Sen. Collins: Violence against police is unacceptable and horrific

close

Video

Sen. Collins: Violence against police is unacceptable and horrific

Maine Sen. Susan Collins on violence against law enforcement, gun control proposals.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," August 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: I hate it when that happens, don't you? Jon, thank you very much.

All right, everybody. Tonight, as we waited Brad Parscale, campaign manager 2020, revving up the crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire. We're going to take you there live when the president gets on the stage and begins to speak.

But first tonight, Senator Elizabeth Warren, pulling ahead in the latest Fox News poll. She is still behind Joe Biden as you can see there. But she's well ahead of the rest of the field at this stage.

And her closest contender who she's been neck-and-neck with, Bernie Sanders has lost several points. Rest of the field pretty much stuck on the launch pad as you can see there.

Warren also getting attention in a lot of places tonight for marking five years since the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri by calling Brown's death, a murder. Quote, she said, "Five years ago, Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed, yet, he was shot six times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head-on."

So, that tweet has now been given Four Pinocchios by The Washington Post, and PolitiFact which is the fact-checking blog that a lot of people rely on has now been roundly criticized for basically bending over backwards to not call that claim false.

Now, just to take you back to that moment five years ago and what followed, a grand jury investigated in Missouri. Then, there was a federal investigation. Both investigations acquitted the officer after they dug into all the evidence.

They found that Michael Brown had gone over to him and assaulted him and reached into his car. They believe he was trying to get the officers weapon. And the DNA on the officer and on the gun and all of it proved it.

Now, you all remember the Hands Up, Don't Shoot movement, which was such a -- you know, very tense moment in this country when all of this was going on, really is what was the launch in the spark of the Black Lives Matter movement. But that Hands Up, Don't Shoot, it didn't happen, according to the two investigations, both state and federal that looked into what happened that day.

So, earlier, I spoke exclusively with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine about this and also about her own push now for new gun control measures.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: Do you think it's dangerous to sort of talk about what happened in Ferguson and, you know, this was somewhat separate from the Philadelphia issue. But, you know, when you're looking at all of this gun violence that's happening around the country, and these officers put their lives in danger.

And to go back and sort of rewrite what happened with Michael Brown, and Kamala Harris has done the same thing. And, you know, they got called out by the Washington Post for it.

But, you know, these are the sort of things that are set in campaigns that the truth matters.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-ME: The truth does matter. And also I don't understand why anyone would want to exacerbate tensions that may exist in our inner city. That's just doesn't make sense to me.

MACCALLUM: I want to play some video. The police officers who were in the street in Philadelphia, while there -- you know, fellow officers were in the middle of this firefight were pelted by people on the streets in Pennsylvania. Here's a quick look at that.

MACCALLUM: And it's hard to see that. But the things are being thrown at them. We saw the water doused in New York on police officers. There so -- you know, so much tension.

And then you've got these, you know, criminals holed up in these buildings. Shooting at police officers. You know, what do you say to the leadership in those cities about how they handle this?

COLLINS: Well, it seems to me that what we just saw is inexcusable. Here, these officers were legally trying to serve a warrant. And the one thing I have read is that it was a minority of that crowd. It was a small number of people who were pelting those officers, but regardless. So, it's totally unacceptable and horrific.

MACCALLUM: So, let's talk a little bit about what you're trying to put forward in terms of gun reforms and gun measures. You have been a lone voice for this in the Republican Party.

But you've said that you think that now, there is a moment to actually pass some legislation here. Tell me how that plays out and who's in favor of it?

COLLINS: Well, I do. First of all, I'm working with Senator Pat Toomey, and Joe Manchin on -- and with the White House on making sure that we close some loopholes in the background check system, to ensure that people with criminal records or who are mentally ill cannot purchase firearms. That's something we ought to be able to unite around.

Now, I'm not talking about foolish restrictions on family members. I wouldn't support for example the House-passed bill. Because it is overreach, it goes too far. But if we can come together working with President Trump, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and say, that if you advertise the sale of a firearm over the Internet, there should be a background check, that makes sense to me.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you know, do you think that the president will stick with this? Because unfortunately, what we've seen too many times. I mean, people say, this is the moment because of Dayton and El Paso. But I have said, you know, if it wasn't the moment after Sandy Hook, why should anyone believe that once a few weeks pass, it doesn't go away?

COLLINS: Well, the president has been engaged and he's talked to Senator McConnell who has indicated a willingness to bring that bill to the floor.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that will happen? Do you think Mitch McConnell will take it up?

COLLINS: I do. And I think we'll see some sort of red flag bill with very strong due process -- protections.

MACCALLUM: And can you get the House to onboard with that because -- you know, I know they have said that they're not interested in anything that doesn't include universal background checks, which you're not in favor of, right?

COLLINS: No, I'm for comprehensive common-sense background checks. You know, I grew up in northern Maine where response what gun ownership was part of the heritage, virtually, every family.

But people don't want criminals and people with serious mental illness to be able to purchase fire and such this just common sense. I think the difference this time is we've had three incidents, so close together, then look at what happened in Philadelphia as well.

And we have the president saying that he is on board. So, my hope is that the Democrats truly want a solution and some progress and that they're not going to play political games with this issue. We can make a difference but only if Chuck Schumer doesn't play political games.

MACCALLUM: All right. But before I let you go, the House Judiciary Committee wants to revisit the Kavanaugh issue. You and I have talked about Brett Kavanaugh a lot over the last year.

Going back to the Bush records in the White House, and you know, combing through them to see if there's anything to sort of negate his ability to be a Supreme Court justice. What do you say to that?

COLLINS: I think that is absurd. He has been confirmed to the highest court of the -- in the land. I've been watching his decisions, he's clearly in the mainstream. And for the House Judiciary Committee, which plays no role in the confirmation process at all, and to say that it has the right to these confidential records is outrageous. And would never have been done if it were the records of President Obama's staff secretary that they were seeking. That just would not happen.

MACCALLUM: Senator Susan Collins of Maine, always good to see you. Thank you for coming in. Good to have you in New York.

COLLINS: Thank you. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: So, joining me now, Rachel Campos Duffy, a Fox News contributor, and host of "MOMS" on Fox Nation and Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor, and former DNC chairman. Great to have both of you with us tonight.

Ed, let me start with you with what happened yesterday in your home state. And the video that we showed moments ago of people harassing and pelting the police officers, why is there so much disrespect in our cities for the police officers?

ED RENDELL, FORMER CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, let me start off by saying Senator Collins was right when she said that was a very small minority. I watch --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But she said, no matter how many people do it, and we saw the water dousing here in New York, you know -- and no matter how many people do it, she said, it's atrocious.

RENDELL: Right. And she's absolutely right. But understand that the vast majority, 95 percent of the African-American neighbors, supported the police, we're thankful of the police, did what they did. Praise the police for the way they handle it for their courage.

Look, we've got to find a bridge so that the community will begin to trust the police again. And that bridge comes from transparency, it comes from free and open investigations.

MACCALLUM: yes.

RENDELL: And you're right, it's important that both sides tell the truth of this, and don't try to use these incidents for political points. That's number one. But number two, Martha, I agree with Senator Collins that this is a point of demarcation here.

But we've got to do more than just background checks and red flags. We've got to ban assault weapons, and we've got to ban high-capacity magazines. Think about Dayton. Dayton, in 32 seconds, the shooter in Dayton had 27 people, in 32 seconds with an AR-15.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's unbelievable.

RENDELL: In Philadelphia, one man with an automatic weapon and unlimited ammunition held off two SWAT teams for hours, and hours, and hours. Civilians have no right to have assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, he had. You know, I mean, he had a rap sheet -- you know longer than your arm.

RENDELL: No question.

MACCALLUM: And he had -- you know, and it made these cases in that kind of case, there's no serial numbers on the weapon, they're ordering different parts on the internet and putting it together.

Rachel, you know, these are the barriers that exist to comprehensive reform as Senator Collins was talking about. Because there's just so many ways, unfortunately, to get your hands on these things if you're somebody who wants to kill people.

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely, if you want to kill people, and you're a criminal, you're not going to follow the gun laws that we have on the books or any new ones that we put forward. And, by the way, if you want to kill people, you don't even just need a gun. You could take a car, and ram into a group of people which we've seen happen before. You can use a pressure cooker, you can use a knife, and there's lots of things that can happen.

I really enjoyed your interview with Senator Susan Collins. If Susan Collins was in charge of this, and only Susan Collins, I would trust this. Because she comes from a gun state, she understands the culture just like I do in Wisconsin that gun ownership is something that has a very deep cultural meaning, and that most people are very responsible.

The vast majority of people are very responsible gun owners. And so, the question is what can we agree on? And I think, there's a couple of things that are making people on the right, nervous about going into this.

If it's just mental health and people with criminal records like the guy who we got in Philly, who shouldn't have had a gun, and probably, shouldn't have even been on the streets. I'm OK with that. And most people in red America are too. The problem is then, they start to want more and more.

And, by the way, another danger is people on the left are talking about socialism at the same time that they're talking about gun control, and a lot of -- a lot of red-blooded red-state Americans know what happens in socialist countries when they start with the gun grabs.

MACCALLUM: Ed, what do you say to that?

RENDELL: Well, I think Rachel is not reading the polls. 70 percent of the American people want assault weapons ban. 72 percent of American people want high-capacity magazines banned. 95 percent of the American people want universal background checks.

There is almost unanimity in America. And let me tell you, if the Republican Senate stops assault weapons from being banned and stops high- capacity magazines from being banned, they will lose control over the Senate in 2020. I absolutely promise you.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, I guess what Susan Collins was saying though is, you know, is can you start somewhere? Right? And then, can you keep building on that? She -- you know, the red flag -- the red flag law is the beginning.

(CROSSTALK)

RENDELL: What do we need?

MACCALLUM: And, you know, a comprehensive background check program. I mean, I think, politically, you know, as much as what you're saying, you know, I think makes sense to -- you know, at least, 70 percent of the people as you -- as you said, Ed, it doesn't look like it can pass in in Congress.

So, do you get -- do you start by picking off some of these pieces and making it tougher and tougher for these individuals to get their hands on these weapons? Or do you just say like well, because you're not going to side with us, and you're not going to side with us, we're just going to do nothing? Because nothing is not tenable.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.

RENDELL: Never. I agree with you. I agree with you. We should pass whatever we can pass. But let me talk to any senator and say how can you countenance a person in 32 seconds injuring and killing 26 people? 32 seconds 26 people.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It's sickening.

DUFFY: And I would -- and I would just -- I would just say this to the other side. You would have a lot more credibility at if the conversation after any of this instance was not just about guns.

If the left would take as much and put in as much important on mental health, on other factors that are playing into the gun violence that we're seeing whether it's video games, whether it's cultural, or whatever it is.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's the red flag -- that's what the red flag law hopes to address. And you know, you got a lot of libertarians who don't even want that. So, we'll see where it goes. Thank you very much to you both. Ed Rendell, Rachel Duffy, good to see you both tonight.

DUFFY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, Israel sending a clear message today. The two outspoken congresswomen barring freshman Democrats Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering the country ahead of their planned trip to support a Palestinian LED boycott.

The decision from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coming shortly after a tweet from President Trump that read in part. "It would show great weakness. They hate Israel and all Jewish people," the president wrote.

Tonight, the congresswomen are firing back. Tlaib calls the move a sign of weakness. And Omar says, "Trump's Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, an insult to democratic values," she writes.

Here is President Trump on this today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: They said horrible things about Jewish people. They said horrible things about Israel and Israelis. I think would be a terrible thing frankly for Israel to let these two people who speak so badly about Israel come in. And they have become amazingly the face of the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Marc Thiessen co-host of the American Enterprise Institute's What the Hell is Going On podcast -- we love to say that -- and Fox News Contributor, and David Tafuri, a former State Department official in the Obama administration. David and Mark, great to have both of you with us tonight.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Just to show everybody at home, on the right-hand side of the screen, Manchester, New Hampshire where they're revving up the crowd as the president gets ready to speak to them there. We're going to take you there live as soon as that gets underway.

Marc, you said today about this move that you thought it was a mistake on the part of the president. Why?

THIESSEN: Yes, on balance, it is. I mean, first of all, there's nothing outrageous about it. I mean, it's -- on one hand, it's OK for them to boycott Israel but it's not OK for Israel to boycott them? I mean, it's ridiculous.

MACCALLUM: It's a good point.

THIESSEN: So I mean, their outrages is absurd. However, it's a mistake because it gives them a platform on which to attack -- to attack Israel. I think they actually wanted this to happen. Because if you look at the timing of it they introduced this boycott resolution to support the boycott of Israel and then announce that they're going on a trip to Israel knowing that Israel has a law that says that people who support the boycott of Israel can be banned.

So it's a little bit suspicious the timing of this of how this happened. I think they wanted this to happen and we and so Israel and Trump have sort of played into their hands. But there's nothing wrong with Israel deciding that people who support the destruction of the State of Israel economically shouldn't be there.

And the fact that they're members of Congress, that Israel is barring members of Congress, that's that outrageous. What's outrageous is that there are members of Congress who are virulent anti-Semites who are supporting the boycott and destruction of Israel through economic means. That's what we should be outraged about.

MACCALLUM: David, what do you think?

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think you know, Israel broke with tradition here by banning legislators from its closest ally at the U.S. It's a sovereign nation. It has every right to decide who can come in and who cannot. But I've been to Israel many times. I found -- find the people fair and open-minded welcoming of other views, so this is not in keeping with the tradition of Israel.

Also, I think these two members of Congress would have learned a lot by going to Israel. They would have had a better understanding of Israel. Some of their opinions are not correct but the only way to correct them is to bring them to Israel allowing to see what Israel is really like.

MACCALLUM: But I think that's one of the reasons -- but David, that was one of the reasons that I think the Israeli government you know, in reading Benjamin Netanyahu's statement about it, he said you know, they didn't ask to meet with any members of the government and they didn't even ask to meet with our opposition, you know. So it doesn't look like it was going to be a very educational eye-opening experience.

(CROSSTALK)

TAFURI: Martha, but I've also been to the Palestinian territories to the West Bank and to Gaza and I learned a lot from that too.

MACCALLUM: Of course.

TAFURI: So they would have learned -- so they would have seen a West Bank that's actually quite different from perhaps what they think it is like there now. And that would have been informative for them as well.

THIESSEN: David, they're not open to learning. These people are anti- Semites. They hate the State of Israel, they hate Jews, and they're going to go -- they were going to Israel in order to use it as a platform to attack the State of Israel. I mean, you know, this is -- and this is a problem that the Democrats need to get a grip on is that they're -- the left has been infected with anti-Semitism.

You know, they -- if you look at -- there's anti-Semitism on the right and the left. But on the right, you see it on the streets of Charlottesville where they're skinheads running around chanting we -- Jews will not replace us. On the left, it's an and the halls of Congress. It's on the floor of the -- of the House of Representatives.

You have two members here who are spouting anti-Semitic diatribes against Jews and the -- and the Democratic leaders can't bring themselves to condemn the anti-Semitism. Why don't the Democratic presidential candidates who today are criticizing Israel, I wish they have the same vigor and criticizing Omar and Tlaib for their anti-Semitic rants. So you know, there's a little --

MACCALLUM: All right, let's let David get in here. Go ahead, David.

TAFURI: Mark, you're really demagoguing this issue now. These are just two members --

THIESSEN: No, I'm not.

TAFURI: Yes you are.

THIESSEN: How dare you say I'm demagoguing it.

TAFURI: Hold on. Let me finish.

THIESSEN: These people are anti-Semites.

TAFURI: These are -- just let me finish. You've talked for a long time. Can I speak?

MACCALLUM: Go ahead, David.

TAFURI: There are two -- these are two members of Congress. They're junior members of Congress who are not influential within Congress. They are not representative of the Democratic Party which is not anti-Semitic, which is very supportive of Jews, of Jewish issues, and of Israel. And so you're now trying to use this to divide the country but it's actually not - -

THIESSEN: Oh, you got to be kidding me.

TAFURI: -- it's not keeping with what happened because both Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress actually are united on the fact that these two members of Congress should have been allowed to go to Israel.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but they did it when they have the opportunity, David. Let me just point out that when they have the opportunity to say that they were engaging in hate speech -- and I do think -- you know, I don't -- I just don't like name-calling so you know -- you know, you don't -- everyone should just have a you know, a fair and respectful dialogue.

And I think obviously Marc is passionate about this issue but he was really calling out that those -- these specific members, and pointing out that there is a larger -- there seems to be a larger you know, an increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes. We've seen that in the United States.

But you know, when you look at what happened when they tried to call them out on it, other members of the Democrat Party, it got kind of whitewashed. They said, well, we're just going to condemn all kinds of hate, you know.

So when they have the opportunity to say we don't believe what they believe, they kind of wimped out.

TAFURI: Well, a lot of members did say that. A lot of members --

(CROSSTALK)

THIESSEN: David?

TAFURI: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

THIESSEN: David, here's the problem. Martha, you're absolutely right that they did wimp out. And the other thing is Omar is a member of the Senate of the -- of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that sets policy towards Israel. How -- what place does she have sitting on that committee?

When Congressman Steve King made comments that were there were white -- supporting white nationalism, you know what the Republicans did, they kicked him off of his committee. They sent him off in the corner. Why are they rallying around this anti-Semite?

MACCALLUM: David, last word here. Go ahead, David.

TAFURI: Well, again, it's two members of Congress. They're very junior. They've said some things that are stupid that need to be confronted. And - - but members of Congress in both parties have confronted it, and members of Congress in both parties are unified in decision that -- in the opinion that Israel should have let these members in and it would have educated them and helped them.

Trump was wrong to kind of stoke this decision out of Israel. But things will move on and hopefully, we can move on from this decision.

THIESSEN: Democrats are more enthusiastic condemning Israel than they are of these two members.

MACCALLUM: David Tafuri and Marc Thiessen, thank you very much. Gentleman, good to see you. So coming up right here -- right now actually, because we're not going anywhere. We're waiting for this to get underway. The stock market recovered slightly today one day after the worst day of the year on Wall Street.

Fears of recession seem to be running high and some of the media seems to be almost giddy that an economic downturn would hinder President Trump's chances in 2020. Here's a sampling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the global economy including the United States is taking a step toward recession, what does that mean for this presidency?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's political suicide.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's fears that a recession could really jeopardize the president's chances of winning a second term in office.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a recognition that if the economy really does slow here, if there is a real signs that a recession is coming, that that undermines what is his belief the best argument for his re-election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point -- if I were looking at these numbers, I say the president is a slight underdog for reelection. But if all of a sudden the economy went south, he'd be a major underdog for reelection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Major, major underdog. Here now, Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of the Case for Trump. You know, it's just interesting -- you know, I was listening to a lot of different news networks this morning as I often do, just kind of getting a read on what everybody's saying about what's going on, and you know, couldn't help but feel that there was a bit of sort of enthusiasm for the possibility that maybe the economy might tank.

And I think that that's you know, just sort of a generally on -- what's the word -- it's unpatriotic, I think, and it's also sort of you know, inhumane to hope that people will suffer a bad economy so that you can get rid of a president that you don't like. Victor?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTE: Yes. I agree with you. We had six million new jobs. That's not it's an abstract number, Martha. That meant that six million lives and people are directly affected with them were radically changed. When you have 3.7 percent peacetime unemployment, we haven't had that in 70 years.

And here in Fresno County, we had 16 percent unemployment in 19 -- 2015 and 16, and now it's six. You can see people's lives are radically changed. So I don't mind people saying I hope Trump fails on this issue or that issue, but this is something different. This is about the country.

And so it's really for a very wealthy people who are pretty comfortable to say that they want a radical downturn in the economic lives of millions of Americans is pretty callous and hypocritical. And then it fits this narrative, Martha, where we had -- remember it's -- we have this periodic hysterics.

We go 25th Amendment, Emoluments Clause, Logan Act, Robert Mueller obstruction collusion, and then it was white supremacist, white nationalist, racism. And then each new cycle of about two or three weeks now it's recession, recession. And it's in that hysterics where people just don't step back and say this is the Trump position, this is the Democratic position on all these issues. Let's have an election about.

And finally, you know, what is really strange, they didn't want to talk about the economy. You couldn't get anybody on the Democratic stage and those debates to say much about it all about the economy because they fell apparently it was doing pretty well in a way that Larry Summers said you would -- you know, it was a fantasy ever to achieve annualized three percent growth or Barack Obama said you need a magic wand to bring these jobs back.

So they didn't want to talk about it, and then suddenly they get one little barometer of a yield curve and they want to talk about the economy until the next cycle drama and the next cycle.

MACCALLUM: Well, it's interesting you know, to look at what is causing this discussion. There's obviously a contraction in growth in China and also in Germany. So when you look around the world, do you see that there are signs that there -- that this contraction is going to negatively impact the United States? And what if they don't get you know, a deal with China? Maybe you know, is the president playing out this string with China in a way that's going to work or not work? What do you think?

HANSON: Well, I think things are a little different. I think that this was ten or 20 years ago, when you look at slowdowns abroad, then it does affect the United States. But there's some things that have radically changed.

Number one is that we're the largest producer of gas and oil in the world. We're going to be the largest exporter. We're not -- we're not exposed to any cutoff in energy. And then second, the world is sort of rolling around us because they know what China has been doing, and China is in real serious economic difficulty.

The second is if we -- if this trade standoff continues, they're starting to move jobs out of China into Southeast Asia and back into Mexico and back into North America. So there's an upside in the long term. I'm not saying that we're -- it might be a short term hit, but Europe and China have structural problems that we don't have.

They're over-regulated economies or they're not free-market economy. So we can adapt much more quickly. And when I look at unemployment, when I look at inflation, when I look at interest rates, everything is positive except -- I'm worried about the deficit but I was worried about that under the Bush and Obama administration.

MACCALLUM: You know, before we're obviously -- the President is going to walk out in a couple of minutes so we're just going to continue to keep an eye on it. There's new -- there's like a show going on at the beginning of this rally.

We've heard actually quite a bit about this you know 2.0 version of the Trump rallies as 2020 gets underway and I think we're getting a little bit of a glimpse of what the production value looks like on that, so we're going to keep one eye on that.

But I want to get your thoughts on Hong Kong because you know Hong Kong has been this you know, place where the people who live in China can look to Hong Kong and they can see what capitalism looks like. It's a thriving financial metropolis. And you know from reports, a lot of people in China especially the southern part of China look at that and I say, you know, that looks pretty good.

So President Xi looks at that and now he's concerned perhaps that he doesn't want everybody to get carried away and think like you know, we can all be like Hong Kong in China. So he's nervous about what's going on there and he's cracking down on it. Where do you see that going?

HANSON: I don't think it's going to end -- I don't think it's going to cause the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party, but it's another indication of raw that people in Asia, in Australia, in Taiwan, in Japan, in South Korea, in Europe in North America, they're starting -- an opinion starting to coalesce left and right that China has these reaction camps. It spies on its own citizens. It persecutes Muslims and it's a serial trade cheater.

And so all across the spectrum, the world is sort of saying we've, torn off the scab and this wound is pretty ugly, and that hurts China. And I think as far as we're going, Trump has to be very careful because if he virtue signals, I want to stand with the people of Hong Kong which we all want to do, that's kind of -- what are you going to do when you say that? What does that mean? Do you do something concrete -- and he's right in the middle of these trade negotiations with him.

So he's got to be very careful. We wanted -- we deplore what China is doing, but on the other hand. so many presidents virtue signal that we're going to stand with some country and then they don't do anything.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's true. I mean, it's a great point. And he's been criticized for not --

HANSON: And I don't know what you're going to do with a nuclear power of 1.3 billion people.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And he's been criticized for not speaking out in favor of the people in Hong Kong and supporting them. But as you point out, he's in the middle of you know, this trade discussion. And it seems to me that what he may be doing is trying to give President Xi an opportunity.

You know, he says I think you're a good guy. I think you're a good man. I think you're a good leader, right. And when -- he's giving him some space, you know, to sort of do the right thing in Hong Kong.

HANSON: You know, that's absolutely right.

MACCALLUM: Rather than sort of say, you're -- you know, you're evil and you know these people are right.

HANSON: Yes. I think that's absolutely right. It's right out of the Art of the Deal. That's what he does.

MACCALLUM: Exactly.

HANSON: But you know, we had -- we had this in 2009 with Barack Obama. Iran was not a nuclear power. It didn't have a population in clout like China did, and they had a green revolution and all the people are saying speak out Mr. President. They were silent when Barack Obama did not support.

And it wasn't just a few people in Hong Kong or you know, 100,000. It was a million people in the streets of Iran, and the Obama administration made the decision that they wanted to cut an Iran deal in the future, and they did not want to antagonize that government. I disagreed with at the time but boy, everybody in the left supported that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And he said that is such a great point.

(CROSSTALK)

HANSON: And they are the ones that --

MACCALLUM: Yes. It's a great point.

HANSON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Because when President Obama have the opportunity to support the people in Iran and there are a lot of people who believed that that maybe, you know, a potential tipping point moment for the people in Iran.

HANSON: It was. Yes.

MACCALLUM: And that moment was lost in favor of wanting to get this Iran nuclear deal. And that that, you know, as often happens in life and history when a moment passes you don't always get it back.

HANSON: No, you don't. And they had a fraction of the potential power that China has, they are very vulnerable and we could've done something but I don't know what you do with a Chinese juggernaut that's 1.3 billion people with nuclear weapons that's right down the throat of Japan and Taiwan and South Korea.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HANSON: So, we've got to be very careful.

MACCALLUM: So, the president is about to start speaking.

HANSON: Then I would --

MACCALLUM: When he does, I'm going to hop over there. But you know, a very low unemployment rate --

HANSON: OK.

MACCALLUM: -- in Man -- in New Hampshire, I should say, this is a state that, you know, Republicans don't spend much time in generally but it's a state that he believes he might be able to flip. Hillary Clinton won it very narrowly. What do you think?

HANSON: Yes, I think it's possible. I think that we're going to see in this election, you know, Wisconsin, 20,000 votes, Michigan 10,000 last time, Pennsylvania, I think it was 70,000. Four or five million people are going to decide the 2020 election and it's going to depend on whether they come out, what the news cycle is, but they are going to decide the election.

It's not going to be here in California. It's not going to be in -- I don't think it's going to be in Texas either.

So, he's got to focus on those states and focus on those independent voters and Reagan Democrats, tea party people all parole voters and get them out. And then I think that's what he's been doing all along, he's got pretty clever people working for him on that count.

MACCALLUM: Elizabeth Warren seems to be rising in the polls, quick thought on that.

HANSON: Yes. I don't quite -- I mean, she had a rally, with 700 people came and all of a sudden it was an extravaganza? I can see that she's rising but she's rising in the polls against the socialist. And if you're going to give the country socialism, it's better to say that you're a Democrat than a socialist that's giving you socialism.

So, she has brilliantly said for me to get close to Biden, I've got to destroy Bernie Sanders. And that's what she's done. She's got -- she's expropriated his agenda but he says, she's saying I'm not a socialist. I can give you socialism but it's not going to be so and that's more palatable. And if Joe Biden has any stumbles, and he's had a lot lately, then by default, she's going to be the front runner.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Thank you. Wow.

MACCALLUM: Victor Davis Hanson, thank you very much, sir. Good to have you here tonight. Here's the president.

MACCALLUM: An insult for somebody who apparently was just taken out of there, who is a protester. President Trump is about 30 minutes into this rally in Manchester, New Hampshire tonight looking back, and also looking forward as he says they kick off 2020 in New Hampshire.

He believes he can win New Hampshire. He talked about the economy, saying that he always knew that China was going to be a difficult challenge, but that he felt that he would come out with a win in that regard. So that's “The Story” on August 15th. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.

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.