Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney: The president has been inconsistent and unclear on what his priorities are

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," February 14, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: No, nothing going on at all. Thank you, Bret. Good to see you.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: When I took the oath of office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do. So help me God.


MACCALLUM: Last month in the Oval Office. And breaking tonight, President Trump not getting what he wanted in this bill. It's got pages of restrictions in it about how the money can be spent. So, he is going to declare a national emergency to get a secure border. Here is Nancy Pelosi on that idea.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one- year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency Mr. President? I wish you would. But, a Democratic president can do that Democratic commit president can declare emergencies, as well.


MACCALLUM: A warning from her about president setting with all of this. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, this is “The Story.” It is a 100 -- 1,100 I should say, page bipartisan border bill. And they're voting on it today, they dropped it yesterday. 1,100 pages. And in those pages, the phrases such as "no such funds, no such funds can be used for, none of the funds can be used for." That phrase appears over 300 times in the course of these documents.

Moments from now, Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, and Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. But first, chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel, live on Capitol Hill tonight with the very latest on this vote. Good evening, Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening to you. Expect the action on the House floor later this evening, stopping talk of a partial government shutdown for now. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, says she expects there will be plenty of votes to pass this bipartisan funding compromise on the House floor.

The best estimate is the vote will likely take place sometime in the next hour or two. The tension really evaporated once it became clear President Trump would sign the deal.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY., SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I've just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump and he -- I would say to all my colleagues as indicated, he's prepared to sign the bill, he will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time, and I've indicated to him that I'm going to prepare, I'm going to support the national emergency declaration.

EMANUEL: The vote in the Senate was 83 to 16, as bipartisan as things get these days but Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, says the president will have a fight on his hands.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: There is the word the president will declare a national emergency. I hope he won't, that would be a very wrong thing to do. And leader Pelosi and I will review responding to that in short order.

EMANUEL: Schumer is not the only Senator who is unhappy with going around Congress. Maine Republican Susan Collins, says it would undermine Congress and is a bad precedent for future presidents. Florida Republican Marco Rubio says we have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution. And California Democrat Dianne Feinstein says raiding pots of federal money is unconstitutional and irresponsible. Here's more of the back-and-forth.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: It's not my preferred choice, but I don't think the world is going to spin on its axis.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET, D-COLO.: And reprogram the money, now, withstanding what the Constitution says about that. To build a wall, I can't even get the Republicans to support when they're in the majority. This is crazy.


EMANUEL: But this basically avoids another partial government shutdown, creates some certainty and the fight over the national emergency at the border will be the next big fight here on Capitol Hill. Martha.

MACCALLUM: That's for sure, Mike. Thank you very much. Here now, Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney of New York. Congressman, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

REP. SEAN MALONEY, D-N.Y.: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that the President had any choice given all the restrictions in this bill?

MALONEY: Well, listen to all the Republicans who are opposing it. You know, that's good enough for me. The fact is this that those of us who actually care about the Constitution, and who care about the implications for where this money is coming from. People who care about our military.

I represent West Point. You are literally talking about the funds that are going to be used to expand the cemetery. Listen to me, the cemetery at West Point, not to mention the new science buildings, the new cadet facilities, that's the money the president is going to take. And he's going to have less money doing this extraordinary action. Then he could have had in a bipartisan compromise in December with no shutdown.

This is a declaration of failure by the President and of weakness, and it's disgraceful.

MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you about that. You know it seems that the -- you know, the prior deal had the suggestion, at least, of helping DREAMers and DACA recipients. Have Democrats turned their backs on DACA and on DREAMers? Because it seems to me that there could have been a deal here that would have included some relief for them.

MALONEY: And the president could have had that deal, a year and a half ago, and then rejected it.


MACCALLUM: But why could you give it to now?

MALONEY: Excuse me, he rejected it because he wanted restrictions on legal immigration that he now says, he supports. The fact is the president has been inconsistent and unclear about what his priorities are. And he has gotten himself a worse deal with more Republican opposition.

Conservative Republicans opposing the declaration he's now announcing. Then, a deal he could have had in December, which would have had bipartisan support, more money for it says for all the priorities that he says he needs.


MACCALLUM: I understood, I think a lot of --

MALONEY: And he wouldn't be taking it from our military.

MACCALLUM: I understood. I mean, I think a lot of people who support the president are not happy with the deal that he got. But you didn't answer my question, why didn't Democrats offer that again? Do you want to propose something that would be supportive for to the DREAMers and for DACA recipients?


MALONEY: Excuse me. Excuse me, I -- we are strongly in support of finding a resolution to the DREAMers, of giving them a path to come out of the shadows, to keep faith with the promise we made them. They have done nothing wrong, remember? These are people who were brought here as children. And the fact is the president could have had a deal that included that, that's what my answer was to your question.

What he did instead, is he drove us down this blind alley, got a worse result for himself. He's making a bunch of Conservatives and Republicans unhappy. He's setting a very dangerous president -- precedent that will come back to haunt, haunt us, I will predict to you.

And the fact of this is that he's getting less money for the priorities he's announced, and he's robbing critical funds from institutions like West Point. That is a disaster. This is a mess. And it's on the president.

MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see. Everybody's trying to point the finger blame at everybody else here. So, we'll see where the Americans put the blame.


MALONEY: Well, well, well, I think what you're seeing -- excuse me, I think what you're seeing is a bunch of Democrats and conservative Republicans united in saying, this is a terrible outcome. And it's only the president who's brought us here.

MACCALLUM: I just wonder what -- you know, what the DACA recipients and DREAMers feel when they look at this deal, as well.

MALONEY: Well, it's the first time -- it's the first time I've heard somebody articulate a concern for the DREAMers on this network. I can tell you.

MACCALLUM: That's absolutely untrue.

MALONEY: The idea -- the notion -- the notion -- the notion --

MACCALLUM: That's absolutely untrue.

MALONEY: I'm telling you, it's the first time I've heard it. The notion that -- the notion --

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, (INAUDIBLE) and I guess.

MALONEY: Listen, let -- please.


MALONEY: The notion that somehow we care less about the DREAMers because the president has put us in this ridiculous situation is nothing but a smoke screen.


MACCALLUM: I'm just asking what happen to that topic which was very much - - which was a very passionate topic on the part of many Democrats and Americans.


MALONEY: There was a deal on the table -- excuse me. What happen to it -- for the -- excuse me -- excuse me. Excuse me, it remains so --

MACCALLUM: It seems to have disappeared.

MALONEY: Oh, come on. It remains so. What happen to it for the third time is that the president trying to restrict legal immigration, rejected the deal that would have included a decision on the DREAMers, he did that just like he put the whole thing in play by ending the DREAMer program in the first place.

MACCALLUM: Well, we both know that there were other points along the way in this process where that, that suggestion was reopened and re-offered, and it is now not part of this deal. So, I thank you for being here tonight, and I hope you'll come back. I really do.

MALONEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Representative Patrick -- Sean Patrick Maloney, New York. Thank you, sir.

Here now with more and the other side of the story here is House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise. Good to see you tonight, sir. Thank you for being here. Well, what's your response to that? You know, why was it not possible? It's obvious the president is not happy with this deal. And it sounds like Representative Maloney is also not happy with this deal. Where was -- where did all the compromise go in this process?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Well, Martha, first of all, let me correct the record where Representative Maloney, you kind of went down a road that doesn't exist. President Trump was trying to get DACA to be part of a deal. I was in those negotiations, Nancy Pelosi never wanted to have any conversations about DACA and solving that problem.

If you remember, it was Chuck Schumer who over a year ago had that same offer on the table to solve the DACA problem, and he walked away from the deal after initially indicating he would support it because people on the Left went nuts because they don't want to solve the DACA problem, they wanted to remain a political pawn. And that's been the fact of this matter.

You can go look, President Trump has been trying to solve that problem for years. It's been the Democrats who have walked away from the table every single time on solving DACA.

MACCALLUM: In terms of the national emergency, is this a politically perilous position that the president is taking? You heard Representative Maloney, he says, you know, Democrats and a number of conservative Republicans are very much against this move.

SCALISE: Well, first of all, you've got to look at what the president's main objective is, and that is to keep America safe. It's not just a campaign promise he makes, this was something that we all take an oath, by the way. President Trump took that same oath to keep the country safe.

We have a crisis at our southern border, he's been trying in multiple ways to solve that. We've been able to get some money for border wall, not nearly as much as I would like to see. We approved the whole $5.7 billion last year. It didn't get through the Senate. So, here we are.

In this bill, we're going to be able to approve about $1.375 billion that will allow us to build about 55 more miles of wall, especially in those areas of the Rio Grande, where you're seeing most of the real bad activity coming across. That's where our border agents said, they need to build a wall.

Current law, by the way, blocks the president from building a wall in that area. This agreement will remove those limitations. But it's not as much as the president or I would like to see. So, there are other areas the president can go. And, by the way, he's going to have to follow the laws on this.

But, if you look at the national emergencies act, this goes back to the 1970s, it's a law that's been on the books. And it's been used, by the way, dozens of times when it's appropriate. And here is a case where the president I think has made the case to the national -- to the country.

MACCALLUM: you know --

SCALISE: We've got to secure the border and it's a crisis. Here is one way he can help solve it. Congress should act to do more, to give more to the president. But this is where we are right now.

MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you because there are some who are expressing deep concern about even the $1.375 billion that the way this bill is structured, there are a lot of outs that even local mayors could say, yes, but you can't build it on this part of this property.

How concerned are you that 55 miles and the money that was supposed to go to it may never even happen?

SCALISE: Well, first of all, this was one of the final contention points is that last -- it's about 100 miles of new area in the Rio Grande that is currently blocked by current law. In this bill, over 100 miles is opened up now.

Now, the one thing there were some Democrats that wanted to block that altogether or to give local mayor's veto authority. That would have been a non-starter. Ultimately, what they said was in the bill, is that they will consult. The Department of Homeland Security will consult with local officials. But in the end, after getting public input, the Department of Homeland Security can still move forward to do what they need to do to keep this country safe including building new barrier wall in that area that current law blocks them from doing.

So, there is no local veto authority, Democrats tried to sneak that in at the last minute that was able to keep -- be kept out.

MACCALLUM: OK, yes. Just to mention, I mean, support for the wall has been growing according to our polls. As you look at September and then January, and now, it's gone from 39 percent in September, now it's at 46 percent.

And when you ask people if they want a budget deal that includes money for a barrier, security, and humanitarian aid, that number is at 66 percent. So, we'll see if politically opposing this is --


SCALISE: That numbers can be keep growing. That's why you saw the Democrat candidates for president, the Senate vote no because they're for open borders. They're not for border security, they're in that small number percentage of people that don't want border security.

Most people see what's happening. President Trump has made an oath to keep this country safe, and he's following through on the promise. Congress should do more. The president is working to get as much money as he can to meet that objective, he's doing it through legal means. Here is one. And a national emergency is another option he has.

MACCALLUM: Well, and they're going to push back on those legal means. We'll see where it gets -- where it gets the argument. Congressman Steve Scalise, thank you. Good to see you tonight, sir.

SCALISE: Good seeing you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You, too. Coming up, a shocking development in the Jussie Smollett case, the actor who claimed that he was attacked by Trump supporters.

Plus, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was fired for leaking FBI information to the press, now is free to speak. And he had quite a bit to say on "60 MINUTES" about the first meeting that he had with the president after James Comey was fired.


ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency, and won the election for the presidency. And who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage, and that was something that troubled me greatly.


MACCALLUM: House Judiciary Committee member, Matt Gaetz, next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you subpoena Rod Rosenstein if he doesn't agree to testify?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Yes, I'd like to know what happened. You're having a conversation about whether or not you're going to invoke the 25th Amendments. I would imagine if the shoe on the other foot, my Democratic colleagues would want to know about that conversation.


MACCALLUM: Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham alma says that he would like some answers after fire deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe sat down with 60 Minutes Correspondent Scott Pelley and made a number of shocking revelations including this.


MCCABE: There were meetings at the Justice Department in which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the President of the United States under the 25th Amendment.


MACCALLUM: That is shocking. Here now Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz. He sits on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thank you very much for being here tonight. What questions would you have for Andrew McCabe after hearing what he said -- we only have a couple sound bites so far. It's going to be on Sunday night but so far?

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA: The obvious first question is who he worked with or spoke to or interacted with through intermediaries or directly on the cabinet to potentially remove the President of the United States. Right now what we have is a partial fact battle between Andrew McCabe who says that there was a serious plan to seek the removal of the President and Rod Rosenstein the current Deputy Attorney General who's issued a denial that's not an unequivocal denial. It's a couch to denial.

I agree with Senator Graham that we want to get him in. But one thing, Martha, that's not being reported is that Jim Baker who was at the time the top lawyer at the FBI, he gave testimony the House Judiciary Committee that confirms who's Andrew McCabe's account. So it's not just McCabe's award against Rosenstein, the other people that were involved in this conspiracy to utilize their power as unelected bureaucrats to oust the guy that won the election. That's something confirmed by the top lawyer there.

MACCALLUM: Which raises the other obvious question, what powers are those two to seek to remove a president who was elected by the -- by the United States of America to the office? What powers, what authority and what evidence did they have to be taking these measures into having these conversations?

GAETZ: Yes, remember, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were texting each other ten months in the investigation that there was no there-there. So despite the fact that the two people conducting the investigation were saying there's no there-there, you've got McCabe who was just so I guess you know enamored with Jim Comey that he couldn't conceive of any legitimate reason that Comey would be fired. And so they used this illegitimate authority to go and try to disrupt the duly elected president.

I mean, I went on the floor about a year ago and said these people were attempting a palace coup against the president. Most of the national media mocked me for doing so. But now you, in fact, have Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker, two people at the very top of the FBI saying that these conversations were serious and that they happened. So let's get people under oath and figure out what went on.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. I mean, this -- obviously, this is an extraordinarily serious situation and he is obviously very impassioned still even after we have reports from the House and the Senate that suggests that after you know a couple of years of investigation, they haven't found anything yet. So I'm very curious what he found, what he knows and what has put him in a position where he is so impassioned about removing the president from office. What -- you know, what is it? What does he know?

GAETZ: That's why they -- that's why they launched the obstruction of justice investigation because they had nothing on collusion. Again, even the people who were involved in collecting the evidence admitted in their private text messages that there was no evidence of collusion. We've wondered as a country until now how the obstruction of justice investigation came to begin and it was Andrew McCabe who was just so hear broken and crestfallen that Jim Comey got canned that he went and just you know, ignited illegitimate investigation of the president.

And then not just the investigation, but they were conducting a whip count of the cabinet to see who would be with them for removal.

MACCALLUM: The way they were counting heads to see how many cabinet members would be with them to remove the President. The Vice President said he was you know, was never part of any of this discussion or on board with any of this. But with regard to Rod Rosenstein, he, you know, the suggestion was that he said that he would wear a wire and in his rejection of that, he said, I never authorized the idea.

GAETZ: Right, exactly. So it's not a full denial.

MACCALLUM: That's pretty provoking as well.

GAETZ: It is. And Rod Rosenstein is not a dumb guy. I think he chooses his words carefully. And you're right. He never authorized it, but we need to ask questions under oath about what discussions were had and potentially what people remained at the Department of Justice or at the top of agencies in our government that were part of those conversations. I would think Republicans and Democrats would want to know the answers.

MACCALLUM: Everybody (INAUDIBLE) to know the answer to. No, absolutely. They do. Just -- I've got to go but are they going to be subpoenaed? Are they going to hear from Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe? What happens next?

GAETZ: We sent a letter to the Judiciary Chairman of the House asking him to do just that. But if he doesn't, Senator Graham is not the kind of guy who takes these things lightly. I think you use his gavel on the Senate's side to get real answers.

MACCALLUM: All right, thank you very much, Congressman Gaetz. Coming up next, a shocking revelation. Breaking news we should say in the Jussie Smollett case. Just hours after the actor's first national T.V. interview claiming that he was attacked by two men who were shouting MAGA country, investigators in Chicago now say tonight that the whole thing was staged. We have breaking news on that. Stick around. Very, very big developments.

Also, Fox News confirming that former Vice President Joe Biden is "almost certain to enter the 2020 race now."


TRUMP: Sleepy Joe Biden, we call them One Percent Joe because he ran at least twice, I think three times, they say twice, I think he ran three times and he never had more than one percent. So we call him One Percent Joe.



PHILLIP STACKHOUSE, ATTORNEY OF MATT GOLSTEYN: The allegations that have been spread around the media is that Matt killed the detainee. Matt executed and ambush at some time after that the individual was released resulting in his death. The facts will show that in fact he was the bomb maker who set off the explosive that killed those to marines. There was confirmation of that while Matt was in Afghanistan.


MACCALLUM: That was back on December, the attorney for Green Beret Major Matt Golsteyn speaking out there. And tonight, we have a pretty significant update on the story. Golsteyn's legal team is demanding the murder case need to go to trial or he charges needs to be dismissed because the investigator involved in his case now stands accused of stolen valor, meaning that he claimed honors that he did not receive.

Here now exclusively Phillip Stackhouse, attorney for Major Matthew Golsteyn. Phillip, welcome back to the show. Good to have you here tonight. Explain what -- explain first of all the waving of article 32. What's the significance of that and then this issue to have stolen valor.

STACKHOUSE: Well, waving the article 32 hearing is essentially agreeing to go to trial without a probable cause hearing. We've waived the article 32 hearing, we've demanded speedy trial. We want to go to trial right now. This case has dragged on long enough. It's been going on for some nine years now. Eight years since Matt made his statement to the Central Intelligence Agency and about the same amount of time that it's being investigated. It's time to get the trial. Matt's life is on hold and we need to get it done.

MACCALLUM: In terms of the stolen valor issue with the investigator, what exactly are you referring to?

STACKHOUSE: Well, this is quite shocking. We received an anonymous tip that the lead investigator in this case was wearing the awards that he wasn't authorized to wear including the Purple Heart that he was holding himself out as a Special Forces officer, or excuse me, as Special Forces soldier.

We had our contacts, makes some inquiries for us, found out that was in fact true and that he was charged not from the prosecution but from other government entities. We received a copy of the charges that the special agent is facing now.

And the stolen valor is really important. That he was wearing awards that he did not rate, that he was doing that for personal gain, but perhaps, what's most shocking is the fact that he is also charged with making lies and official statements.

That makes everything that he has said after to this point a suspect. Each investigation that he's been involved in is now suspect. When he says something, you have to give pause before you can believe what he says. Because in fact, he's admitted that he's made these lies and that he did it for personal gain.

MACCALLUM: What did he say about --


STACKHOUSE: One have to wonder now.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you about. He apparently talked about or brag about a bad shoot in combat. What does that mean?

STACKHOUSE: Right. So, the information that we received, while he's not charged with it, the information that we received is that he was holding himself out as a Special Forces soldier, that he lost his Special Forces tab, and the reason that he lost it was because he was involved in a bad shoot in Afghanistan.

Ironically, that's exactly what Matt Golsteyn is charged with, a bad shoot in Afghanistan for which he lost his Special Forces tab over.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, some might listen to this and say, well, you know, maybe he should be removed from the case, but, you know, someone else could take his place.

STACKHOUSE: Well, that's true. Someone might take his place. There was an investigation that ran before this special agent was involved. That resulted in no charges. That resulted in an administrative hearing which Matt had limited due process rights that resulted in a finding that Matt did not violate the laws on conflict, that resulted him being processed administratively for either conduct unbecoming or being medically retired.

This new agent contacted us in October, November of 2016 who said he was the lead agent and now has gone out and re-interviewed people, provided that results of interview to the prosecution and its upon that which they've now charged him.


MACCALLUM: So, he's the central driving force in all this. I've got to leave it there. But keep us posted, Phillip Stackhouse.


STACKHOUSE: I think that's true. We will.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much.

STACKHOUSE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you here tonight, sir.

Coming up, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez succeeded in preventing 25,000 Amazon jobs coming to New York. And she's really happy about it but not everyone else is. Marc Thiessen and Jennifer Holdsworth coming up next.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: Those jobs? There was no guarantee that those jobs were for the New Yorkers that were here. And we are looking at a deal that was not primarily putting the community first.



MACCALLUM: We have a major development just moments ago in the Jussie Smollett, the actor who claimed that he was attacked in the streets of Chicago by two men shouting racial slurs and shouting this is MAGA country.

Just hours after his first national TV interview aired, ABC 7 Chicago is now reporting that he was a no-show for an interview with police detectives today and multiple sources tell them, quote, "Jussie Smollett and the two men who are being questioned by police staged the attack, allegedly because his character was being written out of the show Empire."

Smollett's story came under fire really almost from the beginning after he refused to turn the cell phone over to the police. Robin Roberts pressed him on this earlier today.


JUSSIE SMOLLETT, ACTOR: They wanted me to give my phone to the tech for three to four hours. I'm sorry. I have private pictures and videos and numbers, my partner's number, my family's number, my castmate's numbers, my friends' numbers, my private e-mails, private songs.


MACCALLUM: So, the Chicago police will not confirm this story at this point, but this report is coming from ABC Chicago 7. And as I said, they said he was a no-show for an interview with police detectives today and saying also that the attack was staged because he was going to be written out of the show.

We will continue to follow this story. And see what the police in Chicago have to say about this report from ABC when we get it.

All right. So, the Democratic socialist congressman known as AOC declaring victory tonight after Amazon says see you later to a huge deal that was expected to bring thousands of jobs and many businesses to the city of New York. She tweeted this. "Anything is possible. Today was the day a group of dedicated everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon's corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world."

Joining me now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar and a Fox News contributor, and Jennifer Holdsworth, Democratic strategist and senior vice president of Issues Management at MWWPR. Good to see you both tonight.




MACCALLUM: Jennifer, let me start with you. How has this gone over? I mean, was this a good move? Because, I mean, I hear a lot of people in the city today saying that they think this is a tremendous loss for jobs and the economy in New York.

HOLDSWORTH: It is a loss. You know, Congresswoman Cortez should not be celebrating this loss. It was going to be an economic engine for the region. And the argument that it was just going to be executive jobs wasn't true.

One of the things that Amazon was looking for when they were looking for the space for these various headquarters around the country was a talent pool that you could draw from. So, she should absolutely not be celebrating this.

However, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Amazon would not come to the table to discuss a lot of the concerns that various elected officials had in New York City. And had they be willing -- had they been willing to come to the table and discuss this, they perhaps could have salvaged the deal. And they just didn't do that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, I heard all day today about, you know, pizza parlors and manicure places and all these businesses, dry cleaners that were hoping to open in that area, condos that had been built to house these new residents and some of the current residents.

Marc, you know, is this one of those situations where maybe she got what she didn't want where it was fun railing against it, but now that it's happened it may backfire on her?

THIESSEN: We also learn that and when the fallout comes of it. But look, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is a wrecking ball inside the Democratic Party. And as a conservative I'm sitting here with popcorn watching it happen.

I mean, she -- this was a deal that was negotiated by the Democratic governor of New York, the Democratic mayor of New York, sponsored by Democratic legislatures -- legislators, and she comes in, the newly elected Democratic socialist, and wrecks the deal. And creates such a hostile environment to the point that Amazon said we do not want to work in this environment. We're gone. And they took 25,000 jobs with them.

And just to show you how economically illiterate she is, she said this is in the Yahoo story, she said, the city was paying for these jobs. Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could just invest that $3 billion in the district ourselves. We hire more teachers, we could fix our subways. We can put people to work.

There is no $3 billion! It's not that there was like, a cash subsidy to Amazon, they were tax incentives. So literally she doesn't understand that there is not $3 billion. Amazon took that the $3 billion away with it along with 25,000 jobs.

So, the lesson for Amazon is do your business in red states where we don't act crazy like this and the lesson for America is if you like this, you'll love the green new deal.

MACCALLUM: All right. Speaking of the green new deal, Chuck Schumer very upset that Mitch McConnell wanted to force a vote on this in the Senate. Here's Chuck Schumer, the senator.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: They are bringing a resolution forward so they can vote against it. This cheap, cynical ploy, evidently represents the sum total of Senate Republican leadership on the vital issue of climate change, an issue that cries out for serious engagement by members of both parties.

But rather than seriously engaged on the issue, our Republican colleagues are taking a page from President Trump's petty playbook, trying to make this a game of political got you.


MACCALLUM: Jennifer, why not vote on it?

HOLDSWORTH: Senator Schumer is right. This is a craven political tactic by the majority leader, but we've come to expect that from Mitch McConnell ever since Merrick Garland. But I was told by a Republican assemblyman in New Jersey that he used to ask the speaker why they didn't put up some of the Democratic measure. Just to shoot them down and show the populist how wrong they were.

And the speaker told him that if they did that, the laws just might pass. And I think that's what might happen here. It's a very, very bold piece of legislation that absolutely has issues.

I think instead of shaming critics of climate change we should be taking this opportunity to educate everybody so that they understand what's in the deal. But you've got a lot of conservationists who are behind this effort too.

Yes, it's a moon shot. Yes, there are pieces of this legislation that absolutely will not pass and cannot be accomplished in 10 years, but that shouldn't mean that we shouldn't come together at the table and make this a workable bill.

MACCALLUM: OK. I gave 10 seconds, Marc. Just quick response, please.

THIESSEN: Yes, I worked in the Senate for seven years and I never heard a senator complained about a bill being brought up on the Senate floor. They all claim the bills are not being brought up on the Senate floor.


THIESSEN: Who is the genius who decided to put this in legislative language so that the Republican -- what do they think was going to happen? So, they just created to legislate a language so we can now put every Democrat on record as being for Ocasio-Cortez's $100 trillion green new deal boondoggle. Congratulations. Good legislative work.

MACCALLUM: Thanks, guys. Good to see you both. Thank you.


MACCALLUM: Coming up next, one year ago today, Thomas Hixon's dad ran toward the Parkland shooter, shielding several students from bullets and losing his own life. But his son says that if the shooter had reached out to his dad earlier, everything may have turned out differently.


THOMAS HIXON, CHRIS HIXON'S SON: That's what he's trying to do. Just the kind of person he is, it's what he instilled to me. So, yes, he was just a hero.


MACCALLUM: One year ago today, a horrific act of violence took the lives of 14 students and three faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Florida. One of those victims is Chris Hixon, the athletic director and wrestling coach who selflessly ran into the building as others were running out in an attempt to save students' lives, ultimately sacrificing his own.

Chris' son, Thomas is carrying out his father's heroic legacy and he joins me now. Thomas, good to see you tonight. Thank you very much being here.

HIXON: Yes. Glad to be here, Martha, and talk about my dad.

MACCALLUM: You know, you said that if the shooter had met your dad, if he had talked to your dad about what was going on, that you think, maybe, all of this could've turned out differently. What did you mean by that?

HIXON: So, I mean, I wholeheartedly still believe that. You know, my father is the type of person that, you know, if anyone was having trouble, they could come to him and he would be there to give them advice, you know, lead them on the way.

There have been few examples throughout my time of, you know, before I went off to college and before I left that, you know, he actually brought in some students who are having troubles at home and they actually live with us for a little bit till they got back on their feet and they were able to continue on.

MACCALLUM: I know your mother decided to put on your father's tombstone the quote, "if not me, then who?" which is so moving when you think about how your father died. What is that -- what is that motto say to you? How does it drive you to remember your dad?

HIXON: I mean, it's a very simple motto, you know. It's a simple five words. Like you said, it means a lot. It's something that I've tried to live my life by, ever since I was young, you know, I've always felt that I've lived that motto in a different sense, you know, I've never put in those five words. But, yes, even after he's gone, I'm just trying to continue on and live those five words as well just like he did every day.

MACCALLUM: And you're working with the Travis Manion Foundation to mentor kids in the way that your dad and your family did as you were growing up.

HIXON: Yes, exactly.

MACCALLUM: Tell me a little bit about that.

HIXON: Yes. So, I've reached out to the Travis Manion foundation after what happened, after we decided to put that on my dad's tombstone. And you know, being a marine officer myself, you know, I've known about Travis Manion from my time in the Marine Corps.

And then when I did that, you know, I just kind of did it on a whim thinking, you know, they weren't going to see it. But then, you know, next thing I know, Ryan was reaching out to me and trying to connect with me. And from there, you know, we just had a great relationship ever since then.

MACCALLUM: Before we let you go, how is today and how is your family doing one year later?

HIXON: We honestly just take it one day at a time. You know, today might be the one-year mark, but I mean, every day is just as hard for us. It really doesn't matter what day of the year it is. You know, he's still not here anymore, so.

MACCALLUM: Thomas, thank you very much. If not me, then who is an amazing way to live a life. And that's how your dad lived his and you're carrying on his legacy. I'm sure he is so proud of you watching down over your family. Thomas, thank you so much for being here tonight.

HIXON: Thank you. Glad to be here.

MACCALLUM: We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: Follow-up here. Police in Chicago have now responded to the ABC report that we showed you earlier that claimed that Jussie Smollett and the two men who are being questioned by police staged the attack because his character was being written out of the show Empire.

According to the Chicago police who have now responded they say that the media reports about the Empire incident being a hoax are unconfirmed by the case detectives. They say they have contacted ABC 7 Chicago to state on the record that they have no evidence to support their reporting and their supposed CPD sources are uninformed and inaccurate. So, the plot thickens once again on the Jussie Smollett story tonight.


JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Don't I wish I were debating him? No, I wish we were in high school I could take him behind the gym.


MACCALLUM: Remember that? Tonight, a source with direct knowledge tells Fox News that former Vice President Joe Biden is almost certain to run for president in 2020. The news coming shortly after a meeting today between Biden and Senator Dianne Feinstein who also says she expects that he will enter the race.

And just four months to go until the first Democratic primary debate which we learned of today, an official decision is imminent setting up the potential stage for a Biden-Trump showdown in 2020.

Joining me now Michael Anton, former Trump administration national security official and author of the new book "After the Flight 93 Election the Vote that Saved America and What We Still Have to Lose." Good onto have you here, Michael. What do you think about Biden getting in the race?

MICHAEL ANTON, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANT: Well, remember, this is a man who ran for president for the first time in 1988. So, we are really going back in time.

MACCALLUM: He has experience.

ANTON: He has experience. We're really going back in time if Joe Biden runs for president. Also, keep in mind though, it's very rare for a sitting vice president not to seek and/or get the nomination of his party when a two-term president was leaving office.

He was sort of muzzled out by the Democratic Party. I don't think he appreciated that. I think he probably wants a little pay back and wants to get his chance. But I think the Democratic Party has moved on and there is not going to be a whole lot of interest in him. Whether that's fair or unfair, I think it's just probably reality.

MACCALLUM: What about -- Cory Booker there is a poll Cory Booker in New Jersey that says that New Jersey residents don't think he would make a great president. Forty-two percent of New Jersey residents say that he wouldn't make a good president. Thirty-seven percent disagree. What do you think of that and who do you think is -- who do you think is the most likely at this point?

ANTON: Well, look, I'm a Republican so take this with a grain of salt. So, what that suggests to me is the wisdom of the voters of New Jersey. I don't think he would make a very good president either.

Some of the outbursts he's had from his committee seats and elsewhere in the hallways of the Senate just seem strike me as immature and not ready for prime time.

It seems to me that Kamala Harris looks to me like the strongest Democratic candidate for a lot of reasons. I think Elizabeth Warren has sort of imploded.

But one thing we are going to see is if you thought the 17-candidate field among Republicans in 2016 was big.


ANTON: We are probably going to see over 20 and maybe significantly over 20 in the Democratic field. It's going to be a real kind of demolition derby.


MACCALLUM: Yes. They're talking no about splitting the group and doing them on back-to-back nights.


MACCALLUM: They don't want to have an undercard, they want everybody to get the same exposure.

You know, just in a broader sense you wrote about the flight 93 election which got a lot of attention. You originally wrote it under a pseudonym and then, you know, admitted that you had written to it.

Basically, the idea was that, you know, it was Americans were storming the cockpit of the country. Now you say that there are things to be concerned about looking ahead second ahead.

ANTON: Yes. Well, I believe --


MACCALLUM: You wrote a second piece.

ANTON: I believe that then but what I wrote then was very specific kind of call to arms go vote. This is really, really important. And you know, I didn't have the time and the space to fully develop these other ideas, a publisher came to me and counter books and said we really want to republish that we think it was a significant piece.

But now we want to give you the space to tell the front part of the story. Like what is -- what are politics supposed to be about. What are American principles really what did you think was at risk? And I was very grateful to get that opportunity and to be able to tell it in full.

MACCALLUM: So, give me one headline that people should know about how you see the next chapter?

ANTON: How I see the -- well, I see the next chapter is the president implementing his agenda that I think is making the country stronger, safer. I think 2020 is going to be a tough fight. Twenty-sixteen was a tough fight. But you know, he can pull this off. And I'm optimistic.

MACCALLUM: Michael Anton, thank you.

ANTON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you here tonight.

That is “The Story” on this Thursday night, Have a great Valentine's Day, everybody. Tucker Carlson up next.

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