Remembering WWII hero John Keenan

close

Video

Remembering WWII hero John Keenan

Martha MacCallum remembers the WWII veteran on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," September 19, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Thank you, Bret. Good to see you.

So, everybody, Iran's foreign minister speaking out today and he is sending a crystal-clear message to President Trump and to those who are urging him to take military action against Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What would be the consequence of an American or Saudi military strike on Iran now?

MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER, IRAN: An all-out war.

We believe that a military confrontation based on deception is awful. We'll have a lot of casualties.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and that is where THE STORY begins.

Here is how General Jack Keane and former defense secretary Leon Panetta see the situation playing out in the wake of last weekend's attacks on the Saudi oil fields.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JACK KEANE, RET., SENIOR STRATEGIC ANALYST: If we don't act or if we don't act strong enough, it's guaranteed that Iran will continue.

LEON PANETTA, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think -- I think it is going to demand some kind of response. The Iranians would respond to that kind of strike by attacking our forces in the region. So, we could -- we could see a war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, here in moments. Thinks that, that advice would be a grave mistake. And she criticizes the president for this tweet which said that the U.S. is "locked and loaded", and that we are waiting to hear from the Saudi Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed. That was from the other day

So, then, after that, Secretary Pompeo made it clear that the United States believes that it was Iranian weapons that were used. There is a picture of them on the New York Post today. And that the attack came from the north, not from the south where the Houthi rebels in Yemen originally claimed responsibility.

Gabbard did not mince words. She has fired back at the president on Twitter this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TULSI GABBARD, D-HI, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful. Your words and actions are a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform, the American people, and our Constitution.

My fellow service members and I, we are not your prostitutes. You are not our pimp.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: The congresswoman from Hawaii joins me now. Those are obviously very strong words directed at the president, the commander in chief. Congresswoman Gabbard, do you -- do you stand by those?

GABBARD: Absolutely, I do. You know, Trump's intent was made very clear with that tweet. As a soldier, I took an oath, as well as, as a member of Congress. As a soldier, I took an oath to support and defend our Constitution. To protect and defend the American people.

Not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not, not any other foreign power. Now, if for some reason, that's not what Trump meant, then he should come out and say that's not what I meant and clarify it, but he hasn't done that. I think, what's --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, it seem -- it does seem like a rather literal interpretation, and I don't know. So, perhaps that is, is what he meant. But let's listen to what the Pentagon said today. Because I think that this might shed some light on sort of where that this is coming from. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN HOFFMAN, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: We're going to allow the Saudis to make the declarations on where they believe the attacks came from and the ultimate responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I mean, when I read it, that was more of the take that I had on it. That this is an ally, and I know that you don't agree that this is a good ally. But sometimes not all allies are perfect. It's obviously a very complicated relationship, but that because the attack was on them, there would be discussions about where it came from, and then, discussions about how we would respond. Not that we would take orders from Saudi Arabia about how we would respond.

GABBARD: Well, a couple of points here. First of all, I think Trump's tweet was very clear. And if he didn't mean what he said, then he should clarify and actually say what he means.

As president of the United States, you've got to be very careful about the words that you're using, because they carry a lot of impact.

Secondly, this is -- this is about something bigger than, you know, just a complex relationship with Saudi Arabia or having an ally who is not perfect. We're talking about a country that is continuing to, directly and indirectly, support al-Qaeda.

Now, we just observe the 18th anniversary of the day that al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. The day that, that evil visited our country killing thousands of Americans. So, I don't take lightly people who say, well, you know, Saudi Arabia, yes, they're not -- they're not that great, but you know, we need them.

Look, Saudi Arabia is continuing to support our enemy, al-Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and Syria. What to speak of what they're doing every year spending billions of dollars to propagate this extreme Wahhabi ideology that's fuelling terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, yes, there are a lot of people who agree with you and there are a lot of people who probably disagree with you. But also, you know, take your points to heart in terms of that explanation.

But there are also people who, you know, look back at the things that you have said in the past, and sort of see that there are kind of two camps in the Middle East. That you have, you know, that you have Iran and Syria with the backing of Russia.

And then you have the United States and Israel, and the Saudi and -- the Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So, they see you more in the camp that is on the side of Iran and Syria. And they question that Congresswoman Gabbard. What do you say to them?

GABBARD: Yes, they're wrong. They're wrong. I'm not in any of those -- any of those different camps. I am in one camp, and one camp alone it's -- and it's the camp of the United States of America and the American people. And I took an oath and I promised to be willing to put my life on the line to serve and protect our country. To protect the people of our country.

So, that is my sole focus. It has been and will continue to be. I think as we look at this situation --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And we admire that and we thank you for your service. Absolutely. So, I guess, the next question is, what would you do?

GABBARD: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I mean, we've had enormous provocation from Iran. They have put explosives on tankers they've shot down a drone that was $130 million by some report. American drone, they've taken sailors into custody. So, what do you recommend?

GABBARD: Well, I think we've got to look at the situation for what it is. This, provocation as you put it did not just come from out of nowhere. It is a retaliation and it's a retaliation against the extreme sanctions that are on Iran.

That's basically making it impossible for them to sell their oil around the world. So, we've just got to be clear-eyed about what's really happening and how -- if we continue down this course, this path we are on.

I think you heard former Secretary Panetta allude to this that we will see a cycle of retaliation, tit-for-tat just continuing to go forward and escalate that can only lead to an all-out inferno.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, let the sanctions? I'm almost out of time. But what would you do with -- was the question.

GABBARD: As president, right now, what I would do is I would re-enter the Iran nuclear deal to prevent Iran from continuing to move forward and building a nuclear weapon. That puts us and the world further at risk.

And number two, yes. And those crippling sanctions.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: OK. I mean, that's exactly what they want. Yes.

GABBARD: There's every day that we don't --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GABBARD: Every day that we don't do this, every day we continue down this failed strategy, Iran gets closer and closer to a nuclear weapon. That's a fact.

MACCALLUM: OK. Congresswoman Gabbard, thank you very much. Always good to talk to you.

GABBARD: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, also here tonight, Marc Thiessen, AEI fellow, and Fox News Contributor. Marc, good to have you with us tonight.

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

MACCALLUM: I mean, this is a very tough situation.

THIESSEN: Sure.

MACCALLUM: And a lot of people look at it and believe that after next week, when the U.N. General Assembly happens, and there's an opportunity to talk to our allies, the president is going to have to make a decision about whether or not he is going to do a retaliatory -- a retaliatory strike. What do you say and what's your reaction to what Congressman Gabbard said?

THIESSEN: Well, first in reaction with Congressman Gabbard has said, I think it's a pathetic cry for attention from somebody who's polling at zero to one percent in the polls. So, she figured the best way to boost her chances as did launch this vicious attack on Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, she been criticize for that for making a very strong comments about president --

THIESSEN: Calling, calling, calling, calling him a pimp. I mean, this is a person who's aligned herself with Bashar al-Assad, who is the mass -- who refuses to call him a murderer, refuses to call him a war criminal. Said that when she traveled to Syria, everybody supported Bashar al-Assad, a man who has massacred between quarter a million and half a million people, and used poison gas in his own people.

And is also the number one ally of Iran, as you pointed out. So, let's take her criticism with a grain of salt. But if you want to prove it, just there in that interview, when you asked her, she blamed Donald Trump for the tensions. It's not Iran.

Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror in the Middle East. They're supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, the Shia militias, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This is aggressive regime that is spreading terror and expansionism across the Middle East, and she blames Donald from sanctions for provoking this attack? That's absolutely absurd.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, I don't doubt that you know, that the language in that video was directed at getting attention and it did.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: She has said similar things before. She has also said it with regard to because she's not here to respond to you -- with regard to, you know, cozying up to Bashar al-Assad that she believes in talking to, our adversaries. And that she's not on their side, and she just said it now. She said, I'm not -- I'm only on the side of the United States of America.

THIESSEN: But then -- but then she just defended Iran, and basically said that Donald Trump is responsible for the escalation.

Look, let's put this in context. This is not -- this is a conflict that started before Donald Trump came into office. In 2012, Iran launched a massive cyber-attack against Saudi Aramco, because of Barack Obama sanctions.

And what they were doing is they were testing the Obama administration to see whether they would impose costs on them for their -- for their aggression. And instead, what Barack Obama did is he gave them billions of dollars in sanctions relief through the nuclear deal and that didn't change Iran's behavior, it fuelled it.

So, when Trump came into office, Iran was on the march across the Middle East. If they had nothing to do with his sanctions, they were -- they were on the -- in Syria, and in Yemen, and across the Middle East.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's absolutely true.

THIESSEN: They were on the march in exporting terror. And so, he re- impose the sanctions and now they are escalating to test him to see whether he will impose cost. And if he doesn't impose cost --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, they are -- they're clearly hoping that this very provocative behavior is going to lead to a return to the deal which is what Congresswoman Gabbard, is a proponent of.

THIESSEN: Yes. Yes.

MACCALLUM: But what do you -- what do you think we should do? Do you think there should be a military attack, and what should be the sort of the target?

THIESSEN: So, he has to impose some sort of cost. But, it doesn't necessarily have to be kinetic. So, when they shot down a U.S. drone, he didn't respond with a kinetic attack, but he responded with a cyberattack that was quite devastating.

And then, when they started threatening shipping and oil shipping in the Middle East, he launched -- The New York Times reported, it's gotten very little attention, he launched a massive cyber-attack that absolutely crippled Iran's ability to target shipping.

So, what they have done now is they've escalated, now they're going after the Saudi oil refineries. So, there's lots of options on the table that don't involve an attack -- kinetic attack on the Iran property.

He could take in it -- he could take out Iranian targets inside Syria who are not supposed to be there. Or he could launch another cyberattacks. So, there's a -- I'm sure that his military advisors and Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Esper are going to give him a plate of options. And there are many things that he could choose to do that would be an appropriate response. But doing nothing is not an option and certainly not giving in the way Congresswoman Gabbard wants to do by giving -- by lifting the sanctions in extremity.

I mean, lifting sanctions in exchange for a terror or for an attack on the -- on the U.S. ally? Is she insane?

MACCALLUM: In second, a war vet. Marc Thiessen, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight.

THIESSEN: Thank you. Good to be with you.

MACCALLUM: So, in the president is also playing defense tonight after reports that he made a troubling promise to a foreign adversary. My next guest says be wary of deep state involvement here.

H is the former acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker. And we'll ask him what he means when we come back.

ANNOUNCER: This program is brought to you by all-day all-night protection from frequent heartburn with Nexium 24HR.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So President Trump says that it is presidential harassment after an intelligence agency whistleblower came forward saying that the President had made an alarming promise to a world leader.

That is setting off a fierce battle on Capitol Hill where Democratic lawmakers are trying to get their hands on the complaint so they can see what it's all about. Chief Breaking News Correspondent Trace Gallagher has the backstory tonight.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Martha, the whistleblower complaint was filed by an unknown U.S. intelligence official back on August 12. The Inspector General for Intel agencies Michael Atkinson read the complaint, believed it was urgent and thought he was legally obligated to notify Congress.

But the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire is refusing to give lawmakers the complaint and the general counsel for the DNI offered this reasoning. "The allegations did not fall within the statutory definition of an urgent concern. This complaint concern conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community and did not relate to any intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI."

For context, the President is outside the Intel Community and has broad power to declassify Intel secrets. But this has created a big-time standoff over the separation of powers and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff believes the information is being illegally withheld. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The whole point of the whistleblower statute is not only to encourage those to report problems, abuses, violations of laws, but also to have a legal mechanism to do so and not to disclose classified information because there's no other remedy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Schiff has subpoenaed Acting DNI Joseph Maguire who will testify publicly next week. And during a private briefing today with lawmakers, The New York Times says the Intelligence I.G. Michael Atkinson said the complaint was related to multiple acts.

Another source told the Times the complaint was part of a commitment the President made during the communication with another world leader, but which foreign leader remains unknown. In the five weeks prior to the complaint, the President spoke with Russian President Putin, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, along with leaders from Pakistan, the Netherlands, and Qatar.

And the President himself called it fake news saying he knows people are listening to his calls. "Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially heavily populated call? I would only do what is right anyway, and only do good for the USA."

We should note, lawmakers on both sides have indicated the allegation might be a bit overblown. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Trace. Here now-former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Matt, good to see you tonight. What do you make of it?

MATTHEW WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you. Well, I think the this is a clear example of someone that's part of the deep state, someone part of the deep state in the Intelligence Community taking advantage of this whistleblower procedure, which is clearly as Trace reported, outside of the intention of this, and then and then trying to create this firestorm. I just -- I think it is completely overblown as it was suggested.

MACCALLUM: How do you know though? We don't know what it is and what we do know is that the whistleblower brought it to the I.G. and I.G. also felt that it was worth, you know, writing up and sending out a report on.

So the I.G. didn't look at him and say, you know, this is ridiculous, we're not going to do this, so that's two people.

WHITAKER: I also know -- I also know that the general counsel from DNI and the acting DNI director looked at this and saw it exactly what it was for. Of course, Congress overreacts and Adam Schiff is going to find any camera to get in front of and complain about this.

But the bottom line is the President has broad discretion in these areas to negotiate world leaders and I have a feeling once we do hear the whole story, it'll be a big nothing burger.

MACCALLUM: And my guess is that we will, especially if they do turn it over to Congress, and I think that's probably one of the hesitations because they know that then another conversation that the President has with the foreign leader will become part of the public domain. Former CIA analyst -- yes, go ahead.

WHITAKER: And it also is an example of where this person who clearly disagreed with whatever the position that President did take in this conversation, wanted to get that out there. Their version of world politics was it was different and they disagreed with the president, whatever he said. And so they're trying to get that out and they get it to the Washington Post, and they get it to Congress doing exactly what they intend to do by the story running.

MACCALLUM: So I thought it was interesting that former CIA Analyst and CNN Counterterrorism Analyst Phil Mudd who is not a big fan of the president, he was outraged by this. Let's watch what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL MUDD, COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST, CNN: Boy, I'm about ready to blow a gasket. Can you explain -- that is extremely unusual.

Pardon me, what the heck is over the line? The President can say what he wants to Putin. He can say what he wants to Kim Jong-on. The President can say what he wants. It's not the responsibility of the Intel guys to go police the president and go snitch on him to the Congress. It's ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean -- so I mean, I think that's very interesting. And so it raises the question, what would rise to the level of what this individual has chosen to do?

WHITAKER: Well, I think the only thing we know is this individual, especially if there's the source for The Washington Post may have violated the law in providing intelligence and classified information to the press via leak outside of the bounds of the way the system set up to be.

And so I agree with you, on one of the rare situations I agree with Mr. Mudd. I think this is outrageous conduct and the President is entitled to negotiate on behalf of the United States and its constitutional power. And I just can't imagine a situation where whatever he said to one of these individuals could be said as making a promise or a commitment that steps over the line because the President's powers are so broad.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I also think that the additional details that came up this afternoon that it wasn't just a promise or one thing, but it was actually a lot of things, in some ways could potentially -- you know, it might just be an indication of overall disgruntlement with, you know, the way that the President was dealing with it, you know, so we'll see.

What about the criticism of the Department of Justice? Because some are saying that they sort of stepped in between here to prevent what Democrats see as the correct procedure which would be to release the report to the Intelligence Committee to get them to have a look at it but the DOJ is standing in the way of that?

WHITAKER: Well, the Department of Justice and especially the Office of Legal Counsel who is the lawyer of the executive branch and some of the smartest people that I know and I worked with, many of them up close and personal, they're the ones that get to decide these issues regarding what the law is and what you can and can't do. And I would stand behind really anything they say, because Steve Engel and his group are just the smartest lawyers in the government.

MACCALLUM: You know, essentially also, just as the last mention, the inspector general's job is to sort of oversee the departments that are under them in the intelligence agencies. So it does seem that is potentially a valid argument that the President is outside of that circle, and they don't have jurisdiction over that.

WHITAKER: That's exactly right. And so the Inspector General -- this process is reserved for essentially their --

MACCALLUM: Employees.

WHITAKER: -- employees and what they have authority over. And the President is not inside of that scope and is not -- and should not be part of this procedure to tell Congress.

MACCALLUM: We'll see where it goes and what was -- what was so egregious that they -- you know, we'll see. I think everybody wants to know what they're talking about and I think we will find out. Matt, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

WHITAKER: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, the 2020 Democrats laying out their plans to save the environment this afternoon in New York from climate change. Everything from electric powered presidential motorcades to calls for World War II style mobilization.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I believe is we need to move in a similar direction because the threat now is not Nazi-ism or Fascism, it is -- it is climate change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So on the agenda for several 2020 democrats today, a climate change forum that is taking place at Georgetown University -- I said New York, it's in D.C., hosted by MSNBC today and tomorrow. A dozen 2020 presidential candidates taking the stage for over the course of the next couple days. As I said, they are pitching to save the planet. Here's a little sampling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you are the president of the United States, will you lead by example and order an electric presidential vehicle?

ANDREW YANG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I will now go even better, the entire White House motor pool will be electric.

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think during this season of repair, we should have a mandatory national service one year for people between 18 and 26 because we need you. We need to fix this climate, we need to fix this country.

SANDERS: How do you hold fossil fuel executives who knew that they were destroying the planet but kept on doing it? We will hold them accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I wonder how. OK, joining me now Jake Maccoby former Chief Speechwriter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and a former Policy Advisor to Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign, and Katie Pavlich, Townhall.com News Editor and Fox News Contributor. Great to have both of you here today.

KATIE PAVLICH, CONTRIBUTOR: Great to see you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Let me start with you, Jake. What do you think about the electric presidential fleet and holding the coal industry executives accountable? I'm not sure how.

JAKE MACCOBY, FORMER POLICY ADVISOR, HILLARY CLINTON'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, I think human activity is fueling climate change and we should do something about it. And that's not just every Democrat talking about it, it's not just every Democrat saying that. That's 99 percent of scientists and 80 percent of the American public.

The only people we're out of step on this are Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump who are not just stepping back and do nothing. They're actually making things worse.

MACCALLUM: But I'm asking you about those specific ideas because it's the ideas of, you know, what is being put out there by these candidates that, you know, that I'm asking how on earth would that work?

MACCOBY: Well, I think that these are two particular ideas, but I think that having two days to talk about this, to talk about an urgent existential crisis facing America, is worth doing and I think that any ideas that come out of it are worth talking about.

You know, especially when you got Republicans making things worse by rolling back regulations in order to -- that harm our air and our water by making alternative energy more expensive by putting a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry in charge of the EPA.

This is a life-and-death issue and I think spending two days on it is worth it.

MACCALLUM: Katie?

KATIE PAVLICH, CONTRIBUTOR: Look, in 2006, Al Gore said that the earth was going to be a frying pan in the next 10 years. Well, 2016 has passed and now we have Democrats predicting that the world will end in 12 years and proposing that we completely up and our entire economy and give the government full control of the way that we disseminate energy in this country.

When you hear Bernie Sanders, Martha, talk about how he wants to punish oil companies for continuing to harm the environment when they, quote, "know that they are harming the environment," will Bernie Sanders also fits into that category because he was asked what he is going to do personally to help the environment improve and he said, look, I'm not going to stop flying on planes.

So, if he wants the whole oil executives accountable to that standard, he should hold himself to the same standard that he has without, you know, accusing them of a crime --

MACCALLUM: Yes. That's interesting.

PAVLICH: -- that they haven't committed and I just want to say something on the emissions issue.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

PAVLICH: You know, the accusation is that the Trump administration wants to dirty the water and the air when the fact is that they want to make it cheaper for Americans to have cars that are reliable and safer while also protecting the environment and the standards that California has put in place haven't had an impact on reducing, quote, "climate change."

And so, you have to do this in a balanced approach, not an alarmist government overwhelming perspective. You have to have things that will actually work.

MACCALLUM: Well, one thing that works for --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCOBY: You know, Donald Trump --

MACCALLUM: -- Greta Thunberg was sailing across the ocean. You know, at least this young woman put her, you know, she put her money where her mouth is and did not do what Katie just pointed out with regard to Bernie Sanders and, you know, everybody else who wants all of these restrictions to only apply to other people I guess, Jake.

MACCOBY: The reality is that 70 percent of the pollution that we put into the air comes from free industries, comes from building, electric, and oil. That's 70 percent of the pollution right there. And when we talk about individual proposals, and individual proposals y are important but we also need big structural change or otherwise we are taking our eye off the ball and we are giving large wealthy industries control over our air, our water, and are climate.

MACCALLUM: Right.

MACCOBY: And when we are focusing in on, you know, individual pieces of a policy, which we need to do as part of a much larger strategy, we lose sight of the forest and the trees. And it's important --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I mean, it sounds like the big structural change sounds like taxing big companies that you think need to be punished, is that --is that an inaccurate statement?

MACCOBY: No, big structural change means first of all acknowledging the climate change is happening and Donald Trump still says it's a hoax cooked up by the Chinese and that windmills give you cancer.

I mean, the idea that in this day and age we are still talking about whether climate change exists, is insane. So, first, we need to acknowledge that there is a problem and then we need to spend let's start with today's --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, there's been a lot of doomsday scenarios that have never happened.

PAVLICH: You know, Martha, yes. Right.

MACCALLUM: You know? Like put some of this up. You got 1989, rising scenes will -- seas will obliterate the nation. You've got 1970, scientists predict a new ice age by the 21st century. That may be right, we will see.

PAVLICH: Yes.

MACCOBY: You recognize that the -- right.

MACCALLUM: In 1969 a biologist who famous --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCOBY: -- climate is getting more extreme and the things are getting worse though.

PAVLICH: Actually -- that's actually not true. That's not actually true.

MACCOBY: So, their predictions -- it is entirely true.

PAVLICH: The data-- data actually shows that human-related deaths from climate activities from the weather are actually decreasing. They are fewer than they have been in two decades.

MACCOBY: That is entirely false.

PAVLICH: So, if you want to talk about the impacts, that's the issue.

MACCOBY: I would love to talk about the impact.

PAVLICH: And look, climate change -- climate change -- if I can finish the sentence --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCOBY: And I would like to talk about the impact with 99 percent of climate scientists who disagree with you.

PAVLICH: -- since you've been talking to the entire segment. That would be great.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thank you, guys, good to see you both. We ran out of time for Justin Trudeau.

(CROSSTALK)

PAVLICH: OK. Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: I'm sure that he won't -- rally, he's been hammered all day and that's a big story from Canada as well. So, we'll get to that another time. Thanks to you, guys. Good to be here -- good to have you here tonight.

Coming up next, a story exclusive with the Democrats who is announcing a primary challenge here in New York against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, her first television interview, stick around, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Unbelievable flooding in the Houston area as Texas Governor Greg Abbott declares a state of emergency in 13 counties. The remnants of tropical -- of a tropical storm dropping more than three and a half feet of rain, forcing rescuers to save and evacuate more than a thousand people. I mean, after Harvey, they are getting hit again.

Fox 26 Houston reporter Greg Groogan is in Houston tonight. Greg, good evening to you. What can you tell us there?

GREG GROOGAN, FOX 26 HOUSTON REPORTER: Hey, Martha, looked behind me, a Houston road completely underwater. Houston residents cut off from their homes and families.

Now it is a scene being replicated all over the Greater Houston area as tropical storm Imelda dumped a monster load of rainfall that has paralyzed traffic on major highways and forced hundreds of high-water rescues.

A recurring theme today, you mentioned it, is this as bad as Hurricane Harvey? Many say ten to 20 inches of rain was just as severe, just as debilitating. This is still an evolving disaster with a couple more inches of rainfall expected today.

So, I think it's pretty safe to say Martha, Houston we have a mess, and we are going to be dealing with it for quite some time, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Well, Greg, awful. We will be following it. Thank you very much for your coverage tonight, good to see you.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly became a progressive darling less than a year into her first term in Congress, but a new survey finds Democrats in her New York City district are split on whether or not they would support her for reelection.

Twenty-six percent says that they would likely support a primary challenger, 43 percent say they would not and 31 percent are undecided on this matter, so that's a lot of people, and now I challenger on the Democratic side has emerged.

Joining me exclusively in her first TV interview is Badrun Khan, a Democrat planning a primary challenge, as I said, against AOC. Badrun, thank you for being here. Good to see you tonight.

BADRUN KHAN, D-CHALLENGING AOC IN NY 14: Good to see you, too.

MACCALLUM: So, as a Democrat in her district, she gets an enormous amount of attention on the Hill. Why do you not support her?

KHAN: First, thank you for letting me come on the show.

MACCALLUM: Thank you for being here.

KHAN: My name is Badrun Khan. And please go on my web site badrunkhan.com.

As why we don't support Cortez is, when she came out, she came out being a very strong person who's going to be for our congressional district, but right now, what happened with our old congressman, he was Washington and Virginia, she's Hollywood and Washington.

She's never in the district, she's not sure what's happening in the district, she opened her office pretty late after she was elected and her ideas are extremely -- socialism is not that what most of our 14 congressional districts are looking for.

MACCALLUM: So, in your district, she was very proud of the fact that she was instrumental in preventing Amazon from coming there, which would have brought a lot of jobs to the area. Here's what she said back on February 15th.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: What this is a celebration about is that every day people in the community stood up and they wanted a say in what was happening in their own backyard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Is that your feel?

KHAN: No. With Amazon, the problem is there, Amazon would bring our economy and that community pretty much up, especially for Queensbridge and they would give a lot of work, 25,000 jobs for them and we didn't even get a chance to speak on that.

It was shut down single-handedly and I think it was not fair for that community. Because I think the community came up stronger, it would have given them jobs, high-level jobs, especially for the Queensbridge who were actually very upset at what happened.

There were people who are not -- who are upset about the situation with the traffic congestion, but we may have been able to work it out.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KHAN: We didn't even get the chance to do that.

MACCALLUM: So her net positive favorability is plus 19 in New York, 14. And she's got a net positive of plus 27 among Democrats. That's a pretty high hill for you to climb. She got 1.5 million in cash heading into that election for 2020, how are you going to overcome all of that?

KHAN: Well, just to tell you, I'm not a politician. I'm a mother, and I worked all my life but I'm a daughter of a Bengali immigrant and we, my parents had a tough time when we grew up, but today we have managed to do this and I think if people see what is she saying, reality. Everything changed won't work. It's all dreams and saying things on TV that I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this --

MACCALLUM: What would you do?

KHAN: I would do it very different. So, Let's say for example, Medicare for all. One thing about Medicare for all -- I don't know how that's going to be paid. Does she even tell us how is that going to work? How is that going to come out and people say -- it's great to say I want to do this for all, but if you see the expenses and the deficit we have --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, as a Democrat you would run on a platform of not -- of no Medicare for all.

KHAN: No. I would run for everyone has to have health insurance. But not, because if you do Medicare for all, all the people who have private insurance, it's a poor choice. We need to make a change.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, they wouldn't take that away?

KHAN: No. There has to be choice.

MACCALLUM: And what about the Green New Deal? Another thing that she is very passionate about.

KHAN: Very good, but very expensive. Like, is it possible to do that? Is that, like please show me -- I'm a controller. I do control. I do it mathematically. Everything is easier to be said, how is that going to be done? Can you show me papers, can you show me numbers?

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, do you think that these plans would increase the taxes for the people in your district if these plans --

KHAN: Definitely. You can't just -- you can't just do it there -- if you do the math it's about 535 people according to Forbes and they are about 2.7 trillion, that's the billionaires we have. So do the math. If we --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It doesn't add up.

KHAN: It does not add up.

MACCALLUM: Before I let you go, do have a potential candidate that you're behind?

KHAN: Actually, it's too early. We're still -- I'm seeing them and trying to see what, who to favor. So, it's too early to decide.

MACCALLUM: Badrun Khan, thank you for coming by, interesting to talk to you.

KHAN: Thank you very much. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, lawmakers take unprecedented steps to combat youth vaping, but some Kat Timpf says prohibition is not the answer and it might actually make things worse. She's up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y.: The end goal has to be to end youth vaping and one of the clearest ways to do that is to stop the flavoring of e-cigarettes.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, D-ILL.: We must ensure that no tobacco or e- cigarette manufacturers profit on the backs of our children. Our children are not for sale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Some members of Congress today working to combat the youth vaping epidemic, the CDC confirms that 350 cases -- 530, excuse me, cases of vaping-related illnesses are out there across the country. But my next guest says there's another side to this whole story.

Kat tweeted, "So most of these vaping illnesses are coming from black- market THC products, but the solution is to make legal vaping products less available? Driving more people to set market? How much such an obviously illogical narrative become the prevalent one?"

Here now Kat Timpf, host of Sincerely Kat on Fox Nation and Fox News contributor. I should have had you read your tweet in your voice.

KAT TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: That's OK, you did great.

MACCALLUM: Because you know. Thank you. I was doing my best Kat Timpf imitation. So, you vape.

TIMPF: I am never not vaping.

MACCALLUM: Except for right this --

TIMPF: So, would a better not when I'm sleeping, not in the shower or when I'm on the air.

MACCALLUM: And you used to smoke cigarettes.

TIMPF: Other than that -- I used to smoke cigarettes, I have not had a cigarette in years and that's because I started vaping, which is 95 percent safer than cigarettes.

So, I'm kind of confused why the government wants to make me maybe go back to something which a lot of experts agree would occur, if there were bands in place like the one in San Francisco. The chief economist there said, yes, more people are going to go to smoking to get that nicotine rather than doing something that's 95 percent safer.

MACCALLUM: So, here's what Governor Cuomo said about the flavored cigarettes. He said, "It's undeniable that vaping companies are deliberately using flavors like bubblegum, Captain Crunch, and cotton candy to get young people hooked on e-cigarettes. It's a public health crisis and it ends today."

TIMPF: All right. Yes, I was just in the green room vaping a pink lemonade one.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

TIMPF: I know it's illegal now. So maybe I get arrested when I come out of the building and thrown in the slammer, but I -- spoiler, everyone, I'm a grown up. And I like the fruity flavor. A lot of adults do. I don't know if I would have ever switched to vaping if it was only the tobacco flavors.

And to conflate this issue with the illnesses and the deaths is completely illogical because most sources say that the most of the cases are due to the illegal THC vapes because it has a vitamin E component in there.

But I actually spoke to someone named Kerrie Wage (Ph), she is a (Inaudible)reduction researcher, she has a background in pharmacology, background in neuroscience. She said she would be surprised if any of them were due to nicotine, because that component is not required to heat up the nicotine to make it go away.

MACCALLUM: What amaze (Ph) me is that we are dealing essentially with smoking again. I know you said it's a lot safer, but you know, we have just minimized the number of smokers in the country so dramatically, but now you've got the same kind of thing going on that went on when I was a kid in high school, except they used to take away people cigarettes and now they're taking away people's vapes. Is that what they are called?

TIMPF: Right. Yes, vapes, vaped life.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, and there are kids who are, you know, they are getting hooked on it and I read a study that said that a lot of them do end up smoking after they've been -- after they become addicted to vape.

TIMPF: I've seen studies that say that that's very rare. I also -- kids shouldn't be vaping. Obviously, kids shouldn't be vaping just like kids shouldn't be smoking cigarettes, especially when they're still developing in the minds --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

TIMPF: -- and their lungs are still developing, absolutely not. But prohibition is not the answer here, because this is not an issue that's really coming from legal products.

Now there's a lot of things out that kids shouldn't be doing that adults can do even though it's not good for them. For example, there's a lot of kids that struggle with obesity. That's a real problem in this country too. I still think that I, as an adult, should be allowed to eat a cheeseburger if I want. It's the exact same thing.

MACCALLUM: So, should they put an age on vaping?

TIMPF: Of course.

MACCALLUM: Should it be like buying alcohol?

TIMPF: Yes, I think 21.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's very interesting. Almost in some ways reminds me of the gun debate because the solution seems to be to take things away from law-abiding citizens and adults in order to prevent isolated instances of, in that case, violence and death, and in this case, death.

TIMPF: Well, this is even more extreme because again, these are THC vapes that are off the black market, most of the black market, but THC vapes. That's completely different than nicotine in the way that politicians and the media have treated this issue is very irresponsible because they just write in the headline another death from vaping. Another there's from vaping.

I have people telling me you need to quit. You're going to die immediately. I'm like that's not what happening. That's totally different and it's irresponsible, and it's whipping up hysteria that's completely not necessary and now I can't get my mango pods anymore and when I can get my mango pods, we have a problem.

MACCALLUM: Well, I don't -- that's why I didn't know you were vaping next door, we are neighbors.

TIMPF: Yes.

MACCALLUM: We are next to each other and it doesn't bother me at all.

TIMPF: No, yes, exactly.

MACCALLUM: It doesn't me at all. Vape away over there.

TIMPF: Yes. I must.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, Kat.

TIMPF: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you.

TIMPF: You too.

MACCALLUM: More of The Story coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: You're about to turn 100, is that correct.

JOHN KEENAN, FORMER NYPD CHIEF OF DETECTIVES: Yes, I'll be 100 in December.

MACCALLUM: What do you think about the fact that you lived to be a 100 and there were so many who were with you that didn't get to experience like life.

KEENAN: Yes. I thought about that many times from the invasion knowing that thank God I was saved.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KEENAN: I was all right. Unfortunately, there were many, many others who didn't who died or seriously injured. And thinking how lucky I was. But I felt so badly for those who didn't who weren't, you know. And there were so many of them.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Wonderful man. We are sad to report that American hero John Keenan passed away this morning. The World War II veteran from the greatest generation dedicated his life to serving our country.

He landed on Utah beach on June 6th, 1944. Fought in the Battle of the Bulge. And later spent more than 30 years in New York City law enforcement. Worked his way up to become New York City's chief police detective and then after all of that, what did he do? He caught the serial killer known as the Son of Sam who terrorized New York City.

This was a remarkable man who lived a remarkable life and had a beautiful family. It is hard to imagine a more full and blessed life and we are grateful that we got the chance to meet John Keenan and we send our sympathies to his beautiful family on this night.

This is “The Story,” Thursday, September 19, 2019. “The Story” goes on. So we will see you back here in New York City tomorrow night at 7:00 o'clock.

Good night, everybody.

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.