible contingency plan. So definitely that's a 
very, very reasonable thing to keep in mind, absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, I think being reasonable is one of the best ways to 
look at this. Dr. Fauci obviously concerned about a second wave in the 
fall, what will you do if students start getting sick?

STRUPPA: Well, I think, again, the CDC hasn't issued some guidelines should 
that happen. Actually, they have specific guidelines for higher education 
and clearly, should we have cases of corona, we would have to make an 
assessment whether it's an isolated case or there is a potential outbreak 
and that might mean suspension of classes for few days or even longer 
suspension.

So, all of those things are among the possibilities. And as I said before, 
it's really hard to make a precise prediction when we are three months away 
from the start of classes, and the pandemic is still hard of control.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, I know a lot of students really want to go back and 
we certainly hope they can do it safely. Dr. Struppa, thank you very much. 
Chapman University, great school in California. Great to see you, sir. 
We'll be right back.

STRUPPA: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Speaking of college, we have a return to the quote of the night 
tonight. All that missed graduation is here, it's so sad. And tonight, we 
have a little message for you from the former first lady Barbara Bush. back 
in 1990, she spoke at the -- she gave the commencement speech at Wesley 
College with this message. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: We are in in a 
transitional period right now, fascinating and exhilarating times. Learning 
to adjust to changes and the choices we, men and women are facing.

Maybe we should adjust faster, maybe we should adjust slower. But whatever 
the era, 20 -- whatever the era, whatever the times, one thing will never 
change. Fathers and mothers, if you have children, they must come first.

You must read to your children, and you must hug your children, and you 
must love your children. Your success as a family, our success as a society 
depends not on what happens in the White House, but on what happens inside 
your house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Wise words. Read with your children, love your children, hug 
your children. That's your assignment for this weekend from Barbara Bush.

That's The Story of May 15, 2020.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.