Should Robert Mueller testify in front of Congress?
Reaction and analysis from former House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy and former independent counsel Ken Starr.
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is "The Story" tonight. The president says the Russia story is over. Time to move on. No need for Robert Mueller to testify.
Trey Gowdy and Ken Starr on that in just a moment. But, first tonight, Hillary Clinton says this time around, Democrats should ignore the economy stupid because there are bigger concerns. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY: It is the economy, it's always the economy. But that's not the only reason that would we should elect a president or in this case, retire one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: All right. So, as you remember, she was not able to capitalize on the Obama economy to win the election. But now, the next round of Democrats who want to be president are hoping that American voters will be convinced of this argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What we are looking at is a 10-year rebound from The Wall Street crash of 2008.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHA, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have had policies in place starting with President Obama that have aided that recovery.
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I love that Trump is taking credit for a recovery that started under Obama.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, the recovery clearly began under President Obama. That is true. After the financial rout in 2008. It is now though an unusually long expansion and it has some gasoline poured on it in the past 2-1/2 years. That is really unmistakable when you look at the data.
Those are just the numbers. 5.4 million jobs added, 3.6 unemployment rate, that's the lowest rate in 50 years. Plus you've got rising wages at this point. It's a good combination. Almost like a Goldilocks economy as we once heard way back when.
So, it's hard to see a continuum when the policies under each of these two presidents: President Obama and President Trump, are just so very different in terms of their approach.
President Obama at that time, crisis moment, to be sure, poured a lot of money into the system in a time of crisis. Rested extensive oversight over the financial industries, over Wall Street, of the banks, over the auto industry, put them really under very strong government oversight. President Trump has taken the absolute opposite tack, deregulating industry backing out of industry across the country. Lowering their taxes. 100 percent depreciation on equipment. Essentially, getting government out of the way.
Here now, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the council of economic advisers under President Obama. Always good to have you with us, Austan. Thank you very much for being here tonight.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER ECONOMIC ADVISER TO BARACK OBAMA: Yes, thanks for having me back, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So, let's talk about this, because the idea that this is -- you know, just the seeds of what President Obama planted, and it -- you know, President Trump essentially could be twiddling his thumbs in the Oval Office and it would all be happening anyway, what do you make of that argument?
GOOLSBEE: I don't -- I don't agree with that. Even though as the Democrats saying it, when I was in the White House, I used to say 90 percent of what happens in the economy has nothing to do with Washington. It's not designed by the White House, it's not from policy, and so, because I said that when I was there, I will continue to say that after. But I think, we got the longest job expansion in American recorded economic history.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
GOOLSBEE: And a large part of that was under Obama. And now, a nice chunk of that is under President Trump. And so, in my view, it's hats off to both of them. We got to have -- we have a good economy going, and let's not start a trade war, let's not do something to blow that up.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, but the idea that -- but, you know, what you're saying is not what the candidates are saying, and probably, because you're not running for president, so it makes it easier for you to -- you know, speak honestly, and based on your -- on your background.
But Larry Summers who was another economist under President Obama said that the new normal of growth was going to be about two percent. You know, they said basically, the post-war expansion had kind of tapped out that there was a new level of growth that it was in the two percent range.
But that's not what we're seeing anymore, Austan. We're seeing 3.2 percent growth. What I hear when I talk to companies around the country is that they love this depreciation, they can buy new equipment, they can expand their plants, they can -- you know, hire more people, all because of these new policies.
GOOLSBEE: Yes, I will be a little careful. I don't know, I will be a little careful with that, Martha. I'm friendly with Larry Summers, and I - - and I know very well the argument that he made.
His argument was about two percent to 2-1/2 percent long-term. And he used that to argue for we ought to have more stimulus. And Donald Trump passed a $2 trillion unpaid-for tax cut, which will provide temporary stimulus of exactly the form that Larry Summer's predicted.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: But that's a totally different kind of stimulus than putting money into the market -- you know, into the federal side of the market. When you provide a stimulus by lowering taxes, that those are two very different economic policies, right?
GOOLSBEE: I -- they are different. The only thing I would caution you is before you attribute that 3.2 percent, which we got for this last quarter, is the new permanent growth rate.
MACCALLUM: Right.
GOOLSBEE: Just look at the last quarter is the new permanent growth rate, just look at the last quarter.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: No, I didn't say was a new permanent growth rate.
GOOLSBEE: the previous quarter to that was in the low twos.
MACCALLUM: Yes, I didn't say it was a new permanent growth rate. But it's one we haven't seen in a very long time.
GOOLSBEE: OK.
MACCALLUM: But average hourly --
(CROSSTALK)
GOOLSBEE: But that -- that's what the argument about the new normal was it? What -- it wasn't about the short-run, it was about the long run.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Well, you know, yes, I'm just saying -- OK, understood. (INAUDIBLE) it was about the long-run, wasn't it? Because it was saying, look, this is not two percent is --
(CROSSTALK)
GOOLSBEE: He is, but argument was about the long-run, your 3.2 percent is not the long run.
MACCALLUM: So, you're saying it's an anomaly.
GOOLSBEE: It's the very short run that it's -- I'm not arguing that it's fully a sugar high coming from the tax cut, but there is some component which is a short-run blip that is coming from a temporary tax cut.
MACCALLUM: You know, just bottom line, do you think that the policies that President Trump put in place are helping us get to this new level of these numbers in unemployment, in wage growth, and also in GDP growth. Do you give him any credit? And if so, what credit for -- you know, what was --
(CROSSTALK)
GOOLSBEE: I give him some. And as I said, we've had I think 122 months of job creation, and something like 95 of those months were under President Obama, and 27 of those months are under Donald Trump. So, I'm going to give him 2,720 seconds of credit.
MACCALLUM: All right, I get -- I mean, it's very unusual for an expansion to go on as long as this expansion was going to on, right?
(CROSSTALK)
GOOLSBEE: (INAUDIBLE) for that percentage.
MACCALLUM: I mean, the conventional wisdom was that it was going to spin out -- you know, after seven years or so, it would probably spinout.
(CROSSTALK)
GOOLSBEE: Yes, it's great. It's great.
MACCALLUM: But we haven't -- we haven't seen that we've seen wages going up as well. You know, I mean, what would you tell -- if you were advising one of these candidates, and they said, look, we've got a really good economy going on here. And I need to go out there and tell people why they should switch gears and vote for me, what would you tell them to say?
GOOLSBEE: Well, what I would tell them to say is not, hey, the economy is not doing well because I think the economy is doing well. But like we saw in 2018 when the economy was doing well but Donald Trump, his party lost and pretty substantially in the midterm election, despite the economy doing well, is things like health care, things like is the prosperity being shared by everyone? Things like do you think it was worthwhile to run the deficit up to a trillion dollars a year to give tax cuts to high-income people and big corporations.
Those are issues which separate from how the overall unemployment rate is doing, which is doing well. Those are still going to be concerns of the -- .
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Right. But you know, some of those are pretty tough arguments because that blue-collar wage is going up higher than their -- than their supervisors. So, you know, that --that's a little bit of a tough argument, but that's what -- that's what they're going to have in each other kind of craft.
GOOLSBEE: Maybe, then, what do you think happen in 2018, Martha? That would be my question.
MACCALLUM: What do I think happened in 2018? What do you mean? Oh, in terms of the midterms? In terms of the midterms?
GOOLSBEE: Yes, in 2018, the economy was going well and that Republican suffered a terrible loss.
MACCALLUM: No, I think that's -- yes. I know, and that's going to be we'll see. We'll see what voters decide -- you know, this time around.
GOOLSBEE: Indeed.
MACCALLUM: And we've seen some acceleration, and you know, I don't know. I don't know. Well, we'll see what happens. Thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, Austan.
GOOLSBEE: It's always fun, Martha. Thanks for that.
MACCALLUM: Always good to talk to you. You, too. Thank you very much.
So, also tonight, the House Judiciary Committee is hoping to hear from special counsel Robert Mueller, a week from this Wednesday. The president tweeting that this is just a political move, he says by Democrats. "Why would the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify? Are they looking for a redo because they hated seeing the strong no collusion conclusion," he writes. "There was no crime except on the other side, incredibly not covered in the report." We know that there are investigations into that -- that's a separate aside. "And no obstruction", he wrote. "Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems."
Here now, Trey Gowdy, former House Oversight Committee chairman. And Ken Starr, former independent counsel and author of Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. Both are Fox News contributors. Gentleman, great to have both of you here tonight. Thank you very much for being here.
TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, ma'am.
KEN STARR, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, just on that question, first, I guess, let me go to you first Trey Gowdy. Do you think that Robert Mueller should testify?
GOWDY: Well, it's going to be hard, because he's not going to have a lot to say because DOJ policy does not allow him to discuss derogatory information against an uncharged person. So, what the Democrats want is for him to painstakingly go through all of the information he had that led to obstruction, or that they think leads to obstruction, and the conclusion is he didn't indict him.
So, DOJ policy doesn't allow that conversation. I'm not sure what else he can talk about.
MACCALLUM: So, you're saying the unredacted information would be the one thing that they don't already have. Because everything else is already in the report, correct? So, there's not much he could add to that.
GOWDY: Well, even -- well, even the unredacted information, I mean someone of it by law he cannot discuss.
MACCALLUM: Right.
GOWDY: Lots of it by law he cannot discuss. But even what is -- it is unredacted, the Department of Justice policy is you cannot discuss derogatory information against someone you did not indict. The department doesn't speak in press conferences and reports, they use indictment. So, either indict or shut up. And he didn't indict.
MACCALLUM: You know, I think, the one of the main -- one of the things that they would probably love to ask Robert Mueller, Ken Starr, is you know about his decision not to indict and whether or not it was completely separate from the issue of whether or not you can indict a sitting president.
And this to me is where -- because we heard from the Attorney General Bill Barr, and he said there were several instances where several people were in the room, and Robert Mueller, said clearly, according to Bill Barr's testimony. "I'm not worried about the OLC decision, the Office of Legal Counsel decision. I put that aside and I decided whether or not we could indict, and decide not to indict.
STARR: Right.
MACCALLUM: If he has a different story than that and for -- in this testimony, that will be news.
STARR: Oh, yes. In fact, I think he will not say that because he had his opportunity that very elaborate report, 446 pages. So, he's got to stick with the report. He can't have a latter-day inspiration. And so, in terms of the president, the president has the authority to direct Robert Mueller through Bill Barr not to testify. But I doubt that that's going to happen. I don't think that the president is going to cross his own attorney general who I think has been doing a great job under this unremitting criticism. But in terms of Bob Mueller, he's got to stay with what he has written.
Those 446 pages, the redactions -- I've been through these -- not the redactions, but I've seen whether redactions are.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
STARR: 10 percent of book one, which is the real book, that's on Russian collusion. There was no collusion. There were contacts, not collusion. But, let's face it. The name of the game now is do we impeach? This is what the House of Representatives all about, and that has to be book two.
MACCALLUM: Let's put up a quote from Washington Post piece on what Nancy Pelosi told Democrats on that behind closed doors. She said, "Trump had engaged in a type of behavior that prompted the move to impeach Nixon in 1974. This person has not only ignored subpoenas, he has said that he's not going to honor our subpoenas. What more do we want?"
She has sounded at times like she's against impeachment at times like she thinks that there's no choice, Trey Gowdy, but clearly this is the political decision that they're trying to wrap their arms around.
GOWDY: Yes, the reason I'm smiling, Martha, the Democrats in the D.C. media never met a subpoena for the first six years I was in Congress that they can embrace. The Obama administration routinely ignored requests for information. So, God knows that can't be an impeachable offense.
I didn't think Rod Rosenstein should be impeached, I didn't think John Koskinen should have been impeached, it is the political death penalty. So, you need to be very careful when you use or how you authorize the use of what is tantamount to the political death penalty. They're not going to succeed, the jury is not going to go along. It's just about fundraising and placating your base.
MACCALLUM: You know, in terms of what you said earlier, Ken Starr, I want to ask you about, you said that Bob Mueller deserves the sharpest criticism for sandbagging Bill Barr. What did you mean by that?
STARR: Terrible, well, his letter that was then leaked on the very eve of Bill Barr's testimony was essentially I believe an unfair whiny complaint when he wasn't saying that the letter, the March 24th letter from Bill Barr that summarized the conclusions which he was obliged to do. That wasn't just a discretionary call, Bill Barr was obliged under regulation to do exactly what it did. Then, here comes Bob Mueller with this letter, which is then leaked.
That is to me the unforgivable sin. He, Bob Mueller, badly injured this attorney general. And the attorney general didn't deserve that, but of course, that created its own huge firestorm including suggestions that the -- that the attorney general is totally mischaracterizing the report and so forth.
When you look at that March 24 letter, I think Bill Barr was honestly trying to do the right thing and to do it in the right way.
MACCALLUM: Ken Starr and Trey Gowdy, thank you, gentlemen. Great to see you tonight. Thank you so much for being here.
GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.
STARR: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Still ahead on "The Story" tonight, the controversy heard round the world as Kentucky Derby winner Maximum Security gets disqualified moments after crossing the finish line. The horse's owner says his victory was stolen. He joins us exclusively tonight on "The Story" with what he plans to do now. And President Trump's latest foreign policy moves under fire from none other than Susan Rice.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: -- from non-other than Susan Rice.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Former President Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice slamming President Trump's foreign policy. In an editorial, she writes, "Plenty of presidents before Mr. Trump have made serious sometimes catastrophic foreign policy mistakes, but few if any decided almost every aspect of foreign policy on the basis of what would help him get reelected," she wrote.
Rice's criticism comes as the President gets support from a very unlikely source. They usually go at it, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this about the President's stance on trade with China tweeting, "Hang tough on China President Trump. Don't back down. Strength is the only way to win with China."
Here now to respond Republican Congressman Michael Waltz of Florida and David Tafuri former Obama State Department official. David, let me start with you. Very -- what do you think Chuck Schumer is up to there?
DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, let me just say Susan Rice, her criticisms have some merit regardless of whether you support President Trump or you're against President Trump. His foreign policy hasn't been consistent. There's no consistent ideology or approach. So take Venezuela for instance --
MACCALLUM: I know, but you know what, I want to take -- address the Schumer-China thing first, and then I promise you we're going to go back --
TAFURI: OK, great.
MACCALLUM: -- and get the bigger picture with Susan Rice. But what do you think that Senator Schumer is up to there?
TAFURI: Well, President Trump's trade policy I think is consistent. He does have a consistent ideology there and Schumer is basically saying he supports President Trump in taking a stronger approach to China, that China is cheating on -- in trade rules, that trade China steals our intellectual property and that's hurting American businesses and hurting the American economy.
So Democrats and Republicans are united in that sense in the broad approach to toughening up the trade policies with respect to China.
MACCALLUM: Yes, Michael, let me get your thought on China and Schumer because I have to believe that when President Xi looks at that, and his advisors look at that, you know they're trying to decide if they're going to send that full delegation over to wrestle over China in the coming days and they see a united front from the United States Congress. I think that might be a powerful message.
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ, R-FLA.: Well, you know, that was refreshing coming from the Senator that we do have to be United. China has absolutely stolen our technological edge, outright theft. We're seeing everything from hypersonic missiles, to stealth fighters, to them challenging us in space, again, because of China's theft. And the president has to stay strong. I think that's what President Xi understands.
And it's good and nice for a change to see Congress having his back, that politics stops at the water's edge. But it is especially rich, Martha, coming from Susan Rice who did nothing on China, nothing on North Korea, allowed Russia to invade Crimea and Ukraine, allowed Syria to devolve into chaos, and let's not forget my not good friend Bowe Bergdahl that she declared a hero on the Sunday talk shows after he would -- you know, and then watch him get convicted as a traitor that got people killed.
MACCALLUM: She said he had served with honor and distinction.
WALTZ: So I just can't believe it coming from her.
MACCALLUM: All right, so David, let me give you the opportunity to talk about Susan Rice in reaction to what Michael Waltz just said.
TAFURI: Well, in contrast to Trump's trade policy which I do think is consistent from country to country, his foreign policy has not been consistent. So take Venezuela, President Trump says he doesn't want to be the policeman of the world but his administration is now talking about intervention in Venezuela.
Take for instance Iran where he's taken a forceful strong approach toward Iran but he says he sees eye-to-eye with Putin and Russia, but Russia is Iran's biggest backer. Take Cuba where we don't have a threat currently from Cuba but he's ratcheting up sanctions against Cuba, but he wants to pull back our support and our troops from countries where there is a threat like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
This is confusing for anyone who's looking at foreign policy and studying our foreign policy and it's confusing for our allies.
MACCALLUM: Michael Waltz?
WALTZ: I don't know, Martha. I think he has been clear. He's been clear and looking at American interests. And in this case, in the case of Venezuela and Cuba, it's reasserting the Monroe doctrine and that you know, the United States seems to lead in the northern hemisphere.
It's also -- he's also clear that he's not looking to put thousands of boots on the ground in Venezuela, that we would lead through a coalition and he's been clear that that you know, in terms of burden-sharing, whether it's NATO, whether it's the Europeans, or whether it's others around the world that these other wealthier countries need to step up and need to -- and need to pay their fair share alongside the United States that's been carrying that burden for many years,
So the United States has to lead, absolutely, but others that can need to share that burden. I wrote speech after speech for previous defense secretaries asking our NATO allies to live up there their two percent commitment and they blew us off frankly, and they're not anymore. I think the President is been loud and clear in a number of regards.
MACCALLUM: 20 seconds, David, for a closing thought.
TAFURI: Well, Congressman Waltz is smart. He talked about the Monroe Doctrine. Trump may be applying it in Venezuela, but he's not applying it in other places in the western hemisphere. He wants to cut off aid and support to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. That's the type of support that the Monroe Doctrine calls for leadership in Central America. He's not providing that in other places.
MACCALLUM: All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. Good that both of you here tonight, Michael Waltz and David Tafuri.
TAFURI: Thank you, Martha.
MACCALLUM: All right, coming up next, news of yet another investigation into this concern that was raised by Attorney General Bill Barr.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there's -- a spying did occur.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're not suggesting though that spying occurred?
BARR: I don't -- well, I guess, you could -- I think there was -- a spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That set off a firestorm. And tonight, two high-ranking Republicans are calling for yet another investigation now in two other intel agencies besides the FBI which we've talked about for a long time, because they think that will help to get at the origins and THE STORY in the beginning of the Russia probe.
Pointing to messages from former FBI employee Peter Strzok, Senate Chairman Ron Johnson, and Chuck Grassley writing, quote, "These texts and e-mails demonstrate the need to investigate leaks from agencies or entities other than the FBI."
So where is this going here?
Here now Senate Homeland Committee Chairman Ron Johnson. Chairman, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you very much for being here. So, we know that Michael Horowitz is investigating the Department of Justice which is the overseeing body of the FBI.
You -- where do you think these text messages send you looking for another inspector general to also look at other parts of these intel agencies?
SEN. RON JOHNSON, R-WIS.: Hello, Martha. Well, the texts that we revealed and the e-mails that we revealed in our letter to the intelligence community Inspector General Atkinson. First of all, one was released back in September but largely overlooked.
And to quote it, the text from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page "I think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they are kicking in to overdrive."
I mean, that's pretty puzzling right there. What are the sisters are they talking about? I mean, oftentimes you refer to sister agencies. And then later on, by the way, this is in December of 2016 in the transition.
And then in April 2017, an e-mail that Peter Strzok sent to his colleagues talked about "I'm beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought, hasn't shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have, would also highlight agency as a source of some of the leaks."
So, it's really puzzling. In those first text messages what would these sister agencies be worried about and to refer to these agencies as political, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page referring to something political? That's like the pot calling the kettle black. But what are they kicking into overdrive?
And it's also pretty puzzling when you start talking about agencies, other agencies other than the FBI leaking information that produced weird seemingly incorrect stories in the news media.
So, this raises all kinds of questions, all kinds of concerns. And we're just writing the inspector general of the intelligence community to see if like Michael Horowitz, the inspector general the Department of Justice has he undertaken or initiated an investigation into leaks from those agencies.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know, in terms of where this might lead. You know what leaks were coming out around that time that, perhaps, were coming from these other agencies? What do you -- what do you suspect or what do you just want to investigate and look into? Specifically?
JOHNSON: Well, in early December, if you take a look at the news stories, that's really the first news story talking about Russian, potential working with the Trump campaign or involvement with the Trump Organization.
Later on, in terms of the April e-mail, about the other agency, the weird seemingly incorrect stories, you are talking about for the first time it's being revealed that British intelligence might have been the first ones to tip off FBI agents in terms of possible Trump campaign working with the Russians.
Now, again, now that we know that there was no substance at all to those stories, but you have agencies potentially the United States government leaking stories that would fully indicate that might be the case and really creating incredible narrative that has really taken about 18 months to get to the bottom of the fact that there was no story there. There was no collusion. And yet, agencies of the federal government were leaking stories and creating this huge story.
MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, and it also raises intrigue questions about, you know, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and you know, we remember them talking about the insurance policy and they were so concerned that you know, the president might be -- that Donald Trump might be elected president. They were concerned about what they could smell at Walmart. They could smell the Trump support at Walmart.
Then you have got the other side of the equation where you have, you know, Stefan Halper and people who had relationships, intelligence relationships with America -- other American intelligence arms.
And it goes back to this question of who started this whole ball rolling and who may have been planted by some of these agencies. Are you going to be able get to the bottom of that if you get this investigation you want?
JOHNSON: Well, there are going to be so many people looking into these things now. We have inspector generals. We have Attorney General Barr. We have, you know, at least two Senate committees that are going to be looking at this.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
JOHNSON: But the public has a right to know. People do need to realize its congressional investigations; their whole purpose is to make this information public. And I'm always concerned if it's another criminal investigation, if no crimes are revealed. We may never hear about it.
But this is just potentially wrongdoing on the parts of these agencies that the public has to know about and that's really what the congressional investigations are all about and that's what I'm going to be tenacious about uncovering.
MACCALLUM: Yes. And those stories that leaked definitely bogged down the early period of the Trump presidency and no doubt led to a lot of frustration which, you know, according to the Mueller report ultimately led to no finding of any criminal wrongdoing.
Senator Ron Johnson, always good to see you, sir. Chairman, thank you.
JOHNSON: Have a good night.
MACCALLUM: You bet. You too. So, we have heard a lot about voter suppression from losing candidates like Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams. But new data seems to suggest what actually happened may have been the opposite. Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I think it's also critical to understand that as I have been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee and you can have the election stolen from you.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That was a big applause line in California on Saturday from Hillary Clinton who also suggested earlier this year that minority might have been suppressed in places around the country and that that is what cost her the presidency.
Then you've got Stacey Abrams who lost the race for governorship in Georgia. She's also said this similar line of thinking in terms of her loss and still contends that if it weren't for voter suppression she would have won.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACEY ABRAMS, FORMER GEORGIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: We have been raised to believe that it is invalid, in fact, uncouth to call into question that if you want to run for office again you got to concede the election so that everyone knows you are a good sport. I'm not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, you know, is there truth to this when you look at the numbers in these votes. The Wall Street Journal wrote a very interesting piece today on voter suppression. And they say that it is a myth.
The editorial board wrote this. "How do Democrats explain record minority turnout last November? If Republicans were trying to stop minorities from voting, their schemes were inept."
Joining me now Geraldo Rivera, Fox News correspondent at large, and Juan Williams, Fox News analyst and co-host of The Five. Gentlemen, great to have both of you with us today.
GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: Hi, Martha.
MACCALLUM: You know -- hi, there. You know, this is a very interesting story in the Wall Street Journal. It says that about 1.4 million voters were removed from the rolls in Georgia. They were, you know, they claim that they were cleaning up the rolls. They want to make sure that everybody who was on there was really living in Georgia and all that kind of stuff, removed 1.4 million voters after 2012.
Yet, black voter registration increased to 68.4 percent from 62 percent in 2014. And pruning the rolls they say did not reduce black turnout nearly 60 percent of black voters came out last fall up from 43 percent in 2014. Juan, what do you make of their explanation?
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CO-HOST & POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's, you know, I would go with the facts. I haven't reviewed them. But I mean, it seems to me to be sort of disingenuous, Martha, because had you Stacey Abrams running. She was like a black female who was very dynamic, charismatic character running.
So, you are going to drive up black voter turnout. The question is how much you drive it up.
So, you have Brian Kemp, her opponent who was the secretary of state in charge of all the voter operations. I believe it's like 53,000 people were pushed off the voter registration rolls by Kemp. So, you can understand why she would make this case now, the Wall Street Journal rightly says hey, look, there was a jump in terms of absolute turnout by minorities in the State of Georgia.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
WILLIAMS: But again, I think that there, from the Abrams perspective, there was a ceiling put in place by steps taken by the Republican opponent.
MACCALLUM: Well, that, I mean that may be. But Geraldo, you know, you have to look at the numbers. Because, you know, these are very dangerous accusations to make.
RIVERA: Yes.
MACCALLUM: So, you better be right, you better have your numbers right.
RIVERA: I don't like the accusations when they come from Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams or Donald Trump. I think they undermine confidence in our election system and unless you have proof, Stacey Abrams has admitted that she has no proof.
And, Juan, it wasn't like you had, you know a slight uptick in turnout. In the 2014 election, in Georgia, there was 1.1 million Democrats. In the 2018, it was up to 1.9 million. It was at 800,000 vote jumps. It was an enormous jump.
Now, unlike Georgia in North Carolina there was real proof that the Republican candidate Harris, rather McCready was -- no, Harris was the Republican, that he was screwing around, that somebody working for him was harvesting --
MACCALLUM: Yes.
RIVERA: -- absentee ballots and they disallowed him from being seated in the United States Congress as a result. They have a special election that happens next week in North Carolina.
So, I think that you have to really measure these allegations, Stacey Abrams is on the cusp of turning into someone who is going to be every time you see her, no, we are going to hear this complaint without proof again --
MACCALLUM: Yes. She --
(CROSSTALK)
RIVERA: -- rather than anything about substance about her running.
MACCALLUM: -- lost in Georgia by tens of thousands of votes.
The other thing is interesting, Juan, as I was listening to Deroy Murdock this morning talking about Florida Andrew Gillum against Ron DeSantis, also a very tight race.
But the analysis of the exit polls there and the voting or whatever polling they did afterwards showed that a lot of African-American women in Florida voted for Ron DeSantis because he was running on a platform of school choice and they wanted that for their kids.
So, you know, this suggestion that people are voting, you know, based on color and not on policy is also, I think, a disservice to any American.
WILLIAMS: I don't know that we can make that assumption. But I think you are right. I think there were voters in fact, who did not vote for Gillum who did vote for the Democrat who was running for Senate. So, you can see that there was a difference and it's not all along racial lines.
Again, what we come back to is the idea that the Republican Party is a party that basically is shrinking, and then Democrats, especially among younger voters and minority voters is the party that's growing.
And I think that's why the Republicans have an incentive in terms of the gerrymandering that we see in the courts go after in Ohio and Michigan in terms of closing polling places, limiting voting times, time for voting, early voting.
So many of these strategies, especially after the Supreme Court's decision of 2013 that undid the Voting Rights Act opened the door to these steps by a party that says we don't --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Yes, but you have to be -- OK.
WILIAMS: -- want, that we want to limit voters.
MACCALLUM: I got to go. But just one last point from this Wall Street Journal piece. It says that Hispanics and whites were more likely to cast early ballots. Blacks were most likely to vote on election day. So it wasn't that they got shut out from early voting.
It was and according to this that they chose to, you know, that they didn't choose to take advantage of it, you know, I think it's fascinating and I'm not sure, you know, if minorities are not migrating to Republicans. We saw a bit of that for sure in the presidential election and we will see how it shakes up the next time around in 2020.
Thank you, gentlemen, I've got to go. Geraldo, very much. Good to see you.
RIVERA: You too.
MACCALLUM: And Juan Williams as well. Thanks, guys.
Coming up next, what quickly became one of the biggest controversies certainly this weekend and definitely in horse racing history. The winner of this weekend's Kentucky Derby disqualified moments after crossing the finish line, the owner of Maximum Security now fighting back here on "The Story" right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is Country House on the outside. Maximum Security. He keeps battling on. Maximum Security, Country House one, two down to the line. Maximum Security win the Kentucky Derby.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Kentucky Derby known as the most exciting two minutes in sports. Watching the spotlight there making history this year for all the wrong reasons. The winning horse Maximum Security disqualified moments after crossing the finish line for allegedly interfering with other horses around the final turn. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, for the first time in the history of the Kentucky Derby the horse that crossed the line first has been disqualified. After the objection Country House wins the Kentucky Derby, one of the longest shots in history to win the derby. After one of the longest waits ever after the derby.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Nothing like this has ever happened before in the Kentucky Derby.
Joining me now exclusively the owner of Maximum Security, Gary West. Gary, good to see you tonight. I would imagine that it's been kind of a tough 24 hours for you.
What do you say to those who look at that video and say that they see a clear violation a clear moving over in the lane that could have been very dangerous for a lot of those horses?
GARY WEST, OWNER, MAXIMUM SECURITY: Well, if they're -- Martha, if they are talking about the one horse, the one horse didn't even claim an objection. The one horse was totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they did not claim an objection.
If the horse doesn't claim an objection, they don't have any standing in the race. And I think when it's all said and done and all the evidence is put on display frame by frame in slow motion, you will find that the one horse actually caused the infraction not our horse.
And if the one horse, I believe, it will eventually show that if the one horse would have finished ahead of our horse, we would have had every right in the world to claim an objection against the one horse.
MACCALLUM: So, you have you made an appeal which was shot down earlier today. How do you feel about that? What's your reaction to?
WEST: I expected that.
MACCALLUM: Do you have any resource at this point?
WEST: Yes.
MACCALLUM: And that is?
WEST: We are going -- we are going to file a lawsuit in the appropriate jurisdiction.
MACCALLUM: So when you look at, you know, what's been happening in racing lately and you look at some of the accidents that have happened and I know that you complained about the fact that there are 20 horses on this track and not the typical 14, you know, but everybody sort of signs on to this race the way it is, but it could -- it could be extremely dangerous for these horses if that kind of maneuver and I know you say it didn't happen. It wasn't your jockey's fault. But do you agree that this is a dangerous environment?
WEST: It's an incredibly dangerous environment. Churchill Downs, the reason that they have 20 horses instead of 14 like they do in every other major race in America including the Kentucky Oaks and of the Breeders Cup races which are kind of the gold standard races in America is because they get the Churchill Downs makes more money on the races by having 20 horses in the race than by having 14 horses in the race.
And what I think they are doing and what they have done is they are putting profits ahead of the lives of both horses and people. And I don't think that's right.
MACCALLUM: So, in terms of I want to put up what the president said, he was definitely on your side. He said, "The Kentucky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did not win. The Kentucky Derby not even close."
What was your -- what was your reaction to that and what do you think he meant by political correctness there?
WEST: I don't know what he -- I'm not inside the president's head. But --
MACCALLUM: You are not alone.
WEST: But I think he was -- I think his analysis is 100 percent correct.
MACCALLUM: Are you going to name your next horse border wall?
WEST: That's a consideration. I'll take that under -- I'll take that under advisement.
MACCALLUM: All right. Well, it's a fascinating story and we all hope this, you know, we want to protect these animals. They are so beautiful and it is a beautiful sport. Gary West, thank you. Very good to see you tonight, sir. Thank you.
WEST: Thank you, Martha. Have a nice evening.
MACCALLUM: You bet. So big news everybody, the royal baby made its debut and you will hear from a very proud Prince Harry next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: As every father and parent would ever say, you know, your baby is absolutely amazing. But this little thing is absolutely to die for. I'm just over the moon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle welcomed a baby boy this morning and here is the beaming papa.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY: It was amazing. Absolutely incredible. And as I said, I'm so incredibly proud of my wife. And as every father and parent, would ever say, you know, your baby is absolutely amazing but this little thing is absolutely to die for. I'm just over the moon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: To die for. Just over the moon. The baby's name will come in two days as its tradition. I'm going to go with Philip, I'm not sure why. You know, obviously the grandfather. But the new royal is number seven in line for the British throne.
And that is "The Story" on this Monday night. Thanks for being here. Congressman Dan Crenshaw is on my Untold Story podcast right now. Free to subscribe and listen and get them all as they come out. His is excellent. I learned a lot about him that I never knew before. Rising star in his party to be sure. We will see you back here tomorrow night at 7:00. Tucker Carlson is coming up next.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox