Sen. Rubio on fears China is winning trade war with the US

close

Video

Sen. Rubio on fears China is winning trade war with the US

Republican lawmaker from Florida joins 'The Story' to explain why President Trump is taking heat for trade negotiations with Chinese President Xi.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST: All right, thank you so much, Bret. We start with the Fox News alert we are moments away right now from President Trump, live. He has made a lot of news today, so we're going to go there.

He's going to make the keynote speech tonight at the Campaign for Life Gala, and we will take you there as soon as he gets on stage. But first, it's primary that again. It's the final primary day, actually, of May. Stakes are very high as they wrap up voting in four States. Very crucial to the House races and to the governor's races. Is that Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and Arkansas, all having elections this evening?

President Trump tweeted his support for the incumbent Republican Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who is up against Jan Morgan. And will history be made potentially in Georgia this evening? Where Democrat Stacey Abrams, could be on our way to becoming the first black female governor in the United States of America. That we will give you that call as soon as we get it.

Also, this evening, a crucial moment for the highly anticipated North Korea summit. President Trump, today welcoming South Korean President Moon Jae-in to the White House. Uncertainty hangs over this previously announced June 12 Singapore summit. The president today offered some assurances, and also made it clear that he is OK with putting this off if that's what has to happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will guarantee his safety, yes. We will guarantee his safety, we will see what happens. There are certain conditions that we want, and I think we'll get those conditions, and if we don't, we don't have at the meeting. In the end, it will work out, can't tell you exactly how or why, but it always does. It's going to work out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry, joins me now tonight from the White House with the breaking news from there this evening. Good evening, Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening, Martha. That's right. I mean, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, this afternoon trying to put the best phase on this by saying, the administration is still working toward that June 12th summit as if it's not a done deal after President Trump, bluntly admitted that it may not come together next month. But the president was clear in saying that he's still confident that there will be talks either on June 12th or some later date.

Remember, this is a president will literally wrote the art of the deal and it's constantly counted up by critics only later to sometimes secure victory against the odds. So, he predicted in this session you mentioned with the South Korean president that the specific date does not really matter and agreement is still possible.

President Moon Jae-in declaring he has every confidence that Mr. Trump will make history by negotiating a strong deal to get North Korea to denuclearize. But the president acknowledged he's not happy about the recent behavior from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who has suddenly said, he's having second thoughts about giving up his nuclear weapons.

But keep in mind, Kim has already turned over those three American hostages and is hours away from dismantling a nuclear test site. So this may just be bluster. President Trump may still prevail with his approach, but it is very much up in the air tonight. Likewise, there was tons of skepticism when the president -- you remember in March of last year, alleged that President Barrack Obama's administration had conducted surveillance on the Trump campaign. But now with some evidence starting to emerge that could vindicate the president, he teed off today. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: If they had spies in my campaign that would be a disgrace to this country. That would be one of the biggest insults that anyone's ever seen, and it will be very illegal aside from everything else. It would make probably every political event ever look like small potatoes. If they had spies in my campaign, during my campaign for political purposes, that would be unprecedented in the history of our country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have confidence in Rod Rosenstein?

TRUMP: What's your next question, please?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a reporter for --

TRUMP: No, excuse me, I have the president of South Korea here, OK? He doesn't want to hear accused what if you don't mind.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HENRY: Well, more questions are coming after former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo, today, told our own Neil Cavuto, he was approached by a second informant in the Trump campaign beyond the U.K. professor that we've already been hearing about. A several House Republicans renew their call today for a second special counsel to investigate the investigators at the FBI in the Justice Department.

Now, Fox has also learned that on Thursday, House Intel Chairman Devin Nunez, as well as, officials from the FBI and the Justice Department are going to meet to review some of that sensitive intelligence he's been demanding. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, tonight is saying he thinks that is a partisan move, and that Nunez's real goal is to try and obstruct the Mueller probe. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you very much. So, here at now with more, Corey Lewandowski and David Basey who just both walked out of a meeting that they concluded with President Trump. They are veterans of the Trump campaign, and authors of the inside story of that experience which is called, Let Trump Be Trump.

So, welcome gentlemen. Good to see you both tonight. So, what's the president's feeling about this North Korea situation? What did he say to you?

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, look, you know, Martha, what he said was its very simple, if it happens, it happens. And he is not going to cave to other people's demands. This president is a man who has a resolve and a dedication and the determination to do what is right, which is to denuclearize North Korea, but also to make sure that the United States is protected.

And if this meeting happens, then, it happens. Nobody preceding this president has gotten talks to this level of sophistication. This is a man who's the best deal-maker, but if this meeting takes place, great if it doesn't, they will continue to have economic sanctions to put a stranglehold on North Korea.

MACCALLUM: Yes, David, the president has now said twice that he thinks that the second meeting -- we all remember when Kim Jong Un was seen on that train, going to China to meet with President Xi. The president thinks that he said something to Kim Jong-un during that meeting that Xi is the dynamic. Can shed any light on that?

DAVID BOSSIE, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS UNITED: Well, I wish I could, Martha, but I don't know what the Chinese president said to Kim Jong Un. I would say that this president's maximum pressure campaign, which is clearly working, it is clearly bringing that man, Kim Jong Un, to the table to talk, whether it's on that day or another day, we won't know. But clearly, the president's relationship with President Xi of China has made this happen. And it helps to make this happen. And great relationships like this president has with world leaders is what is moving the ball forward down the road.

MACCALLUM: But Corey, does the president still feel good about his relationship with President Xi?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, he does, but you also have to remember, for the longest time before this administration came in, China had taken advantage of the United States. We have a $500 billion trade deficit with China. And what this president has said is he has a good relationship with President Xi, but when it comes to the issue of trade, and having a fair trade is going to be fair on both sides, and a $500 billion deficit is not fair to the people of America.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And David, the other day, the president basically said that the Libya model only kicks in if they don't come to the table and talk. And we heard today, he said very clearly that he offered security, safety, to Kim Jong Un, because he doesn't want to end up like Muammar Gaddafi, years after he gave up his nuclear weapons.

You know, if the president -- if this summit doesn't happen, are we back -- we're back to aggressive military posture and options?

BOSSIE: Well, this president has said, if it happens it happens, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. And I think, we look at what this president has done with the maximum pressure campaign to get this -- to get it to this point, we are this close -- we are very close. And I believe this president is 100 percent committed to making a good deal for the United States of America and the world when it comes to the dictator in North Korea.

So, I'm very pleased at where we are. And I think the outcome, which is a long way off, and we have to go back to the garbage of the Reagan days of looking at that it took multiple meetings over many years, many summits to get to a deal.

I don't mind if we come out of a deal -- come out of a meeting where they build a relationship for the future.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's a good point. These things take time. Is there any chance, Corey that it's still happens on June 12?

BOSSIE: They do.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, of course, there's a chance. But look, if it doesn't happen, the June 12th is an arbitrary deadline. This could happen before, it could happen after. The point is you've got the United States at the highest levels of the government having conversations with the leader of North Korea that has never happened. The 30 years of failed Washington, D.C. policy prior to this, never occurred. So this president doing something no one has ever done before him.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to take you guys back to put your campaign hats on for a minute, because there still a lot of questions about the timeline of when this investigation began. And now, the timeline seems to be pushed back further, back to March 21. So now, we're talking early spring.

And what it links up with is the formation, David, of the foreign policy team. And we all remember, asking questions of your campaign, who's on the foreign policy team? Who are the big foreign policy advisors for this campaign? I asked the president him -- that myself in New Hampshire, who is going to be your advisers. And it was a long time whether it wasn't an answer that question. And all of the sudden, March 21, you've got five people on the list that include Carter Page, that include George Papadopoulos. Was that team put together under any pressure? And you know, were those people manage to drive any idea that they might trigger, David, potentially, any sort of questions about connections to Russia?

BOSSIE: Well, first of all, I wasn't there Martha, I didn't come in until the later in the campaign. But obviously--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Corey, you were there, right? Corey, you answer the question, sorry about that -- so that (INAUDIBLE). Yes, I hear it. So, Corey, Corey, were you concerned about Carte Page or George Papadopoulos? Do anyone say hey, you know, they're they raised a few red flags. Maybe we should be concerned about having a lot of --

LEWANDOWSKI: I don't know Carter Page or George Papadopoulos. I think I met George Papadopoulos once at the one meeting that transpired that Carter Page did not show up at. Carter Page was recommended to the campaign by a well-known New York individual who has been involved in national party politics for 40 years. So you know it was at the recommendation of a trusted source. Now, do we have the time with five people on the campaign to go back and do a deep vetting, a background check? Of course not, right? But did they did those two individuals have any role in the campaign that was decision making? Absolutely not.

MACCALLUM: What about Paul Manafort because that also appears to be a trigger in early spring. We're hearing a lot about this, you know how this all started. And I have a lot of questions about whether it was chicken or egg that started this. And I think that's what we all really have to look very closely at. But what about Paul Manafort, did anyone say to you, you know, related to the government or otherwise like you know, you might want to take a closer look at that. I think there's some potentially questionable relationships with financial arrangements with the Ukraine, all that kind of thing.

LEWANDOWSKI: No, they never did. Look, I was never contacted as when I ran the campaign by the FBI or any other government agency as it related to potential people who were hiring or we're going to potentially be involved in the campaign, never. And you know, if there was a spy placed on the Trump campaign there had better become accountability somebody had to be -- had better be walked out in handcuffs because it is the most egregious, most disgusting thing that our country as a democracy has ever seen. And if that's been done by a government official with their knowledge or their tacit knowledge, then that person better be walked out in handcuffs as well.

MACCALLUM: So Michael Caputo, as you heard Ed Henry reporting is now claiming that an intermediary came to him and said, oh I have some Hillary Clinton emails that you might be interested in and he says that he eventually you know sort of got nervous about it and said, you know what, I don't really want to meet with you. Did anyone ever approach either one of you and say, you know what, we've got some Hillary Clinton emails whether it was from the 30,000 batch or whether it was from the stuff that came out at the DNC and say, hey, wouldn't you like to take a look at this?

BOSSIE: Martha, let me just say I was the king of Hillary Clinton emails. I had four years for years, litigation for years with the State Department, the Clinton Foundation. We were forced -- we were going every which direction to try to force those into the public eye and no one ever came to me, ever came to me at any point, before I joined the campaign, while I was on the campaign to ever say that. So I just find it remarkable that today all of a sudden we're seeing this. This is -- it's an outrage. This President should be you know, I believe he is very upset about this and I am very upset about it. To know that all of us that worked on this campaign and worked hard for our candidate to have to think that the United States government was spying on us is outrageous.

LEWANDOWSKI: There was no collusion. Nobody ever came to me, nobody ever said to me, hey, do you want to see crooked H's emails because she acid- washed them, you know, 33,000 emails disappeared all of a sudden and there's still been no investigation of it. Look the bottom line is Donald Trump won this election through his sheer hard work. He outworked Hillary Clinton, he outworked the 16 Republican opponents in the primary and he's the president of the United States and it wasn't a close election everybody knew what Hillary Clinton was and nobody want to vote for. Nobody came to me and asked me to see her emails, they just knew she was a terribly flawed candidate, she forgot where Wisconsin was, she forgot what Pennsylvania was and they ran a terrible campaign and no one wants to admit.

MACCALLUM: David, one last question on this to David and then I've got Andrew McCarthy here who wrote a very interesting piece on this tonight that we're going to talk about but you know, David, when you look at all of this and you think about this potential that there was somebody you know, in the campaign as you say. There was a moment when the -- apparently James Comey and National Security Council members at the White House were talking about all this They were worried about these individuals that I just mentioned. And they considered having a defensive briefing saying you know, why don't we bring in -- somebody suggested, why don't we bring in the Trump campaign and tell them what we're concerned about so at least they know about this potential or these concerns about these people. Would you have appreciated that?

BOSSIE: Well, you know what, I think we would have. I find it to be remarkable though that we're having this conversation. Look, first of all if there were spies in the campaign, they found nothing because there was no collusion, cooperation --

MACCALLUM: But that's what we're talking about, the origins and the reasons why these people may have been placed and whether or not they were put in your campaign in order to entrap people. So that's why that's one of the reasons that we're talking about it.

BOSSIE: You know, if James Comey or somebody you know, in the federal government and the Obama administration had called us -- and by the way they called us on other things on voter integrity and on cyber stuff related to that so this could have easily been part of some other outreach that they did just like the Department of Homeland Security did for others.

MACCALLUM: Right. All right, thanks you guys. Good to see you both, David Bossie Corey Lewandowski. Thank you for joining us tonight.

BOSSIE: Thank you.

LEWANDOWSKI: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So here now the aforementioned Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and National Review contributing editor. Andy, good to see you.

ANDREW MCCARTHY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: You wrote a very interesting lengthy piece that goes into this timeline. And you know, for me, because this stuff gets confusing, but one of the questions I have is whether or not the chicken or the egg came first, because was there a reason to investigate or did they put people in to try to stir up reasons to investigate because they were concerned that Donald Trump might win this election?

MCCARTHY: Yes, it's something that you always have to be concerned about when you have a situation where there's informants. It's a classic to say that what you have informants in that people have been entrapped. And you do have to wonder because it comes down in every case where there is an informant were people predisposed to do bad things or was this manufactured by the --

MACCALLUM: Or were they poking at some soft spots with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos and saying like you know, these are the low-hanging fruit perhaps in this foreign policy team and they -- we've raised some questions so why don't you go in there and offer them some dirt on Hillary Clinton and we'll see what happens?

MCCARTHY: Yes, well, I think we have a norm right. There's -- people asked all the time, could they put -- was it legal to put in an informant in there or a spy. When I was a prosecutor, the -- we called them informants and the defense lawyers said they were spies. It's a -- that's the how it goes. But what -- we actually have a political or a constitutional norm where we don't -- in law enforcement or intelligence bother the electoral process unless there's a really good reason. So I think when you get down to the end of it, there's no law that says you can't send an informant virtually anywhere. So what we're going to get down to in the end is did they have a good reason to be worried? And if they did have a good reason to be worried was this -- was it an appropriate response to say I'm now going to look at the Trump Campaign as if they're in a conspiracy with Russia or would it have been more appropriate to say they may have a few rotten apples in there let's see if we can either interview the rotten apples and see how rotten they really are or maybe we should tip off somebody in the campaign and ask them you know, to be careful.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and that's what I find so interesting and I was asking them because you talked about this NSC meeting. President Obama, Susan Rice, Jim Clapper, it's possible I think you weren't 100 percent sure whether Brennan was in that particular meeting.

MCCARTHY: Yes, the House Intelligence Committee has this in their report and they don't say exactly who was at the meeting so we look at who was in the Obama National Security Council. But the interesting thing about this, Martha, is they put the timeframe here which I find very peculiar. One of the things that should be pretty easy to know is what date did the National Security Council principal's meeting happen. Everybody who's asked about it says, yes, it's like late spring and that gets my antennas up when they don't want to tell you when something happened right?

MACCALLUM: Why is that timetable so important?

MCCARTHY: Well this is months before Carter Page goes to Russia, right, which we had been told was the original origination story of what got everybody all whipped up for the investigation, right? And then the next thing we heard was Papadopoulos. Well they didn't know about Papadopoulos until July, August, right? This meeting where they talk about Carter Page in the National Security Council happens according to them in late spring. Now, what's happened before that that they'd be talking about Carter Page of all people in a National Security Council meeting? Carter Page joined the Trump Campaign on March 21st. Manafort joined it on March 29th. It doesn't look like there was anything there in the interim other than they have concerns about these people who have brought you back --

MACCALLUM: So, it gets me back to this question because there was a conversation according to your report that they said, should we have a defensive briefing, should we call the Trump Campaign and say, look, let's put it on the table. Here's what we know about Carter Page. He was you know, they attempted to recruit him at some point then he ended up you know, coming on to their side. Russia tried to recruit him and then he came on to the to the intelligence side in the U.S. Why did they not do that? If they were so worried about the infiltration of Russia affecting our election, why didn't they do that?

MCCARTHY: I think it's a very good question. I mean, you would think that they would take a step or two or three back from saying two bad guys have joined the campaign, maybe three if you want to throw Gates in because he has some Russian baggage too. So I'm going to assume that they must be in an espionage conspiracy with Putin to steal the election. I mean, it doesn't work that way. And I think in a normal prosecutor's office or a normal investigators office or a normal place where they do intelligence analysis, you would not go from you know, a few disturbing facts to DEFCON 1. I mean, it just doesn't happen that way. So what you have to wonder is did they -- were they truly concerned -- sounds like they had grounds to be concerned -- and did they at the same time perceive this is something that could be really politically useful --

MACCALLUM: Yes, an insurance policy of sorts.

MCCARTHY: Well, that's what we heard, right?

MACCALLUM: Andy, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, Andy McCarthy.

MCCARTHY: Thanks, Martha. Good to see you.

MACCALLUM: All right, so still to come, we are watching and waiting President Trump to take the stage at the Susan B. Anthony lists 11th annual -- excuse me -- campaign for life gala. So we will take you there as soon as that gets underway. It looks like Kathy Ireland on the stage right now. But first, the President is taking a lot of heat tonight for his trade negotiations with Chinese President Xi and Senator Marco Rubio is saying that China is winning. His argument is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: China has created the greatest theft, it's a single greatest theft in the history of the world what they've done to the United States.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: All right, so there's a live look at the gala this evening at the National Building Museum. The president is about to deliver the keynote address there at the Susan B. Anthony lists campaign for life gala in D.C. We are told that he will you know, be there shortly I guess, heading there shortly I guess. So the pro-life group is awarding the President the distinguished leader award. Mr. Trump has been making quite a bit of news today so we'll get over there in just a moment. We'll see what he has to say this evening. In the meantime, the President appears to be backing away from proposed restrictions on China's ZTE telecom company therefore giving the company a bit of a lifeline amid a potential trade war. It could be though part of a larger strategy. But remember, trade imbalance was a major motivator that drove Mr. Trump into politics in the first place. He has been railing about this issue for decades and then all through the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: -- what's happening Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, they're all -- everybody is taking advantage of the United States.

If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, just forget about it. They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs, they knock the hell out of our companies. Kuwait, they live like kings.

China has drained the United States. It's one of the great thefts in the history of our country what China has done to us. They've taken our money, they've taken everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Yet now he's taking some flak from some for caving they say, on the ZTE deal. He says that is not the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There is no deal. We will see what happens. We're the ones who say, oh gee, maybe Trump is getting a little bit easy. ZTE, we closed it. It wasn't another administration, it was this administration that closed it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: My next guest, Senator Marco Rubio, harshly went after the president on this saying on Twitter, if this is true that administration has surrendered to China on ZTE, making changes to their board and a fine will not stop them from spying and stealing from the United States. But this is too important to be over. We will begin working on veto-proof Congressional action. Moments ago I spoke to the Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about why he is so concerned about this deal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA., SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, I just heard the President speaking. If that's the direction we're going, that's good news. I'm going off the news reports and say that some in his administration are pushing for a quick deal on ZTE. Here's what concerns me. First of all, trade and ZTE are two separate issues. They shouldn't be mixed. We have a huge trade problem with China. It's structural, it's not just how much they buy from us, it's what they do to our companies. They force our companies to turn over intellectual properties, secrets, you know you can't do business in China unless you do that. If you can do it at all, I mean, while their companies can do whatever they want here, OK? That's what's got to be fixed because that's long term and it's problematic. ZTE is a cell phone and technology company. They got caught violating the Iran deal and they got caught violating the Iran sanctions in North Korea, OK? They got hit with a billion dollar fine and they were told they had to fire the employees who did that. You know what they did, they didn't do it. They lied. They didn't fire those employees. They gave them a bonus, they tried to cover that up as well like they tried to cover up the violation. So now, we hit them and said fine, you can't buy our semiconductors anymore and that put them out of business. That's a good move. That's what we need to be doing when people are violating these things. But now it appears that some are saying well, let's find them again and let's make them change the Board of Directors. That's the same deal they've broken already once. Meanwhile, all these phone companies, they have to report to the Chinese government, OK? You use those phones, they can steal our secrets, they can spy on us, they even have subcontractors in ZTE that work for -- people right now could be using ZTE and Huawei technology and not even know it because it says AT&T or something.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So in your mind, is there no negotiation that could allow us to allow ZTE to survive? Because basically, they told the Trump administration, we're going to go bankrupt. You know, this company is going to go out of business and so we need to figure this out. Is there any way that you would be comfortable with dealing with ZTE again ever?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, what about the American companies the Chinese have bankrupted, like the American companies that partnered with the Chinese company? The Chinese steal everything you do and once they figure out how to do it they say we don't need you anymore, we're going to do it here, we're going to do it cheaper because our government subsidizes us and you're out of business. Number two, we didn't put them out of business, we're just saying we're not going to sell them any more semiconductors, American semiconductors. And that's what's put them out of business apparently, but that's not our problem, that's their problem. I'm not going to be feeling bad for it. I don't work for the Chinese government.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I understand it. But you know, you're looking at it -- the way that you look at it which I completely understand and it's the way that we've done this for a long time. And the president is linking a lot of things that many people are not comfortable with having linked. But this is definitely the way that the Trump foreign policy doctrine if you will, is emerging. He's saying, look, I want them to help us with North Korea. I want to lower the trade deficit with the Chinese and I want to figure out a way to do it. So they said -- they said to the administration in some form or another, look give us some slack here on ZTE and then we're going to buy a lot more American goods and we're going to help you with the North Korea situation.

RUBIO: Yes, so you said something actually I disagree with. This is not the way we've always done it. The way we actually have always done it is the way they're going now and that is the Chinese go to a bunch of American companies, the semiconductor company or some others and they go to them and say, can you go to the White House and Congress and lobby them to change their mind. And that's what they do and then we back off. And every president before now has backed off on China and that's why they've gained this advantage on us. Number two, here's the problem with the deal, North Korea is in China's interests. It's in China's interest. Because if North Korea and Kim Jong Un goes down, you have a bunch of North Koreans coming across the border. So they're not doing us any favor helping us on North Korea. They're closer to that crazy guy than we are. So they should be worried about it.

Number three, what kind of deal is it where they say, OK, we're going to buy more agriculture from America, and in return we're going to do that anyway by the way, so they're not giving anything, in return we're going to keep stealing your stuff.

In about five or eight years, they're going to dominate biotech, aerospace, they are going to be able to listen in to all of our military secrets, and use those.

I mean, they are building airplanes -- our airplanes that took us 20 years to innovate, these guys are coming up with these things in two years. You think they're either that brilliant, which they're not, or they're stealing it from us. And using they're using ZTE in place to do it.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST, FOX NEWS: So, I understand, so here's my question for you. Is China just an enemy, you know? I mean, is there anything that we can deal with them on?

RUBIO: Yes, of course.

MACCALLUM: Because when you look at what's happening on the disputed islands, and when you look at their economic growth, their growth rate, they want to surpass us by 2028.

RUBIO: Right.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, are there deals that can be done or should we treat them in a completely different way--

RUBIO: No.

MACCALLUM: -- and say obviously you guys are out for yourselves, we're out for ourselves, and that's it?

RUBIO: Well, there's need to be balanced. Right now it's an imbalance. And when you have an imbalance, the other place is going to take advantage of you. And sometimes you have wars because of this imbalance. Right now, it's a total imbalance.

Chinese companies come to America and can do whatever they want, whatever they want. American companies some of them are not even allowed in China, and if they let you into China they let you partner with one of their companies until they steal your secrets.

That has to be balanced. Until that's balanced we're going to have this problem. So China is taking advantage of the fact that for 20 years, American presidents, before this one, made the decision that, don't worry about it, we'll let them keep cheating because once they're rich, they're going to act more like us.

Well, it didn't work out that way and now we finally realized that and it's almost too late.

So, I don't want China to be an enemy. We are actually turning them into an enemy in some ways by allowing this imbalance to exist. They are taking advantage of that imbalanced like any country in the world would, and until we get this thing balanced out against structurally, the threat of a conflict is actually going to grow, not diminish.

MACCALLUM: All right. We got to leave it there. Senator, thank you.

RUBIO: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Great talking to you. Good to see you tonight.

RUBIO: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So at any moment, President Trump will speak in Washington, D.C., but first we're about to get results in tonight's primary races in four states. All eyes on the governor -- the Georgia governor's race where candidates are trying to out-Trump each other. Karl Rove and Juan Williams on what you should be watching out there tonight, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So we are awaiting President Trump as we have been saying at the National building Museum, he's going to give a speech there tonight and we will let you know as soon as that gets underway and we will take you there.

But in the meantime, we are waiting for results from elections this evening on this Tuesday night in the midterms, it's the last May big night for primary races. You got Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Georgia.

So what should we be keep our eyes on? Joining me now, Karl Rove, former senior adviser to President George W. Bush and Fox News contributor, along with Juan Williams, co-host of The Five and a Fox News political analyst. Good to see both of you, gentlemen. Thanks for being here tonight.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Nice to be here.

MACCALLUM: Juan, let me start with you. You're watching the Georgia race.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Well, the Georgia governor race, all the primaries there. On the Democratic side -- and remember this, we have a Republican governor in Georgia. I don't think they've had a Democratic governor since '03, and Donald Trump, President Trump, won it by five points.

So it's a red state, I would say. But here we have Democrats now trying to figure out how they are going to position themselves going forward. They've got Stacey Abrams, who is the minority leader of the Georgia legislature. Stacey Evans, two Stacey. Stacey Evans who is also in the Georgia legislature, but they have really contrasting approaches.

Abrams very much trying to bring out minority votes, people who are strong anti-Trumpers and believe that they can win that way. Stacy Evans on the other hand is much more about reaching out, creating some kind of bridge of unity, rural, whites, urban black, saying you know, she's the common sense, she offers hope scholarships, and I think to give kids a chance. But it's a different approach, Martha. And I think we're going to some see results that tell us about how Democrats position themselves nationally as they approach the midterms.

MACCALLUM: Interesting. Karl, what about you?

KARL ROVE, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH SENIOR ADVISER: I'm watching the same race, and for much the same reason. Stacey Abrams says I can win if I can get independent and Republican votes.

WILLIAMS: Right.

ROVE: Stacey Abraham says I can put it together with minorities, millennials and unmarried women. The problem is, there are about 53 percent of voters so in order for her to win -- she'd have to carry in those groups, she'd had to take 94 percent of the vote among them.

Now she says I could expand the pool because it make up 63 percent of the state's people, but even then she have to win nearly four out of every five in order to win the general election. It's going to be interesting to see who wins tonight, the one who says I need to get Democrats to vote with the independents and Republicans, or the one that says all I need is the far left of the Democratic Party.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating. Don Blankenship is back, folks. He said he is going to run, I think it's the constitutional party for the race in West Virginia. Quick thought on that one. Juan first.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think you should have gone to Karl first because I think this is a problem for Republicans. You have a situation where Blankenship lost, and lost even though he claimed to be a Trumpian, you know, candidate, and he lost handily, and President Trump didn't endorse him.

MACCALLUM: He told Neil Cavuto that he can win, he can win, Karl.

ROVE: He's a lunatic. He -- look, there's a sore loser law in West Virginia that says if you run in a primary and lose you can't get on the ballot in the general election. This guy who lives in Nevada incidentally thinks the laws of West Virginia don't apply to him, and he'll challenge the sore loser law. He has little or no chance of winning it. All this is is disruption.

If he wanted Donald Trump's agenda to advance, he would retire to his nice house outside Las Vegas, Nevada, and enjoy the many business opportunities he said he had there, or move to China, as he once said that he would do.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Maybe he's a self-candidate for Joe Manchin, Karl.

MACCALLUM: We will see. Thanks, you guys. Great to see you both.

WILLIAMS: Good to be with you, Martha.

ROVE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So we understand the president has arrived at the gala for the evening. The Susan B. Anthony List Gala at the National Building Museum. As soon as he gets on the stage, we'll take you there after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: The Environmental Protection Agency finding itself in a bit of hot water. A report -- this is the scene where the president is going to be in just a few minutes, but in terms of the EPA today, the Associated Press reporter says she was forcibly removed by security at a Scott Pruitt -- Scott Pruitt briefing this afternoon.

Trace Gallagher has the story from our west coast newsroom. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Good evening, Martha. This was the EPA's national summit on harmful water contaminants linked to cancer. There was a morning and afternoon session and this controversy happened in the morning when journalists from CNN, Associated Press, and E&E which covers energy and the environment were not allowed inside.

In fact, A.P. says its reporter was not only denied entry, but grabbed by security and forcibly shoved out of the building. The EPA didn't comment about anyone physically removing a journalist, but it did say the plan was always to allow just 10 reporters inside, saying, quoting, "This was simply an issue of the room reaching capacity, which reporters were aware of prior to the event."

But a report by The Hill said that during the conference, a handful of seats in the press room remained vacant. Another reporter told Politico there were dozens of empty seats, and CNN also showed pictures of space for cameras.

For the record, Fox News was not there. Instead we decided to use the pool camera, which was provided by CBS. But all three of organizations not allowed in, later released statements.

CNN said, quoting, "We understand the importance of an open and free press, and we hope the EPA does too." The Associated Press called it, quote, "alarming and a direct threat to the public's right to know about what is happening inside their government."

E&E said the topic being discussed was critical to their readers, and quote, "Our reporter deserved to be in that room to ask smart questions of EPA officials."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders first said she would look into the matter, and then she was asked if it's ever acceptable to physically turn away reporters. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH HUCKABEE-SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I'm not going to weigh into random hypotheticals that may or may not exist. I don't know any information about this specific incident. You're asking me to--

(CROSSTALK)

(OFF-MIC)

SANDERS: No, you're asking me to speak to blanket possibilities which I'm not going to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes, the administration has a history of battling with news organizations and accuses of reporting, quote, "fake news." We should note all the reporters were allowed into the EPA's afternoon session. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Trace Gallagher on the west coast. Let's go back to Washington, D.C. where the president is about to step up to the podium as he's being introduced right now.

This is the Susan B. Anthony List Gala for the evening. President Trump is up next.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're watching helplessly while the government installed a pro-abortion judges top to bottom on the federal bench.

But we fought in 2016 for a different future. We fought for them, the mothers and the children, and they are worth fighting for.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We fought and we won together. We won an historic opportunity. Thanks to your support. If we elect a pro-life Senate this year, we have a fighting chance to do what the pro-life movement has wanted to do since 1973, to overturn the great stain on our national conscience, Roe versus Wade.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Had we stood down and allowed the forces against life to appoint new Supreme Court justices today's opportunity would have been shut down, closed off, lost for a generation at least. At least a generation, if not forever.

But now why do we have this chance? Because of all your hard work, your contributions, your time, your talent, your love, and because of the grace of God to whom we give thanks. But it's also because of one man, one man who stood up for the unborn boys and girls who invited us in, and who kept his word.

Many doubted, and that is understandable. We've been betrayed before. He had no record to run on. But I am here to tell you today that when it comes to life President Trump is keeping his promises.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A man of his word, he's talked the talk and he has walked the walk, starting well before his swearing-in. He is fighting the good fight. Yes, he's been hard at work talking tight -- stopping our tax dollars from funding abortion at home and abroad, but he's done more.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's been reforming the courts at a record pace, with judges, who respect life, the Constitution, and the will of the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But he's done more. Yes, personnel is policy, and some of the key people here tonight are testimony to President Trump's commitment to life, Kellyanne Conway, Marc Short--

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- Paul Taylor, Nick Ayers, Justin Clark, Sarah Sanders, Johnny DeStefano and there so many, including all the cabinet secretaries. It's impossible and that speaks loudly to mention all of them.

President Trump has done everything in his power to protect unborn children and their mothers, and get American taxpayers out of the abortion business for good.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is the most pro-life president in history, and he will do more if we fight for his pro-life agenda at the polls in November. We must have a Senate that's not just Republican, but pro-life.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:

With your help and the Susan B. Anthony List we have assembled the largest ground game in the nation for this purpose. This November, I promise you, and I promise the pro-abortion forces, we will be visiting millions of homes, letting voters know what their elected officials are doing here in Washington, having life-giving conversations, not just with partisans, but with citizens of every race, every creed and color who know that late-term abortion is an abomination that must end, and that they and their children are worth fighting for.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a historic moment. And dear friends, and people of good conscience, we are on the cusp of changing history, and restoring our rights to fight for the laws that protect children and women in every state in this country.

We are not one Supreme Court justice away. And we need a president that we can trust to appoint, but a Senate that will confirm his judges. The moment is here, and the man is too.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have the incredible honor, and privilege, to introduce to you tonight a man who has led, as he campaigned, who has been as good as his word in fighting for life, a man who is worth fighting for because they are worth fighting for.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United states, Donald J. Trump.

(APPLAUSE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Wow. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Marjorie. Thank you, Marjorie, for that wonderful introduction. All my friends are out there.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So nice. I'm thrilled to be here tonight at the very first -- and as the very first president to address this incredible group of people.

I have a lot of friends in the audience. They're incredible people. I'd also like to thank the Susan B. Anthony list chairwoman Jane Abraham and her husband, the Honorable Spence Abraham for hosting this beautiful gala. Thank you both. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Beautiful job.

And we're also very glad to be joined by many wonderful members of Congress, including the legend from Louisiana, a very brave guy, Steve Scalise. Where is Steve? Where is Steve?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Hi, Steve. So I was going to ask all members of Congress to stand, but there's a short list. Should I just -- we have to do this, right? They're fighting for you all the time, right? Don't you think? All right.

Steve, you have no problem standing. This guy is in better shape than all of us.

(APPLAUSE)

Kevin Brady. Where is Kevin? What a man he is. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Steve Daines. Steve Daines. Hi, Steve. Thank you, Steve. Great. Where's Roger Wicker? Roger, Roger?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Right. You know, the problem with this, Roger, we're guaranteed to leave a few out, and they'll never speak to me again, but that's OK. We'll have you stand if I did that.

A man who's been so incredible on television to me, Andy Biggs, Congressman Andy Biggs, where is Andy? Thank you, Andy. Now I don't have to call you and thank you. Thank you, Andy. Marsha Blackburn. Marsha, good luck.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: We'll hopefully be our next senator from the great, great, great state of Tennessee. Good. I just saw some great numbers on you, by the way. Where's Steve? Steve, how are you, Steve? He's been help.

(APPLAUSE)

Kevin Kramer, who is leading, he is leading in his Senate race. Kevin, where's Kevin? Kevin, you're leading.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: You know, we have a lot of people that are leading these races. A number just came down from Reuters. You know, we were a few months ago we were 16 down in the generic poll, whatever that's supposed to mean. Because nobody really knows what it means.

But all I know is we were 16 down. Reuters just came out two hours ago, and we're one up. That's a big difference.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And they say that to win we have to be like, if we're six down, we're in OK shape. We're one up. That's pretty good. So that's for the senators, and for the congressmen and women. So that's a -- but you're doing fantastic Kevin.

Sean Duffy, where is Sean? Where is Sean? Thank you, Sean. Great job. Ron Estes. Ron, thank you, Ron. Jeff Fortenberry. Jeff, thank you, Jeff. Good job.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: A friend of mine for a long time, Virginia Fox. Virginia.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thanks, Virginia. Representative and Mrs. Gregg -- OK, where's Susan? Gianforte. Where is he?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Boy, he is a good -- he is a good campaigner. Great job. Great job. Thank you, Susan. Representative and Mrs. Andy -- you know, they wrote this out. They said, and said Mrs. Andy and Nicole. We'll just say it Andy and Nicole Harris. Stand up, please. Thank you. Great. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: A man who is -- I hope is here, because he's so busy, but a man who is a true champion, NCAA champion for numerous years -- like I'm not sure he ever lost a match. Somebody said he's like 141 and 1 but that's not bad. Jim Jordan, where is he?

(APPLAUSE)

Jim Jordan. Where is Jim? Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Jim. Thanks. Great champion. Mike Kelly, I watched him the other day, he was debating Maxine Waters. That was not a close debate.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: That was not a close debate, Mike. They should all be so easy, right, Mike? Congressman Steve King. Do you think Steve is conservative enough? Where is Steve? Hi, Steve. Is Steve conservative enough, folks, I don't know. You don't get more conservative than Steve, right? Thank you, Steve.

Congressman Joe Lesko and Debbie. Mrs. Lesko.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Where are you? Thank you, folks. Thank you, Debbie. Thank you. Dan Lipinski.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thanks, Dan.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.