Report: Joe Biden believes he is the 'best hope' for 2020

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: So, breaking tonight, battle lines are drawn as the president considers declaring a national emergency at the United States southern border. Can he do it? Will he do it? Tomorrow night from the Oval Office, in his first address from the highest office in the land. Trey Gowdy and Judge Napolitano here in moments.

But first tonight, Joe Biden, the former vice president seems to believe that he is the man to take on President Trump in 2020. He's reportedly making calls to donors spent all last week doing that. Getting ready to make his decision in the coming weeks.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is "The Story." The former vice president saying, according to reports, "If you can persuade me, there is anybody -- there is somebody better who can win. I'm happy not to do it. But I don't see the candidate who can clearly do what has to be done to win."

President Obama calling for essentially, the exact opposite. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: One of the challenges we have in this world is people clinging on the power instead of seeing the power going to be. We are on deficit of leadership and we need new blood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Need new blood and a deficit of leadership. Elizabeth Warren and Democrat megadonor Tom Steyer pulling their party further to the left.  Both of them gearing up now in Iowa. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell from California has also not ruled out a run.

So who is the strongest? Democrat has Joe Biden write about his position in 2020. Good to see you of this evening, Congressman. Thank you for being here tonight.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF., HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Of course, good evening, Martha.

MACCALLUM: To talk to me a little bit about whether or not you believe that Joe Biden's right here.

SWALWELL: I don't agree with him. I love Joe Biden. He's done a lot for our country. But we have the benefit of so many talented people considering running for president. And I don't think we'll go wrong if any of them become the nominee.

So, it's not a matter of who's better, it's just -- you know, who's different. And you know whether their vision for America can make sure the promise of America that if you work hard, you do better for yourself and dream bigger for your kids can connect with everyone. So, you know, the water's warm come on in.

MACCALLUM: Come on in. All right. So, and how about you, are you going to come on in?

SWALWELL: Now, I'm considering it. I'm very close and have been invited into Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, I'm going to go there in the next few weeks. Have a big job to do. The voters, you know, put a Democratic majority in the Congress to collaborate on infrastructure, the DREAM Act, background checks, making sure they have health care protection.

So, I'm going to do that job. But I'm getting very close honestly, Martha, to making that decision.

MACCALLUM: All right, so, you know, I mean, you've got Joe Biden obviously, looks at 2016 and says, "I could have -- I could have pulled in those voters in places like Western Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, he believes that he's the guy who could have clearly done that, and that, that job was not done by Hillary Clinton.

Then you've got the newer blood in the party as President Obama refers to it as, you know, people who want to really build on what happened the midterms. The suburban voters, and you know, stay concentrated in the cities across this country. And a lot of the further left part of your party is advocating things like this. Let's watch this from Julian Castro and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: But once you get to, like, the tippy tops on your $10 millionth. Sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.

JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER MAYOR, SAN ANTONIO: I can support folks at the top paying their fair share. Is there was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Should we be going back there again

SWALWELL: Well, I think when it comes to our tax system, you know, we don't want to divide success in America. We want to multiply success.  But, right now, you're seeing that only people who work on the top floors are benefiting from this economy. So, whether it's -- you know, increase in the tax rates for the highest --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's not true. You have wage growth at the lower end. And, in fact, people with high school diplomas are the ones who've benefited the most from the increase in employment in this country.

SWALWELL: Well, Martha, I come from a family that knew grit and want. I was the first in my family to go to college. I grew up in a town called Dublin, where we were called scrubbing by everyone else. And when I talk to my constituents, it bears out what we see across America, which is about two out of three of every persons in this country have less than $1,000 in savings. That's not making it in America.

So, if wage growth is going up and not matching the cost of goods and services and healthcare, what does it mean and what is it for? And that's I think the way you're going to have to connect is a presidential candidate. You're going to have to tell those working families that they will do better and look at their kids and believe that they can dream bigger for them.

MACCALLUM: A lot of people have gotten together with Hillary Clinton.  John Hickenlooper, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti from Los Angeles. Elizabeth Warren. Is that -- is that something that you need as a potential candidate? Do you need to talk to Hillary Clinton or is -- you know, losing twice not necessarily the best phone (INAUDIBLE) for advice?

SWALWELL: Well, I mean, she was a leader in our country. I don't think you have to -- you know, back up the bus and you know run her over. I think you know her advice would be helpful. But I think the candidate that sees this election is a big blank canvas board who wants to go big, be bold, and do good.

That's the path forward, that's what Americans look for in this -- the midterms when they sent 27 candidates in their 40s and under to help us win the House to solve problems. And again, lift up the fortunes of every person and connect the disconnected, people who felt like the American dream was becoming out of reach.

MACCALLUM: Well, John Yarmuth, the Democrat from Kentucky seems to think that when you back up the bus is going to be full of subpoenas. Here he is talking about that.

And it's a quote, I will read it. "I joked for a while but it's not funny anymore. I said that we're going to have to build an air traffic control tower to keep track of all the subpoenas flying from here to the White House." Do you think that that's what Americans want from the Democrat Party?

SWALWELL: I think they want us to collaborate. As I said, on those issues where Donald Trump actually he rightly identified that we need infrastructure, that we need background checks, that we need to pass the DREAM Act.

Now, Republicans never brought those up for votes, and he never, you know, led and then pushed him. Now, he will see those bills hopefully come to his desk. But yes, the days of presidential immunity where abuses of power can occur without a balance of power, those days are over and we're going to do our job.

But I would submit to my colleagues that we do that job judiciously and make sure that if we're investigating anything, we can explain to the American people why it affects their everyday life.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I just want to see one more thing about Joe Biden.  Because you said, you know that you liked the fact that younger people had won in the midterms. Do you think he's too old?

SWALWELL: No. No, no, no. But I think we cannot necessarily count on the same old leaders to solve the same old problems. That's why so many young people without any elected experience at all stepped up and ran for office.  They felt this call to service. And I think going forward if we're going to have a health care guarantee, if we're going to green the grid, if we're going to have a debt-free education, or need -- we're going to need people, you know, who have not been in this effort and failed in the past. We're going to need people who believe that we can actually do that and have the energy to make it happen.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thank you very much. Eric Swalwell, good to see you tonight.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: We look forward to hearing about whether or not you're going to run. Sounds like a lot -- a lot of people are going to run. Maybe even more than the last time.

Here now, former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, and Mo Elleithee, former Democratic National Committee spokesman. Both are Fox News contributors.

Jason, let me start with you. You know, as you look at that field, who do you think is the most formidable?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Probably, the person we haven't heard of. Democrats formula in the past it says take somebody who's relatively unknown like a Jimmy Carter or -- you know, Clinton. And then, mold them into the candidate that they want.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Barack Obama.

CHAFFETZ: And Barack Obama. So, it's probably the person who's like I said, I think a mayor or a governor that America hasn't heard of before.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Beto O'Rourke?

CHAFFETZ: Well, we need to lose, and you lose big in Texas, that's not really a resume builder. But he is more viable I think than the old guard.  But look where the Democrats went before, they were with Nancy Pelosi.  They went with the old guard and if they trot out the old guard again, I, as a Republican, I think that's where you want to be able to fight against somebody.

MACCALLUM: You know, how much is the party pulling to the left? When you look at these suggestions, Mo, to tax people 60, 70, 90 percent. I mean, how much is too much? You know, even if you're talking about the really rich $10 million person. How much is too much?

MO ELLEITHEE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes look, and I'm not hearing that from a critical mass of Democrats who are thinking about running for president. Now, we might, right? That's what a campaign is for, and we're going to hear from all the candidates what they think on these issues.

Here is why I actually think people are underestimating Joe Biden. I'm not saying he is the right candidate for 2020. But I think he's got a serious legitimate shot. Not because he's the former vice president, not because he's got the highest name I.D., but because I think the paradigm has shifted a bit in our politics. I don't think most Americans are arguing.  And I think that you'd agree with us.

I don't think most Americans are sitting around their kitchen table thinking about who's the most left or who's the most right. I think the paradigm has shifted over the past decade or so to in versus out. People feel alienated not just from Washington, but from Wall Street, and from Silicon Valley, and from the media, and from higher education. From just about every major institution. They are looking for someone who can come in and yes --

CHAFFETZ: Yes, but that's why I disagree with you.

ELLEITHEE: Hold on, let me finish. Who can come in and say, "I can be an authentic champion for you." Joe Biden gets that, he understands the paradigm shift. Will he be the right messenger? I don't know, but he, at least, knows the right message. And I think he can go into these places like Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and Wisconsin, the places that Donald Trump won because of that dynamic, and make it authentic.

MACCALLUM: But the push in your party appears to be all about diversity, gender, gender identity politics, and identity politics that you know, I'm reading, you know, from Waleed Shahid. Biden style centrism will be toxic and a losing brand of politics with Democratic primaries

ELLEITHEE: Yes, I don't -- I don't think that's the mainstream opinion here. And the beauty of a primary as Republican saw last time is that you're going to get all of these different perspectives. Remember, Donald Trump came down that escalator and said the system is out to get you. And you need someone from outside of the system (INAUDIBLE) and most of his opponents said, "You're not a real conservative." And you know what, most Republican primary voters said, "I don't care, I don't know what that word means anymore.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: But do you making the case -- you're making the -- you're making the case why Joe Biden is not viable. When you spend seven terms in Washington, D.C., and the entire breadth of your life existence is in Washington, D.C., that's not what the rest of America wanted.

Look, for Republicans rejected everybody who had political experience in Washington, D.C., and they went with the outsider, they went with the disruptive person who wasn't going to do the conventional norm. And that's why Donald Trump continues to be successful.

So, if you want to put up a Washington insider to fix Washington, D.C., good luck with that argument.

ELLEITHEE: Here is where I respectively disagree. I don't think it's going, as well as you'd think it is. And I think most Americans right now have a negative opinion of the job the president is doing.

They wanted someone to shake things up but they don't like --

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Oh, he is been shaking things up.

ELLEITHEE: And I don't think they like how he's been doing it, more for the most part. And so -- I don't think --

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: But they like what's happening in the economy and then the world. And you can't -- you know what, Democrats also can't argue against safety and security at the border. You can't abolish ICE, whether the fence in favor of sanctuary cities. That is not a winning argument with the American people.

ELLEITHEE: I don't -- most Democrats aren't arguing against safety and security.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, they are.

ELLEITHEE: No, they're not.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, they are.

ELLEITHEE: No, they're not.

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely.

ELLEITHEE: and that's -- no, they're not. There isn't a single American.  Democrat or Republican who's against safety and security at the border.  And to say it is, it's just the kind of partisanship that people are against. I think -- I don't --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, the thing is that a crisis? So, there's no crisis, that there's nothing -- no -- that in some fabricated crisis.

ELLEITHEE: That the wall is a fabricated solution to dealing with an issue that everyone agrees needs to be -- needs to be dealt with. That is a legitimate point of policy contention.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: There were 800 --

ELLEITHEE: But to say they're against -- that to say that they are against --

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: They can't to find -- hold, hold, give me the chance.

MACCALLUM: Oh, even that's the president say he does not think they're against national security. He's hoping that, that dialogue is going to bring them to the table so that they can do what they've said they wanted to do since 2007.

CHAFFETZ: The Democrats voted in favor and authorized a border wall, and now they won't fund it. So, in the one side, they say they want it. But now that Donald Trump's word, they won't go for it.

Last year, there were 800,000 people detained coming across our border. To say there is not a crisis that the wall is immoral, and the border patrol is saying, "Put it in pediment. Put some sort of fencing out there. Slow them down so we can grab as many of them as we can." I just telling you, keep making that argument. There's a reason why Donald Trump has held tight on this. He was elected on this reason, and he will continue to fight for it.

ELLEITHEE: And that's why he's losing it right now.

CHAFFETZ: He's not losing it.

MACCALLUM: All right. We got to go. We're going to talk about this more.  Coming up, the president may very well declare a national emergency in order to get his wall that he promised in the campaign actually built.

What history teaches us about his argument that he's making, one that even some Democrats say he does have the authority to do. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains, coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We're looking at a national emergency because we have a national emergency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Look, if Harry Truman couldn't nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this President doesn't have the power to declare an emergency and build a multi-billion dollar wall on the border.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: The story Schiff is referring to played out in 1952 when Harry Truman was President and U.S. steelworkers tried to go on strike in the midst of the Korean War. Truman declared a national emergency that nationalized the American steel industry really as a matter of national security. He hoped that that would keep the mills up and running, the Supreme Court struck him down saying only Congress has the authority to seize private property, not the president. Did this set a precedent that could stop President Trump?

Joining me now Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano and there's a lot of thinking on this --

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- you say, no.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I say this did setup --

MACCALLUM: He can't do it.

NAPOLITANO: -- that the President of the United States can't do this. The emergency power the Truman attempted to use did a couple things. It seized private property against the owners and it's spent government money to pay those who are on strike or to replace the strikers. So the Supreme Court struck it down for two reasons. Only Congress can seize property when it pays for it and only Congress can authorize the expenditure of money. And President Truman didn't have the authority to do either. The rest of that executive order which encouraged people to go back to work and many did was perfectly valid.

The president has valid emergency authorities in a time of a true emergency, but he can't spend money and he can't take property unless the Congress has authorized it. That's directly from the Constitution.

MACCALLUM: All right.

NAPOLITANO: If that were not the case, well then President Obama could have declared a national emergency, there isn't enough health insurance around, we're going to start paying for it.

MACCALLUM: I mean, that's the question. How do you -- you have to prove your case that you actually have a national emergency on your head. And they're going to do that you know, with some of these numbers. Let's put them up on the board. You've got -- that's the number of 2018 apprehensions 396,000. November 2018, apprehensions over 1,700 people a day. Right now you've got over 12,000 migrant children who are now being housed. Many of that number came over on their own without their parents.  He is arguing that this is a national crisis.

NAPOLITANO: You know, the numbers are very impressive, but an emergency is defined in the 1976 act as when the government is overwhelmed and it's ordinary assets don't work. I don't think president Trump would say. He once had 15,000 troops at that border and he wasn't saying that the military doesn't work.

What the emergency power is intended to do is to facilitate the movement of government assets to focus on the emergency. It's not intended to give the President extra-constitutional authority.

MACCALLUM: The parameters of a national emergency are very broad for a president and that there are a number of ways that he can institute something at least on a temporary basis. The other question that I want to ask you is you know with regard to the existing 600 miles, they're already rebuilding those fences. They're rebuilding what's existing there. So that's already government property security. So could he -- could he do the areas that are already there, where the fences -- we've seen pictures in Tijuana, they're like waist high --

NAPOLITANO: So here's the problem. The areas on which they have built the fences pursuant to authority and money authorized by the Congress, there for lawful, are on property the government owns. According to Congressman Hurd, Republican of Texas, through whose district much of the new wall of the President wants the built would have to go, this is mostly private property.

Meaning, they'd have to take it by eminent domain, and that can't be done pursuant to the emergent authority and that can't be done overnight, because if you disagree with what the government wants to pay you for your backyard, the government has to prove its case in a trial. So the President may be biting off more than he can chew here legally and financially. He is clearly in dangerous waters constitutionally.

MACCALLUM: In terms of what's already there though, he could use that power to rebuild as they've been doing -- and Mick Mulvaney is you know, shaking everybody's pockets in every agency trying to figure out the areas where they do have money already allocated that they could use for this.

NAPOLITANO: The money has to have been allocated for that purpose. Can he take money from Column A and move it to Column B when only A was authorized? Absolutely not. Because the Congress says the individual expenditure must be directly or impliedly authorized by Congress, not by the President. Otherwise, he's bypassing the Congress and it's not a president, he's a prince.

MACCALLUM: You've seen that happen many times. You know, executive order is an interesting elasticity to it at times. And when President Obama said he had a pen and a phone and he would -- every president tries to do what they can within the -- within the law --

NAPOLITANO: Yes. And I understand that off of the heart is on the right place, but when President Obama made that threat about the pen on the phone, every court that looked at it and enjoined him and prevented them from doing it.

MACCALLUM: That's why we have the system, right? That's why we have the beautiful checks and balances, but I know you've lost so much so we'll see what happens. Judge, great to see. Thank you very much.

NAPOLITANO: All the best. Happy New Year.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. Happy New Year to you too.

NAPOLITANO: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So Senator Lindsey Graham is part of a bipartisan move to protect the Mueller probe. And this is the President's new chief of staff who is he looking for a new job at a university. Trey Gowdy is going to weigh in on that and also his Twitter smack down. Do you see this with Elizabeth Warren and Trey Gowdy?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Tonight, two men are behind bars in connection with the death of a seven-year-old girl named Jazmine Barnes from Texas. The young black girl reportedly murdered by a white man with no obvious motive in the early tellings of this story. The story went viral earlier this month after an outcry from celebrities and politicians who were attributing her death to an uptick in hate crimes across the country.

The only problem, it turns out that both of the men who ultimately were arrested did not fit that description at all. They were not white and the case appears to have nothing to do with hate. Trace Gallagher explains from our West Coast newsroom tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Hi, Martha! Initially, this horrifying crime had zero evidence and zero motive yet. It was widely labeled as a hate crime. In fact, an attorney for the family of seven-year-old Jazmine Barnes said he believed the murder was racially motivated because "our nation at this moment is highly racially charged."

But here are the facts. On Sunday morning December 30, Jazmine Barnes was in a car with her mom and three sisters going to get food when a vehicle pulled alongside them and opened fire striking Jazmine in the head. The family told police they remember seeing a red truck with a white driver in his 30s or 40s and that description led to a sketch of a potential suspect.

Shortly thereafter, Texas Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee said "I believe and having written hate crime legislation, knowing the criteria, I believe that this should be looked at as a hate crime. We don't want to have on the street someone who was willing to kill children and possibly kill them in the name of hate."

Four days after the shooting New York-based social activist and writer Shaun King got what he says was a tip that a suspect was a 20-year-old black man named Eric Black. He says he immediately reported tip to Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzales. Sure enough, Eric Black was arrested on Saturday and reportedly admitted driving the car saying his passenger was the actual shooter.

Police have since arrested Larry Woodruffe on drug charges though he is potentially the second suspect. But critics say activist Shaun King and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez continued promoting the white driver of the red truck as a suspect even after getting the credible tip about Eric Black. The sheriff says the man in the red truck was there but only as a witness and Congresswoman Jackson Lee says she does not regret at all calling it hate crime. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-TEXAS: Absolutely not. Nothing is irresponsible when it comes to the loss of a precious seven or eight-year- old. And as many in the community did, they expressed that it might be -- it seems to have the criteria of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Investigators now believe the killing of Jazmine Barnes appears to be a case of mistaken identity. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Coming up next, President Trump versus California's leaders. A new governor steps into the hot seat today as Jerry Brown says goodbye to the governor's mansion. California resident Steve Hilton here with his take next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, I don't think it's a gross exaggeration to say Trump has declared war on California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Breaking news moments ago, the IRS has now confirmed what the White House said earlier, despite the government shut down, it will begin to process tax returns and mailing those refund checks beginning on January 28th. So, not to worry about the shutdown at least on that front, for right now, that just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, D-CALIF.: We will offer an alternative to the corruption and incompetence in the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

NEWSOM: Our government will be a progressive, principal and always on the side of the people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: New governor of California, Gavin Newson, not wasting any time, taking a swipe at the president today during his inaugural address. California's new governor widely considered to be more aggressive and more aggressive than his predecessor Jerry Brown.

Newsom already confirming that he intends to ask the White House for changes so the state can move to a single-payer healthcare system in California, adding an even more contentious relationship between the president and the golden state than we have seen so far in the past couple of years.

Here's the president just last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: California always complains through their great governors. They are always complaining. I said, let's not do it, let the governor ask us. But we did it anyway because they really needed it. They were having a tremendous problem. So, we built a brand-new wall in San Diego and it's working really well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now Steve Hilton, host of "The Next Revolution" also happened to be a California resident. Steve, good to see you tonight.

I mean, obviously, there just been a contentious battle between this president and California.

STEVE HILTON, FOX NEWS HOST: Yes.

MACCALLUM: There are 44 lawsuits against the administration on everything from DACA, the sanctuary city, you got the border wall issue, and now this new governor. Is he going to get more aggressive?

HILTON: I think yes and no is the truthful answer. I think Gavin Newsom, who I should basically make sure everyone is aware, is a friend of mine, I know them well, they had a great family, he's a great guy, don't agree on many policies, but I think of him very much as a positive kind of politician. He is not an angry kind of guy. He's got his constituents he's got to response, and you saw him doing that today.

But I think the part where you are going to see the aggression is actually what you just mentioned, the lawsuits. Xavier Becerra, the state attorney general, he -- you might find him doing the dirty work in terms of really constantly opposing the president and his administration at every turn because it is, after all, a state totally dominated by Democrats at every level.

MACCALLUM: Even more now after the midterms.

HILTON: Exactly.

MACCALLUM: I mean, you saw a number of seats that were in Orange County, sort of the hold out Republican parts of California that became Democrat seats over the course of that midterm. And what they've seen is the migration out of California.

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: They've lost in net million people over the past several years in California. Obviously, the taxes are very high. They are not a great incentive for businesses to begin there. There are some of the stats upon the board.

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You know, people going to Texas a lot, especially lower income people from California to Texas --

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- which they find better. Well, I mean --

HILTON: And you've got these huge social issues, the homelessness problem. I mean, when you look at what's going on --

MACCALLUM: San Francisco, yes.

HILTON: San Francisco it's like a third world country and that is not some kind of hyperbole. It really is disgusting, Los Angeles the same. And actually, Gavin Newsom in the campaign he went as far as he reasonably could to criticize the previous Democratic administration and Jerry Brown and said, look, this problem -- these problems are own us Democrats, we've been running the state.

So, I think that he understands that he's got big problems to deal with. And that's another reason I think that actually in the end he's got a lot on his plate in California. I think he sees himself as having a pretty big future in politics beyond California one day. And I think he's going to l want to show that he's a positive problem-solving kind of guy, not just constantly picking fights with the president. He will leave that to the attorney general --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And obviously as the president said you got the wall issue.

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Which he says they didn't want but they went ahead and rebuilt that part of the wall, higher and stronger. We've seen pictures of people sitting on it on the beach in San Diego. That's going to continue to be very --

(CROSSTALK)

HILTON: Yes, and that's a really important connection between that and another point you mentioned, which is the health care system. Because, of course, if you have a single-payer system which he promised in the campaign he's now saying you are not going to get it overnight but he's not backing off the promise.

That is going to be huge incentives for even more immigration because the other component of that promise is that it will be open to all the residents of California whether you are a citizen or not. And that's going to make it really attractive for even more people to come and get that free health care.

MACCALLUM: I mean how do states start attracting people again? I mean, that's a problem.

HILTON: I think one day -- and I don't know when that day is going to come -- California will turn again. And it will this demand to do something about this problem, to get the economy moving properly again for everyone, not just the Silicon Valley billionaires, but the working people of California who -- its got the worst poverty in the country, working people are being squeezed, they can't afford anywhere to live. People are commuting two and three hours.

MACCALLUM: He says there are really rich people and really poor people.

HILTON: Exactly and I think that there is going to come a time when they say we need common sense Republican type solutions. I think that day will come. I can't predict when but it's going to happen.

MACCALLUM: To leading the midterm.

HILTON: It certainly will.

MACCALLUM: Maybe you are a futurist. Thank you, Steve. Good to see you.

HILTON: Good to see you. A revolution, perhaps.

HILTON: There you go.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, coming up, Trey Gowdy on his feud with Elizabeth Warren. Have you seen the Twitter fight between these two?

Plus, Golden Globe winners calling for female empowerment in Hollywood and beyond. But new members suggest that -- new numbers, rather, suggest that actually man could be the ones who are discriminated against in this world. Stick around for that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REGINA KING, ACTRESS: I am making a vow and it will be tough to make sure that everything that I produce that is 50 percent women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, last night, actress, Regina King, used her acceptance speech at the Golden Globes to promote a message of gender equality. Notice in this clip that we are about to show you. The producers did the thing they do when they start playing the music to say like you had enough time and then when they got wind of what she was saying then they let her talk longer, watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The reason why we do this is because we understand there are microphones are big and we are speaking for everyone. In the next two years, everything that I produce I am making a vow and it's going to be tough to make sure that everything that I produce that is 50 percent women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: We're like, we better let her talk. Otherwise, we are going to get in big trouble for not letting her finish what she is saying.

Meanwhile, as Hollywood calls for more opportunities for women in their workplace, a new global study finds that men are discriminated against more than women in 91 out of 134 countries including the United States.

Here now, Ashe Schow, senior editor of the Daily Wire. Ashe, good to see you tonight. Thanks for being here.

ASHE SCHOW, SENIOR EDITOR, THE DAILY WIRE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: What is the finding in this study and what are the parameters? What are they using to say that men are more discriminated against?

SCHOW: This study uses parameter such as workplace, deaths, or whether men are punished -- while showing that men are punished more harshly for the same crime as women. Things that, you know, I've been talking about for years, I already knew but the study kind of lays it all out.

But I do want to note one major caveat in the study to be taken with a grain of salt is that they list Saudi Arabia as being like number three on the list of favoring women, which is kind of odd to me considering --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCHOW: -- it was just a couple years ago that women got the right to drive in that country, so taken with a grain of salt just as you would any other gender study claiming that one gender is more oppressed than another.

MACCALLUM: So how do they arrive at this? Let's look at some of the comparisons of the countries, Iran at number 57, the United States at number 61, which nations are best for equality and which sex is better off, and then you got Mexico down at number 65.

SCHOW: Right. And I believe Italy was number one with a slight favoring of men. So, they took these different factors, and then, you know, they weighed them in assigned point values and found that if the scale ended up the closer to zero you were the more equal you were. If it was in the negatives then it favored women and if it was in the positives then it favored men.

And again, these factors were workplace deaths, compulsory military involvement.

MACCALLUM: Right.

SCHOW: And the harsher punishments which is something that --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, some quality of life and fairness in the judicial system and a lot of those kinds of factors.

SCHOW: Right.

MACCALLUM: You know, one of the things we obviously hear a lot about from women candidates is that they should be elected because they're women and that if you don't like them, it indicates some sort of sexism. It's not just that you don't think they're a great candidate.

Elizabeth Warren has been, you know, sort of suggested that she is unlikable by some of -- by some of the things that been written about her and they comparing her to Hillary Clinton.

And then today, Karol Markowicz wrote a piece and she said that it is not sexist to call Elizabeth Warren unlikable. She said that in 2020 all women will be likable. They have to be since the charge of unlikable is now, yes, sexist. What do you think about that?

SCHOW: No, she's absolutely right. I mean, we saw throughout the Obama years that any time you criticize his policies you were called racist. I knew that if Hillary Clinton was elected anytime any of her policies would be covered -- you know, protested she would claim sexism. She still claims sexism in the election itself.

So, that's something we would have to look for. But something else that Karol notes was that you know they only point to women, Nancy Pelosi, and you know, women that are about Hillary's age also white women who have basically the same policies. But when it's other women, such as Kamala Harris, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez who, you know, Republicans may disagree with them on many, many issues, but they are more likable people. They actually have a personality.

And so, for Politico or the people that are attacking Warren because Politico accidentally -- actually didn't make this up. It was people attacked -- on Warren's side making this claim, right? So, for them, they're saying they're all there leaving out men. Right?

So, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry, also unlikable, that's why they didn't win the election and what all of them have in common is they're kind of older, they're very boring. You know, I mean, Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, you can be a boring unlikeable candidate whether you are a man or woman.

SCHOW: Right, exactly.

MACCALLUM: That we've established through decades and decades in watching electable.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOW: If you're boring, you're unlikable.

MACCALLUM: Ashe, thank you very much. You're not boring at all that's why we find you very likable.

SCHOW: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you again tonight. Thank you.

So, coming up next, Trey Gowdy responds exclusively to Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's insult of him. She accused him of leaving Congress to just collect a big fat lobbyist paycheck. We will get his response to that right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TREY GOWDY, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: We'll practice law in South Carolina with a firm that I have a history with, and more importantly, with two lawyers that I have worked with over the last couple of years. And I am to the point I'm like, Martha, where I do things with matters to me every bit as much as what I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Just days after settling into civilian life, Trey Gowdy was already dragged into a nasty political fight, it's hard to get away.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren accused the former congressman of trying to enrich himself as a lobbyist for starting a new job as a white- collar crime attorney that's part of the business that they'll be doing in his home state.

Warren tweeted, quote, "Gowdy foamed at the mouth with power in Congress and then retired because he claimed he didn't enjoy it. Now it's clear, Trey Gowdy just wanted a fat lobbyist paycheck. That should be illegal."

Here now exclusively, Trey Gowdy, former House Oversight Committee chairman now a partner at Nelson Mullins law firm in North -- in South Carolina joins me now. Good to see you, Mr. Gowdy. Thank you for being here tonight.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. You, too.

MACCALLUM: So, you reacted to that on Twitter. Let's pull up what your reaction was to Elizabeth Warren. You said, "I'm not lobbying, not now or ever. Perhaps you're cracking open a beer when it was announced. Don't mind her criticisms. Just be more sensitive to the facts." Your thoughts, sir.

GOWDY: Well, there are a million things that you can legitimately criticize me for. And if she's struggling to come up with a list, my wife is happy to help. But I'm not a lobbyist. I'm not going to be a fat lobbyist. I'm not going to be a skinny lobbyist, a plus size one. I'm not lobbying at all. That is a factual matter.

All she would have to do, if she really wanted to know, she could have called me. Most of her Senate colleagues have my cell phone number. She could say, hey, what are you going to do? I'm getting ready to criticize you. I need to decide which thing to criticize you for.

She just happened to stumble upon the thing that is demonstrably and factually untrue. And it does make me wonder -- I don't mind the criticisms. Actually, being criticized by Elizabeth Warren helps me in South Carolina.

What I do mind and what several of my Democrat colleagues correctly pointed out over the weekend, if you are going to criticize the president and other people for being loose with the facts, don't be loose with the facts yourself.

She is running for president of the United States and she kicks it off by making demonstrably false allegation against a former colleague. I don't get it.

MACCALLUM: Here is the beer video, which I guess is what prompted that part of your tweet. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: Hold on a second. I'm going to get me a beer. Hey, my husband, Bruce, is now in here. You want a beer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I pass on a beer for now.

WARREN: Of course (ph), let me sit down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I don't know. We just played it because you mentioned it in your tweet and because it's just, it's hilarious. I mean, you know, why --

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: It sounded so natural. And I was struck by the authenticity and the naturalness of that. Wow.

MACCALLUM: And she says she drinks beer all the time. But you know, I don't think she is probably not as Instagram savvy perhaps as some but maybe she will work on that as she moves forward in this. I want to get your thoughts on the border wall controversy because from a legal perspective we talked to Judge Napolitano before.

Does the president have any right to declare a national emergency when it comes to the border?

GOWDY: Boy, the president has broad legal rights when it comes to national emergencies. I don't -- actually, I don't think that's the route he is going to go. I think he is looking for a willing negotiating partner.

And Martha, when the folks across from the table think that I should be disbanded and the border patrol gases with intent, children in any physical boundary is nativist and racist, that's a tough bargaining position if that's who is across the table. So, I think he is looking for leverage.

I was with Lindsey Graham a lot yesterday and one thing I hope my Republican colleagues, former colleagues, the point they'll make is, lots of Democratic senators voted for physical boundary funding in the past. What changed? We know the cartels no longer an issue? Is the drug epidemic over? Is no one showing up at the border? Why did you vote for in the past but now you think it is nativist and xenophobic? And I have yet to hear a Democrat answer that question with conviction.

MACCALLUM: Here is Lindsey Graham on Face of the Nation. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: We have to negotiate with people who want to abolish ICE, not support ICE. We're having to negotiate with people who see the border patrol agents gassing children rather than defending our borders as professional law enforcement officers.

And we are negotiating with people who will give us $1 for the law even though it's immoral and accused all of us who support a wall as part of a border security as racist. As long as the radical left is in charge, we're never going to get anywhere. The president will compromise but he will not capitulate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Where do you see this going?

GOWDY: I don't see how -- I mean, the Democrats have said they are not going to spend a dollar, not $1 on a physical boundary. And I don't think President Trump and Mulvaney and my Republican former colleagues, I don't think that they are going to capitulate, to use Lindsey's word, and pass an appropriations bill that doesn't have funding for it.

So that gives gets me back to if you thought it was a good idea in the past, if you voted to fund it in the past, what has changed? In the court of public opinion, which is where this will be settled, I think my fellow citizens are open to, well, if you liked in the past, why don't you like it now, and what metric is different?

I don't think anyone is going to argue that the border is more secure and better off and that we have fewer problems and fewer enemies than we did when the Democrats voted to fund the wall in the past.

MACCALLUM: I want to ask you about Mick Mulvaney from your home state of South Carolina. There is a story floating around that he as recently as the end of the year, just a few weeks ago, was talking to somebody about potentially becoming the president of the University of South Carolina. Is that true?

GOWDY: Well, let me say two things. I think Mick would be fantastic in a college setting. Mick's three best friends in politics are Tim Scott, Lindsey Graham, and Trey Gowdy. And we are all three native South Carolinians. So, if you want to be the president of the University of Carolina, don't you think you would have reached out to one of those three and said, hey, can you help?

He didn't call Tim, he didn't call Lindsey, and he had -- he hadn't talked to me. So, I don't know where the reporting is coming from. Mick would be great, but the notion that Mick is trying to get out of his current job to go be a college president, why not ask two U.S. senators who could actually help you and he hadn't done it.

MACCALLUM: Maybe you want the job.

GOWDY: I am not qualified to be. I am barely got in college, I can't run one.

MACCALLUM: All right. Congressman Trey Gowdy, thank you very much, sir. Good to see you tonight.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. You, too. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: That is "The Story" for this Monday night. Let me know what you think. Tweet at Martha MacCallum using the hashtag, #thestory. Tucker Carlson is coming up on Washington, D.C. We'll see you back here tomorrow night, the Oval Office address from the president. See you then.
 
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.