Rep. Khanna: Unredacted Mueller report would help Congress further investigate FBI testimonies

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Good evening, Bret. Good to see you. Hello, everybody. Tonight, the president says that he thinks he can likely reach a China deal by June one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: China has been taken advantage of the United States for many, many years. I'm not just talking about during the Obama administration. You can go back long before that.  And it's been taking out $400, $500, $600 billion a year out of the United States, and we can't let that happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, that's his policy. He says, we can't let that happen. The president tells authoritarian leader President Xi, who is not subjected to the whims of democracy that the game of stealing our intellectual property and engaging in economic and tech war fair, which is what we've been doing is now changing.

There is a cost in any war and prices will be higher here and in China, as Larry Kudlow pointed out this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: In fact, both sides will pay, both sides will pay and these things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: But here is the president on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I love the position we're in. There can be some retaliation, but it's can't be a very, very substantial by comparison. And out of the billions of dollars that would take it in, a small portion of that will be going to our farmers. Because China will be retaliating probably to a certain extent against our farmers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, here is the question that the country faces now. Are Americans willing to sacrifice as they have in the past to win a war? This time it's an economic battle. But as a nation, will Americans choose to take the pain to try to get China to change its ways, or if it becomes too costly, will they go another way in the voting booth?

Joe Biden said this which got a lot of attention.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch?  Come on man. They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not a -- they're not a competition for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, he got a lot of heat for that today. He was in New Hampshire, and he's sought to move past that. Saying, basically, that it's simple to fix the China problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: Anything has to be owned 50 percent by Chinese to invest in China?  Guess what, in America is the same thing. This idea of dealing with all -- the only people are paying the price are farmers and working people right now. He's going about it all the wrong way. A lot of rebuttal, no action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, Steve Hilton and Jessica Tarlov on the politics of the economic war with China in a moment. So, stand by for that. But first tonight, author Peter Schweizer believes that there is more to Biden's softer China stance than meets the eye, and he joins me now. Peter, good to have you here tonight. Thank you for being here this evening.

PETER SCHWEIZER, PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTE: Thanks for having me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. So, I mean, I want to get your reaction, first of all, to some criticism that you have been getting, which I'm sure you've seen. A piece of The Daily Beast by Michael Tomasky, says, "Peter Schweizer, who smeared Hillary Clinton is back for Joe Biden. Don't buy it." And then, he says that "people should be skeptical of any claim by him." What's your reaction to that, Peter?

SCHWEIZER: My reaction is look at the facts. No one's challenged the facts. As I've reported, Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, flew on Air Force Two with his father in December of 2013, nobody disputes that. 10 days after that fact, Hunter Biden's small boutique investment firm landed a $1 billion with a B private equity deal with the Chinese government.

A deal that he really had no right to get, he had no background in private equity. He had no background in China. So, those are the facts, dispute those facts. If you want to attack me personally, that's fine. But I would say, refute those facts and tell me which facts are wrong.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, it's interesting this writer also says, "I don't know if there's something to it with regard to Biden's son, Hunter. If there's something to it, then so be it." But, you know, and then he goes on.

I want to ask you about the Ukraine, specifically, you know, when you talk about the facts with regard to Ukraine. Because what this same author says is that, that Biden and -- you know, just to refresh people's memory, there was a question Biden, we now sort of took credit for pushing a prosecutor out, and that prosecutor had investigated a company that Hunter Biden was on, the board of. So, that raised some conflict of interest questions to be sure.

Now, the push back from that from the person who owned that company, says that, that investigation was long dormant at the time. And that there was no pressure from anyone in the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky, and that it had been shelved in 2014-2015. So, he says that you're wrong there.

SCHWEIZER: Yes, you know, it's not my word. What I would encourage everyone the audience to do is go to a search engine, type in John Buretta.  Burisma which is the name of the company here in question, investigation and Kyiv Post.

The lawyer that was brought in by Hunter Biden, Mr. Buretta, gave an interview in 2017 about this case. And he said in that interview to the Kyiv Post, the investigation went through 2016.

So, it's just flat-out wrong. The lawyer for Burisma that handled this case gave an interview and said, the investigation went through 2016. And he gave that interview well before this whole issue became politicized.  So, he is contradicted by the lawyer who actually handled the matter.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you say to sort of the top line there that you are just going -- you know, that you went after Hillary Clinton, now you're going after Joe Biden? Now, you do a lot of investigative work.

SCHWEIZER: Yes, yes.

MACCALLUM: But what -- you know, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that, just -- that it's all political.

SCHWEIZER: Yes. Why I appreciate that, Martha? First of all, I would say look at my record. I mean in the book where I talk about the Bidens, I also have information related to Senate -- the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. I have it related to members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. That's been my record, but the second point, Martha, I think is look, information ought to be evaluated, weight based on whether it's true or not.

My point with the Steele dossier, for example, was yes, OK, we know the Clintons paid for it, but what about the facts? And, of course, the facts were disputed. So, it's not enough to just attack the messenger and saying Schweizer's saying this. The question is are the facts that he's stating absolutely true? And that's what I would ask people to focus on rather than them -- you know, them trying to say what the motivation might be for the reason that I'm doing the research I'm doing.

MACCALLUM: I would encourage everybody to read your piece as well, very interesting, as always. Peter, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

SCHWEIZER: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Also here with me, Steve Hilton, the host of "THE NEXT REVOLUTION". And Jessica Tarlov, senior director of research at Bustle.com, and a Fox News contributor. So, it is just sort of back to the issue of China. The market tanked today, Steve and Jessica when you take a look at what happened there.

But this question of whether or not -- you know, I think the bottom, are Americans willing to take the pain of this economic war? And you know, we've been looking a lot at World War II on this program.

STEVE HILTON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And you look at the sacrifices that were made, right? Now, I don't know if this is the right -- the right way to go with China. This could blow up and not work at all. But, my question, are the -- are Americans willing to say, to take some economic pain for this?

HILTON: Well, first of all, I think it's really important to make the point that you just made, and we've talked about before, which is this is more than just economics.

China wants to dominate the world militarily, technologically, we're in a real battle again.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Which they say perfectly. It's not like we're putting something on, and then, they haven't said.

HILTON: Exactly, that is -- right. It's in -- it's in President Xi's speeches, it's in books that have been written for decades now. They want to by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic, it's all there. They're doing it through stealing technology, and so on, they want to dominate artificial intelligence, and all the rest of it.

If that happens, if you have a regime based on one-party rule, authoritarianism, they have 2 million Muslims now in concentration camps in their country.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HILTON: This is a vile, evil regime. If they come to dominate the world, they're seeking to do that the whole time. Their belt and road infrastructure program is all about basically, bribing countries that don't have a lot of money, by giving them infrastructure, and they're making them dependent on China. They're going around the world doing that right now.  We've got to stop this, and this is the biggest challenge facing the next president.

President Trump is the first western leader for 50 years who's actually stood up to China.

MACCALLUM: Yes, too great. What do you think about what he was just said, Jes?

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I certainly think the challenges that China poses, and complete agreement there, and I think that shifting the conversation we're actually talking about the technology aspect of this is important because it's a big slice of the economic argument and this is where Chuck Schumer, says, "I agree with the president on this."

The tariffs, which we saw Larry Kudlow admit with our Chris Wallace over the weekend are taxes on Americans. And Martha, you're completely correct in asking where will those Rust Belt, middle-class Americans that may have swapped and gone for Trump this time say about this?

The soybean farmers, for instance, who got the $12 billion bailout, but they're looking at their futures completely tanking there. And will would be able to rejigger the economy to be buying from other places at this point.

I mean, Apple needs to make a decision about what they're going through these companies. People aren't going to be giving up their iPhones, for instance.

MACCALLUM: But that's one of my questions. You know, I mean, if you accept the notion that they want to dominate us, it will not be -- that dynamic will not change unless people are willing to just kind of suck it up and give something up.

(CROSSTALK)

HILTON: But --

MACCALLUM: And I don't know whether or not Americans are. I'm just interested in the answer to that question. Are we those people anymore?  Are we capable of saying, you know what, what's happening is not right.  So, we're willing to just do something about it. Steve?

(CROSSTALK)

HILTON: I've seen -- a couple of thing, look, I've seen -- literally, on Saturday night we're out for dinner, somewhat he sees that I go on about China all the time on my show. He came up to be made that exact point.  We're in a war effort, we've got to do it. So, in that anecdotal, some people say that.

But I just want us to get this in proportion. The way some people talk about it, we are totally dependent on China for all our economic needs.  That is not true. Imports from China, a 2.7 percent.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, you're saying it won't be that bad. It won't be that bad.

HILTON: It's 2.7 percent. Our export to China, not 0.9 percent of the American economy.

MACCALLUM: Right.

HILTON: If you think that massive tariffs and all that, it's not going to be anything that we can't cope with. Our economy is forging ahead. Since, this trade war, all the experts said, was going to crash the economy.

TARLOV: But it's going to be better for those of us that have more money than the average American, right? That are earning salaries above $50,000, $60,000, $70,000. It is a luxury to be able to say, I'm going to go and buy it from somewhere else. China got into this position by making the cheapest goods, right? That's how we ended up in this conundrum.

So, other countries are going to step up. I know that India is really focused on this and making sure that we know that we can't --

(CROSSTALK)

HILTON: And that's great.

TARLOV: It is great, but it doesn't mean that things are not change and whether they change by 2020 is another question. The election is literally around the corner. And the president who wants to run on the economy is facing a very steep uphill battle of 600 points down today.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It makes it even more interesting that he's doing it anyway.

TARLOV: Yes. And you got to throw with your hands up at this one.

HILTON: But he think with a position of strength, that's his argument.  The other point --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: But that's his argument, it's doesn't mean of reality.

MACCALLUM: We got to go --

HILTON: Yes, what you already seeing is global supply change that used to be all about China. That's already being disrupted, they're moving to Vietnam, to Mexico, and some of them back to America, and that is great news for us.

MACCALLUM: It will be interesting to see if President Xi can hang on to his forever presidency if this starts to hurt them at home.

HILTON: Right.

MACCALLUM: We'll see. Thanks, you guys. Very interesting conversation.

TARLOV: Thanks a lot.

MACCALLUM: Great to see you both.

HILTON: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, still ahead tonight, exclusive reaction from Ben Shapiro on Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's Holocaust comments. And next --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARL BERNSTEIN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN: We are in the midst of a continuing cover-up by the president, aided and abetted by the attorney general of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Veteran Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein says that after two years of investigation, he believes that there has still been no real investigation into President Trump and says that Attorney General Barr is part of the cover-up. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNSTEIN: There has been no real bipartisan investigation of the most authoritarian president in our history. It's obvious to anyone who watches, anyone who looks at the facts, reads the Mueller report, the obstruction part particularly, we are in the midst of a continuing cover-up by the President aided and abetted by the Attorney General of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Congressman Ro Khanna of California joins me now. He sits on the House Oversight Committee. Sir, very good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here. Is it fair to for him to say that there has been no real investigation when we spent an enormous amount of money in two years and the efforts of 19 lawyers and Robert Mueller?

REP. RO KHANNA, D-CALIF.: Well, Bob Mueller obviously did a very thorough investigation. He concluded that there was sweeping and systematic Russian interference in our election. I think what Carl Bernstein is talking about though is the investigation by Congress. And Congress just got the report.  Congress should have the right to hear from people like Mueller and the American people should have that right.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, you say they just got the report and it is as you say a very thorough report. They want -- you all want to see it without redactions. Have you -- have you made an effort to go see the unredacted version or the almost completely unredacted version.

KHANNA: That was only available to some of the committee chairs. And the reason they didn't go see that as they wanted it to be for all of Congress.  And this could be very simple. I mean, the Attorney General could cooperate with Congress and request the court to allow us to see that.

Here's why it matters. So we can ask questions to Don McGahn and others based on their earlier testimony to the FBI.

MACCALLUM: All right, let's take a look at -- this is from Adam Schiff on Sunday about the possibility of finding individuals from the White House who've been subpoenaed who are pushing back on that. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I think if you find someone $25,000 a day to their person until they comply it gets their attention.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you can collect.

SCHIFF: Well, if you can collect but it affects you know, whether they're going to be facing ultimately hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages.  I don't know how many are going to want to take that risk for Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about that, sir?

KHANNA: Well, Congress has the inherent power to levy fines if there is blatant disregard for a constitutional oversight. Now, I really hope it doesn't come to that. I hope the courts resolve this issue. The courts can resolve this issue. I hope Justice Roberts who clerked for Judge Friendly and cares about the credibility of the courts will resolve the impasse and tell the courts to be expeditious.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, just looking back at you know, former oversight committees, I think of Eric Holder and the fact that he was also subpoenaed, denied that subpoena to appear in the Fast and Furious, denied documents to the Oversight Committee, and they felt very strongly at the time as you do that was their constitutional responsibility to have oversight and yet they were rebuffed and got nowhere.

Same thing with the IRS who was you know a lot -- invading the privacy of innocent Americans who because of their political beliefs, and they also refused to turn over those documents. Why was there not the outcry on both sides of the aisle when that was happening?

KHANNA: Martha, I agree with you that every executive branch has this conflict with Congress, President Bush, to President Obama, President Clinton. The difference is usually there's some accommodation. You get some witnesses, you get some documents, you come to some agreement. Here, the president has really snubbed Congress and isn't giving any documents.  I don't think it's in his own interest --

MACCALLUM: He turned over an enormous amount of documents and they didn't -- they didn't exert executive privilege over anything.

KHANNA: Well, they have not to Congress. I mean, they did to Mueller and that's exactly the point. I mean, if Don McGahn could testify to Mueller and they waved executive privilege for the Mueller Report, why not allow him to testify before Congress, why not allow the American people to hear everything and then make a judgment.

The Speaker has been very clear. We're not going to do anything without public sentiment on our side. We want to have the facts out there and let the American people decide.

MACCALLUM: All right, we're going to have some of those questions to the White House right now. Thank you very much, Representative Ro Khanna.  Good to see you tonight.

KHANNA: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Hogan Gidley, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary. Good to see you this evening. Hogan, thank you for being here. You know, what's your response? You heard that conversation, what do you say?

HOGAN GIDLEY, WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: This is incredible. I mean, when I heard what Carl Bernstein had to say, I mean that man has been scratching and calling for irrelevancy since the 1970s.  Every time I hear him speak on CNN whose ratings speak for themselves, it's almost like hearing a 50-year-old man relived the glory days of when he threw a touchdown pass in high school.

He cannot let it go when all he does is bring up Watergate consistently.  But as it relates to what we're talking about today in this president, what does he mean not bipartisan? Most of the angry Democrats as the president calls them on Mueller's team were all Hillary supporters. They didn't like this president. Two years of an investigation and a cover-up, what is he talking about? Everything is public for everyone to see.

And the congressman you just had on before me, you brought up the best point, Martha, and that is this document in its entirety with a couple of little redactions is available in a private location for Democrats to see and not one Democrat has gone to see it because they know there's nothing in there that will change the narrative that there is no collusion and there is no obstruction and it eats at them every single day and they don't know what to do about it.

MACCALLUM: So you know, in terms of Mueller testifying and Don McGahn testifying, I mean, you know, you -- obviously this is -- there's going to be a continued push for this and this is going to be you know, one of the themes that the House Democrats are going to continue on.

So what -- you know, this is what the president said today when he was asked about whether or not Don McGahn was going to testify. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should Don McGahn be held in contempt of Congress?

TRUMP: I don't know anything about what's going on. I can tell you that there has never been anybody so transparent as the Trump administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So does the White House have any involvement, any back-and- forth whatsoever with the former counsel Don McGahn about whether or not he is going to appear?

GIDLEY: Not to my knowledge. I mean, but listen. The fact is we've been completely transparent here. You pointed to the 1.4 million documents that we handed over. And what do they want him to say? He's already testified 30 plus hours, they want more?

I've often said if you gave every Democrat including the congressman on before me the ability to work in the White House, live in the residence and stay with the first lady and the president, they'd still say they didn't have enough access.

When is it going to be enough? This is over. The American people want to move on. And Adam Schiff to say hey, $25,000 fines for people who don't cooperate and give us information, wait a minute, you told us and the world that you had stone-cold evidence, that you had him dead to rights. You had all the evidence that would convict the president and yet why would you need to talk to anybody else at the White House if you have all the evidence and not one journalist will ask him to put forth that evidence.

He lied to the American people. He lied about this president, accused him of treason. And once it was proven not to be true he has nothing and he knows it.

MACCALLUM: Well, we're also waiting of course on the I.G. report from Horowitz at the DOJ.

GIDLEY: Sure.

MACCALLUM: And we'll see what's in there as well. Hogan Gidley, thank you. Very good to see you tonight.

GIDLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Coming up, actress Alyssa Milano says that women should go on a sex strike to fight back against pro-life bills like the one passed in Georgia. Ben Shapiro up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: Well, there's a kind of a calming feeling that I always tell folks that when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, the human dignity, their existence in many ways have been wiped out and some people's passport. I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Those comments from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib have set off a wave of backlash tonight. The President tweeting this. Democrat Representative Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred for Israel and the Jewish people, he writes. Can you imagine what would happen if I ever said what she said and says?

Here now Ben Shapiro, Editor in Chief of Daily Wire.Com. Ben, good to see you. Thanks for coming back.

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR IN CHIEF, DAILY WIRE: You bet.

MACCALLUM: I guess, you know, first of all, your reaction to what Tlaib said that you know, the initial comment that got everybody -- everybody's attention.

SHAPIRO: So there's the stuff that she said that's anti-Semitic and there's a stuff that she said that is not anti-Semitic. The stuff that she said that's not anti-Semitic is the stuff where she actually laments the Holocaust and so people are getting that wrong.

The stuff that she said that is actually anti-Semitic is the part where she talks about effectively Israel being created post-Holocaust as a stop to the Jews. That is historically inaccurate and wipes away the entire Jewish history of the land which is 3,000 years old. The Balfour Declaration signed in 1917 already started establishing a Jewish Israel.

And then she creates this utterly fictional account where Palestinian Arabs were welcoming Jews into the British-Palestine. That, of course, is not only untrue, it is the precise reverse of history. The leader of the Palestinian Arabs at the time, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al- Husseini, he was an ally of Hitler.

He was calling for the final solution to be implemented in the Middle East.  He was stumping for genocide against the Jews throughout his entire career.  Palestinian-Arab resistance to Jewish -- to Jews living in British Palestine ended with the British actually refusing Jewish refugees from Europe in the midst of the Holocaust. So, she is rewriting history to anti- Semitic effect here.

MACCALLUM: I mean, why? I guess is my question. You know what I mean? Do you think that she doesn't understand the history of it or she chooses to see it differently? I mean, we can't really get into her head. But, you know, what are your thoughts on that.

SHAPIRO: I think that she perfectly well understands the actual history here. But the revisionist history serves an anti-Semitic goal which is that Israel is illegitimate and ought to be abolished. She is a supporter of the boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement. She suggested that if you are a supporter of Israel you are guilty of dual loyalty in the past.

I mean, she along with Ilhan Omar is part of an anti-Semitic contingent of the Democratic Party now being protected by the Democratic leadership.

MACCALLUM: She, you know, she claims that she is being attacked unfairly and that as you point out she did go on to talk about the horrors of the Holocaust, the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time.

But then she goes on to talk about a one-state solution and she basically says this. We can put it up on the screen. She says it has to be done in a way that values around equality and around the fact that you shouldn't oppress others so that you can feel free and safe.

Why can't we all be free and safe together? Palestinians and Jews in Jerusalem and Israel?

SHAPIRO: Fascinating that she is involved in the push for getting rid of the only Jewish state on planet earth. I've heard no call from her for the Palestinian authority to allow Jews to live within its precincts. No calls from her for any Muslim state to change its religious orientation. No calls for her whatsoever for human rights in many of the Muslim countries that she defends.

So, it's pretty fascinating to watch her call for one-state solution that effectively means the end of the state of Israel which she knows which is why she is pushing for it.

MACCALLUM: It's interesting because, you know, when she talks about it she also said that she is looking for a better way where I don't want people to do it in the name of Judaism just like I don't want people to use Islam in that way. Do you see that comment as anti-Semitic, Ben?

SHAPIRO: I'm not even sure what that comment refers to. I mean, honestly.

MACCALLUM: It sounds like she doesn't want it to be about religion. She wanted to be, you know, a state that is not based on religion where both Palestinians and Jews live in one state.

SHAPIRO Very odd that she doesn't seem to care about the 50-odd Muslim states that exist on planet earth that she is so interested in the separation of church and state and disestablishment of any official religion. By the way, Israel is the only country where Muslims actually have full civil rights.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to ask you also about this other tweet that came from Alyssa Milano who suggested that because there are some states that now have a heartbeat law, Georgia just passed a law. Mississippi has it, Ohio has it. And there are a couple of other states that are -- that look like they are about to pass it.

And she is very upset about this and she tweeted "Our reproductive rights are being erased until women have legal control over their own bodies. We just cannot risk pregnancy. Join me by not having sex until we get our bodily autonomy back. I'm calling for a hash tag sex strike. Pass it on."

What do you think?

SHAPIRO: I'm glad that Alyssa Milano has finally discovered traditional marriage. That's exciting. I'm glad that Democrats in Hollywood are finally discovering hey, wait a second, sex might have something to do with making babies and if we don't want to make babies then maybe we should just not have sex.

I got to say I feel kind of bad for her husband. I feel probably that her husband is probably pro-choice and yet he's the one bearing the brunt of this particular decision by Alyssa Milano. So, you know, more power to feminists if they don't wish to have sex and they wish to do so in the name of, apparently preserving the lives of the unborn.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SHAPIRO: Welcome to the club, guys.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it is odd, you know, to sort of use that as a weapon and as has been pointed out in a lot of the push back against her it seems almost like a sort of sexist approach to getting where she apparently wants to go which I'm not sure exactly where that is.

Here is Meghan McCain today on The View talking about this and about how pro-life women feel about this whole argument. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGHAN MCCAIN, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW"/ABC: People like Alyssa Milano need to understand that there are -- women aren't just one section of the population that are like her.

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: For pro-life women like me which is a very strong tenet in who I am and how I view the world. I believe that abortion is murder. So, the idea that there is gray in allowing murder in the United States of America --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: This was pushed back. You know, the discussion was look, it's OK what I think and you think what you think. You know, you heard her not backing down in terms of whether or not there's any gray within issue that she sees as life in death murder.

SHAPIRO: Good for Meghan McCain she does a terrific job on The View. And obviously, they push that all women have to feel like Alyssa Milano or they are not true women. Robs a lot of the women of their female hood.

The fact is that three of the co-sponsors of the Georgia bill were women. All of the lies that are being promulgated by the media. The grave lie that suggest that if a woman has a miscarriage in Georgia, she is going to be prosecuted which just not the truth. I mean, it is just a blatant lie.

The fact that has made out the rounds is demonstrative of the fact that if you are seeking to attack pro-life physicians the best thing that you can do about it is to falsify the pro-life physicians and claim that really what pro-life want to do is control a woman's body as opposed to protecting an unborn human life.

MACCALLUM: I got to go but very quickly, do you agree legally that when you look at these bills that are being passed that they will provoke a test for Roe v. Wade?

SHAPIRO: Well, they will certainly provoke a test for the limits of Roe v. Wade. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court loosens the standard under Planned Parenthood versus Casey or that they actually overrule Roe v. Wade all together. My guess is that the best pro-lifers can hope for is the continued loosening of the standard under Planned Parenthood versus Casey.

MACCALLUM: Ben, thanks. Always good to see you.

SHAPIRO: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Coming up, Geraldo Rivera explains why he is quitting Facebook today so he says get your nasty comments in now, folks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: This becoming a 2020 question, is it time to break up Facebook? Is it a monopoly? Even its co-founder former executive Chris Hughes says yes, arguing that the company has unprecedented amounts of power.

Now 2020 hopefuls are getting in on the debate. Joe Biden said something today about well, it's something we should take a really hard look at is what Joe Biden said. Some of his opponents responded this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRI, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is no question in my mind that there needs to be serious regulations and that that has not been happening. There needs to be more oversight. That has not been happening.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't think that a president should be running around pointing at companies and say breaking them up without any kind of process here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now Fox News correspondent-at-large, Geraldo Rivera, who quit the social media giant today. It's not easy to quit by the way.

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: I quit.

MACCALLUM: I mean, they make you go through like five steps of disengaging.

RIVERA: You're right.

MACCALLUM: And then I think later on they go are you sure? So, they probably come back and ask you are you sure?

RIVERA: well, I deactivated it today.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

RIVERA: But I left it to my brother Greg far more tech savvy than I, my younger brother to gets me off it completely. But it's too pervasive. You know, this relentless data harvesting. They started telling me everyone's birthday that I hadn't talked to in years.

I started thinking if they know everybody's birthday what else do they know about me and who else are they sharing it with? So, I quit that darn Facebook and I went to WhatsApp. They only own Facebook and WhatsApp.

MACCALLUM: They own that too.

RIVERA: I went to Instagram, they own that, too.

MACCALLUM: They also own that.

RIVERA: Yes. You know, how big can they get two and a half billion people half the people on earth are on this one company. And Cory Booker. I have to say this about Cory Booker.

I was in Newark, New Jersey when Mark Zuckerberg came by and gave Cory Booker $100 million for --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I remember that, too.

RIVERA: -- the Newark public school system and for him not to bring that up because he was chumming it up with Mark Zuckerberg when I was there and Mark Zuckerberg was very rude to me.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That whole thing really -- that whole thing blew up. I mean, they spent that money on education consultants that they lost that money.

RIVERA: Right.

MACCALLUM: And they lost the effect of that money which is a whole another story. It's a travesty.

RIVERA: And my mother -- my mom was a public-school student in Newark. I wanted this to be a success. I wanted wow, here is a guy giving $100 million they are going to turn this around. It was zero impact other than scandal.

MACCALLUM: Yes. No, it's really, that was abysmal. You know, Mark Zuckerberg though says that it's all going to change. He wants everyone to trust him. And here he is telling everybody that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, FACEBOOK: The future is private. This is the next chapter for our services. Now, look, I get that a lot of people aren't sure that we are serious about this. I know that we don't exactly have the strongest reputation on privacy right now to put it lightly. But I'm committed to doing this well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That's a little awkward.

RIVERA: Now all of this, first of all, that outfit, I'm sick of that outfit. He's got more billions of dollars than almost everyone on earth and he's wearing that thing from --

MACCALLUM: You want him to put on a suit?

RIVERA: You know, I want him to like, not be so --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Act like a kid.

RIVERA: The pretension of casualness is so insincere that it speaks to me about the insincerity of their pledge for privacy. They don't want privacy. They want to know every single thing there is about you that they can market, that they can target the advertising going to you on your Facebook page.

The way they bring these relationships, I don't want that man in charge of my social life and I don't want him to -- I don't want to have to trust him about my privacy. Twitter is -- I'm not a shill to Twitter. I enjoy the fact that the president is on Twitter and he follows one of 45 people so I'm kind of honored by that, but it's also easy to use. And I just don't hear the same things about, you know, the relentless nature of their data harvesting.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, the interesting is, but besides all the data harvesting, there is the dangerous side of the addictive nature of all of this.

I was talking to Senator Josh Hawley the other day who wrote a piece on this. He said it bothers him that some of the greatest minds in technology created, you know, got together and this is what they did to us. They created social media in our era.

he said, you know, think about landing on the moon. Think about the great innovations that American minds have brought to the world and our moment created this beast that we have to deal with now.

RIVERA: I have this image. You know, I'm a father of five. I have this image of my kids kind of like, drowning in that thing.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, this thing is horrible.

RIVERA: The whole face is getting into, you know, or looking at a picture of a butterfly when there is a real butterfly flying around and they get to miss the reality of it. I just think that they are profit-driven. They should be regulated like utilities are regulated.

I'm a free enterpriser but I just don't trust when something gets this big. When it's 2.4 billion people and they own WhatsApp. And they own Instagram and half a dozen or a dozen other companies --

MACCALLUM: I know.

RIVERA: -- they will be -- they will know everything about you, every argument you ever had.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

RIVERA: I have this vision of them snooping on every room in my house. It's a, you know, they're very creepy to me.

MACCALLUM: There's a big trade-off. It's like, whatever you are getting out of it, you are giving up a whole lot to get it.

Geraldo, thank you very much.

RIVERA: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, we won't look for you on Facebook. We know we can still find you on Twitter.

RIVERA: That's right.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you.

RIVERA: Yes.

MACCALLUM: All right. Coming up next, 2020 Democrat Pete Buttigieg says there is a crisis of belonging in America. He believes that President Trump is partially to blame. President Trump called him Alfred E. Neuman. And he had to look him up to find out who that was. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Twenty-twenty Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg going after President Trump for exploiting identity politics. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would like to comment on one of the buzz words of our time so-called identity politics.

Many of the objections come from the right, which is ironic at this time because the current administration has mastered the practice of the most divisive form of such politics peak white identity politics designed to drive apart people with common interests. And we have a crisis of belonging in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So that sort of touches on one of the many topics that bad boy author, he's always been called that, Bret Easton Ellis covers in his new book which is called "White" in which he takes aim at, quote, "relentless anti-Trump fixation, coastal elites, corporate censorship, Hollywood identity politics, generation Wuss woke culture watchdogs, the obfuscation of ideals once both cherished and clear."

Here now to talk about why this book is getting a lot of praise and a lot of backlash which is the way he likes it and the comments from Pete Buttigieg, is Bret Easton Ellis. Bret, good to see you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

BRET EASTON ELLIS, AUTHOR, WHITE: Thank you for having me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, I guess, first of all, you know, just because it kind of touches on some of what you get at in this book, Pete Buttigieg who is running for president has talked a lot about his white privilege and how he has accepted the idea that that is part of who he is. What do you say to that?

ELLIS: Well, I think identity politics of any kind is a bad idea. But I do think there is something very interesting about Pete Buttigieg that he hasn't talked about is that his most progressive message that he is sending out there is how mainstream and traditional he is for a, quote, unquote, "gay candidate."

And I'm not -- I don't like -- I don't like to solely talk about representation but there is something quite radical about the way Pete Buttigieg presents himself in a way that is not the norm in a presidential campaign or in politics.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ELLIS: So, I think there is something about that that is interesting about him. Otherwise, I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. I would agree. You know --

ELLIS: The whole weaponizing white privilege is --

MACCALLUM: Well, he talks a lot about the fact that he is Midwestern that he was in the armed services.

ELLIS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: That he is a religious man and it is a very interesting dichotomy --

ELLIS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- in terms of the person that he is. And I think he is getting a ton of attention for that as well.

Talk to me about self-victimization because you go on in here about if you are a Caucasian adult who can't read Shakespeare or Melville or Tony Morrison because it might trigger something harmful or such text damage your hope to define yourself through your victimization you should see a doctor.

ELLIS: Well, I think victimization and identity politics are intertwined and they came together during a particular era in the last 10 years and what happened was identity politics led straight into victimization.

A group that felt marginalized or had some kind of grievances suddenly used that grievances -- those grievances to their advantage and started to victimize themselves and because of that they got a lot of attention. And so that was the connection that I was making in the book.

MACCALLUM: So, and then they like it and it feeds on itself, and then other people also want to have the opportunity to be seen as victims.

ELLIS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Correct?

ELLIS: Yes. That's exactly what happens. And it's kind of this never- ending loop that ultimately if you're redefining yourself by a bad thing. If you are defining yourself by a trauma that happened to you maybe years ago and you still are defining yourself by that, then you are in a way ill and you need to process that to get move on in society.

But to define yourself by a bad thing, a trauma, that something that turns you into a victim is not really helping anybody and certainly it's not helping yourself.

MACCALLUM: You know, we have been doing a lot of interviews with World War II veterans and the build up to the 75th anniversary of D-Day. And it just strikes me that there is such a big difference between what makes these guys tick and what you are talking about.

Because they are all about, you know, getting up and not talking about the fact that they were injured. Not talking about the fact that, you know, that it was them --

ELLIS: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that it was all about the other people that they were with such humility. It's completely opposite of the individualized society that we live in today.

ELLIS: Well, also I was writing a lot of white during, you know, the campus malaise, the big campus protest of conservative speakers. And I was amazed when I saw 18, 19, 20-year-old men who have to go into safe spaces with a pet dog and balloons and cupcakes in order to, you know, in order to feel better about themselves.

And then I thought about my grandfather who was on the shores of Normandy and I thought what is going on? A lot of white came from those observations.

MACCALLUM: All right. Very interesting to talk to you. Bret Easton Ellis, thank you very much. Thank you.

ELLIS: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up we are going to have a little bit more of The Story after this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Sad story to end tonight. Over the past few weeks we have been sharing stories from the greatest generation. Thousands of young men who signed up to serve their country vowing to give their life if need be for a cause greater than themselves.

Nearly 75 years later, those who served and survived are becoming harder to find. Most signed up around the age of 20 and if they are still alive today, they are close to 100 years old.

U.S. Army Technical Sergeant Frank Manchel is one of them. He was 95 years old when he boarded an honor flight this week from San Diego to Washington, D.C. He spent the weekend touring the memorials, seeing the historic sites all expenses paid with his friends, family and fellow vets, some of whom he had never met.

Sadly, Sergeant Manchel did not make it all the way home. He passed away shortly after the flight took off to go home to San Diego. Army chaplains on board prayed over his body as it lay draped with an American flag.

And as the plane began its final descent. The cabin was filled with song "God Bless America" led by Sergeant Machel's son. His son would later write "My father's passing was the ending to the most amazing weekend surrounded by his newest best friends."

Here's the quote tonight from FDR. Take a look.

(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, FORMER PRESIDENT: They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They yearn but for the end of battle. For their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them Thy heroic servants into Thy kingdom. Thy will be done. Almighty God. Amen.

(END VOICE CLIP)

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.