The untold story of Carly Fiorina

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 9, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ED HENRY, HOST: Tonight, President Trump on offense, taking it right to Democrat Jerry Nadler. Saying, the head of the House Judiciary panel is conning the country. Remember, Nadler first charge Attorney General William Barr was engaged in a cover-up for not immediately turning over the entire Mueller report. And then, Barr turned over almost the entire report and Nadler was still not satisfied. Now, he's trying to hold the attorney general in contempt.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: And now, guys like Jerry Nadler who I fought for many years, successfully, I might add. Back in New York in Manhattan, he was a Manhattan congressman. I beat him all the time, and I come to Washington and now I have to beat him again over nothing -- over nothing, over a hoax.


HENRY: Good evening, everybody. I'm Ed Henry, in for Martha MacCallum.

In other words, the president seemed to be saying this contempt fight is a manufactured crisis. Remember that phrase from the fight over the wall? The president is trying to turn that around on Democrats in the wake of that contempt vote in the House Judiciary Committee, which would be in charge, of course, of any impeachment proceedings.

Chairman Nadler and company are out with a brand-new talking point that the Trump administration has forced the nation into a constitutional crisis.


REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it.

ANDERSON COOPER, ANCHOR, CNN: Do you agree with Congressman Nadler -- Chairman Nadler that, that we're in a constitutional crisis?


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Yes. I do agree with Chairman Nadler because the administration has decided that they are not going to honor their oath of office.


HENRY: Except those same democratic leaders did not seem to mention honoring the oath of office back in 2012. You see it right there. They literally walked out of the House chamber in protest of President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder, yes, being held in contempt.

At the time, Nadler tweeted the contempt vote was "shameful and politically motivated." And back to that word, crisis. Remember just a few weeks ago, Democrats repeated that over and over. When they were claiming there was not a crisis at the border.


REP. RO KHANNA, D-CALIF.: We haven't had any border wall for two years. Of one month late longer is not going to create any crisis, it's a manufactured crisis.

PELOSI: President Trump must stop holding American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis.


HENRY: Well, even the New York Times this week, said, the border crisis was real, not manufactured. And keep in mind, an important point about this contempt battle from the National Review. The conservative magazine declared an editorial, "The proximate cause is a couple of redacted lines, including one footnote, in a 400-page report. Let's be glad for the sake of the republic that an entire page wasn't withheld."

Guess what, new polling suggests the American people might agreeing that it's time to turn the page on the Mueller report. We'll have those new numbers later in the show. In moments, Mollie Hemingway from the Federalist, and a former speechwriter for Eric Holder, Jake Maccoby. They'll be here.

But first, joining me live, Florida congressman, Matt Gaetz, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee. Good evening, Congressman.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Oh, thanks for having me, Ed.

HENRY: I thought the Speaker of the House was against manufacturing crises.

GAETZ: I don't know that Democrats know what the word crisis means. Obviously, they can't claim that we have an economic crisis, we've got growth at twice the rate that was expected under the Obama economy, and everybody's doing a lot better. But we have a real crisis on the border where 3,000 people a day are turning themselves in into a system that we cannot accommodate additional influx for.

And now we've got a tortured interpretation of a constitutional crisis. I can assure you that is not the case. The game you're watching isn't the game that's being played. The very reason Jerry Nadler is going after a Bill Barr has nothing to do with the eight percent of the Mueller report that hasn't been seen, and it has everything to do with the fact that Bill Barr is now turning the tables on the people in the Obama White House.

The people in the deep state and the intelligence community who politicized, a FISA court, and the investigators, I think, who departed from normalized practice.

HENRY: Some of those investigators like James Comey, I noticed have been having op-eds -- they're writing, they're doing more T.V. interviews, they're trying to get their side out. Are they getting nervous about what Bill Barr is going to do next?

GAETZ: Well, of course, it's not a coincidence that James Comey is on like the redemption two or 2.0 right now. Trying to articulate his message, because he knows that Barr is probably coming after Comey and his band of merry men who largely paved the way for Hillary Clinton to not face consequence, and then turned around.

And really did the Russians bidding for them by delegitimizing the president -- the election process. And then, after the election of the president, trying to delegitimize Donald Trump.

HENRY: Well, Congressman, you mentioned Hillary Clinton and her e-mails, and your party had great fun in 2016 chanting, lock her up at the president's rallies.

Today, the president was lashing out at the idea that Dick Blumenthal and other Democrats are saying, they might want to lock up Donald Trump Jr. Here is the president, I let you react, watch.


TRUMP: I was very surprised to see my son. My son is a very good person. He's now testified for 20 hours or something. A massive amount of time. The Mueller report came out. That's the Bible, the Mueller report came out, and they said he did nothing wrong.


HENRY: So, why -- if the president wants to get all this behind him, why not let Donald Trump Jr. come in one more time and tell the truth?

GAETZ: I think what this latest subpoena shows is, there's never getting this behind us as far as the Democrats are concerned. Donald Trump Jr. has given dozens of hours of testimony to the intelligence committees in the Congress, and that doesn't seem to be enough. This is obviously an effort just to try to continue the fiction that there was some sort of improper action.

But, I think we all can recognize if Donald Trump Jr. had committed a crime, Robert Mueller would have charged one. The reason Democrats say that Donald Trump wasn't charged is because he was the president.

Well, Donald Trump Jr. is not the president. So, if he had done something wrong, he would have been charged with a crime. This is simply an effort to try to maintain the fiction that there was improper conduct that has now been proven false.

HENRY: Yes. Congressman, last question. As you say, Robert Mueller had two years all of these subpoenas and witnesses and decided not to indict for whatever reason, Donald Trump Jr. and a whole bunch of other people.

In addition to that, you believe that the Mueller report exonerated the president. If all of that is true, why doesn't the president want Bob Mueller to testify before Congress, then, and just say, hey, he's free and clear?

GAETZ: Yes, I think that'll ultimately be a decision that's not left to the president. I have no problem with Robert Mueller testifying. In fact, when Democrats had the Bill Barr subpoena, I offered an amendment to substitute Robert Mueller from -- for Bill Barr.

I think we've heard a lot from Bill Barr, I'd love to hear from Mueller. Democrats on procedural basis blocked my amendment, blocked our access to Mueller. So, I'd love to see Mueller come in.

HENRY: All right. Congressman --


GAETZ: And we got a lot of questions for him.

HENRY: I bet you do. Congressman Gaetz, appreciate you coming in.

GAETZ: Thank you.

HENRY: All right, all through here tonight, I mentioned Mollie Hemingway, senior editor of the Federalists, and Fox News contributor. And Jake Maccoby, former speechwriter -- chief speechwriter for Attorney General Eric Holder, former policy advisor on Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Thanks for both coming in.


HENRY: Jake, I want to read to you, when Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, what he said among other things, "It is a regrettable culmination of what became a misguided, and politically motivated investigation. Congressman Issa and others have focused on politics over public safety." What changed?

JAKE MACCOBY, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR ERIC HOLDER: Yes. Well, he was right, and the inspector general found the same thing in his report. And so, did a federal court that had to take up the nonsense charge.

But in this case, you actually have an attorney general who has used every opportunity to undermine this report to spin it and to spin it for his boss. And it hasn't been very long that he's been in office, but he has used every moment of his time to try to prevent Congress from getting (INAUDIBLE) version of this report.


HENRY: But hang on one second, Jake, fast and furious was not a nothing thing, or whatever you called it, and the Eric Holder --


MACCOBY: Nobody is saying (INAUDIBLE) was.

HENRY: Eric Holder did not turn over all the documents. So, Congress held him in contempt. How did he just dismiss that as politics?

MACCOBY: Both the inspector general's report and a federal court found that, that was unwarranted. But what we've got now is a situation in which the attorney general of the United States who is supposed to be acting on behalf of the American people is acting as a hatchet man for the president, and that's not how this should work.

All of the Congress wants, and I think this is reasonable is to get an unredacted, uncensored version of this report that hasn't passed through the hands of a man who has shown that he will do anything to stand up for his boss.

HENRY: Mollie, here right there, calling the attorney general, hatchet man. We've heard all kinds of other attacks on the attorney general. When in fact, that unredacted report as I understand, it has been available for members to see at the Justice Department, hasn't it?

HEMINGWAY: Right. And first of, congressional oversight is very important. Congress creates agencies and they have an obligation to make sure that those agencies are doing what they should do and not doing what they shouldn't do. These are agencies that they fund.

When they were trying to find out about the fast and furious issue, in which a federal agent was killed as part of a -- as part of a gun-running scheme that our government was running, that was clearly a legitimate oversight function.

Having the Russia hoax blow up in your face is not necessarily a constitutional crisis. I do want Congress to get what it wants, but there are certain things that prohibit it. If Attorney General Barr were to turn over the report, he would be breaking the law since the grand jury testimony cannot be, by law, shared with Congress.

There are also privileged communications there. So, you want to make sure that people do get what they need, but Attorney General Barr sort of bent over backwards in terms of trying to accommodate it.

Again, it's very embarrassing that the -- that the report ended with not a single indictment for anyone colluding with Russia, despite what we were told. That doesn't mean it's a constitutional crisis.

HENRY: And sure. But let me give Jake a fair chance to respond to that. Basically, among other things, Mollie is saying, you didn't get what you wanted after two years. So, now you want to get the attorney general.

MACCOBY: But that's not true at all. What we want is this report, and what we want is to conduct oversight of the executive branch. And the executive branch to decide that it's not going to allow that. Even the president of the United States personally directing administration officials not to respond to subpoenas, not to testify before Congress, and it's not just Democrats, by the way, we just heard today that Don Jr. has been subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and that's not a Democrat who's doing that.


HENRY: A Republican, Richard Burr.

MACCOBY: That is the chairman (INAUDIBLE), was a Republican.

HENRY: But hang-on --


MACCOBY: Yes, Republican Richard Burr, exactly.

HENRY: Among the other things, when you said that we need to get this report. The report's available on

MACCOBY: A redacted report is available. But that's not -- that's not enough. We need to actually be able to see what that has --


HENRY: Over 90 percent of it is unredacted, right? They don't argue with it, but I'm sorry, but it's on Amazon, you could get the report, it's there.

MACCOBY: You can get a redacted version of the report, and I think that the Congress is entitled to see a report that hasn't passed through the hands of a man who spent the last few months trying to prevent anyone from understanding what actually went on his board, and who was mischaracterized this report. In fact, Robert Mueller said that he mischaracterized the report. So, let's get this out (INAUDIBLE). He said --

HENRY: Well, that what has been reported that Robert Mueller said, we'll see if and when he testified. He didn't say that, it's just been reported. Mollie, you get the last word.

HEMINGWAY: Robert Mueller has already had 400 plus words, plus footnotes - - 400 plus pages, plus footnotes to give his case. And the most important thing, not a single indictment for Russia collusion, despite what the American people were promised would happen by partisans in this --


MACCOBY: We have had indictments up and down for the last few years --

HEMINGWAY: And not a single indictment for Russia collusion, not a single indictment for obstruction of justice.

HENRY: Not on collusion as you said. So, go ahead -- yes.

HEMINGWAY: This is a very disappointing outcome for partisans, but it's -- there is no question that that's what the end was. Yes, it's very disappointing. I understand.


MACCOBY: I think we (INAUDIBLE) this president to a highest standard. I think it's ridiculous to say that these indictments don't matter. There have been a series of indictments, and people are in jail as a result of illegal behavior to aid this president. And I think we ought to see the facts.

HENRY: OK. All right, Jake, Mollie, appreciate your time.


MACCOBY: Thank you.

HENRY: Up next, as you can hear, the White House and Congress at war. But will all of the Democrats talk of crisis, impeachment, and even throwing people in jail actually end up helping the president?

That debate about whether it will boomerang on the Democrats is next.


PELOSI: Impeachment is one of the most divisive things that you can do at dividing a country.



HENRY: Well, as the showdown between the White House and Democrats on the Hill escalates, growing questions tonight about where all this ends. Could it be impeachment or would that wind up being a win for the president and boomerang on the Democrats? Well, obviously, it depends on who you ask.


PELOSI: The president is almost self-impeaching because he is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress' legitimate role.


HENRY: Well, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, he's not surprised by how all this is playing out.


REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, D-CALIF.: The Democrats continue to go with the playbook that they wrote the day after the President Trump was elected, that they want to move towards impeachment.


HENRY: Well, a short time ago, I spoke with Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware who serves on the Judiciary Committee.


HENRY: You lead a weekly prayer breakfast. You tried to bring some unity in these divided times. Does your party tonight risk driving the country further apart?

SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL.: Well, I think the calls for impeachment by some in my party don't reflect the opinion of everybody in my party. And the larger point is that there have been exposed by the Mueller report some serious and inappropriate actions by both the President and some of his most senior aides that I think the average American ought to familiarize themselves with, be aware of, be concerned about.

But in my conversations with colleagues, as you mentioned, what I'm trying to do is keep us focused on legislating in ways that actually addresses the daily concerns the needs the issues that confront millions of working families who I think are losing patience with Congress and the federal government over the last decade because they don't see us doing enough to address their --

HENRY: But Senator, you probably understand that some of the frustration voters may have tonight is the fact that we were all -- you know, everybody it seemed like whether it's the media, whether it's Democrats, Republicans expected there was some sort of finality coming after two years from the Mueller report.

You've mentioned concerns. But on the issue of obstruction, for example, there were concerns as you say raised by Robert Mueller but he didn't move forward. He didn't suggest there should be charges. And the same now we hear about the subpoena from the Senate Intel Committee today for Donald Trump Jr. to come back.

Robert Mueller talked to him. He's talked to the Senate Judiciary Committee that you serve on, and in the end -- at the end of the day Robert Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr. So why is the Senate still wanting to hear from him?

COONS: That's right, and that's an excellent question. I don't know the answer to that. It was the Intelligence Committee, a committee on which I don't serve, that issued a subpoena form. My best hunch is that the Mueller report revealed some ways in which Donald Trump Jr. was well aware of either the ongoing Trump Tower Moscow project or some aspects of the meeting and Trump Tower with folks offering dirt on Hillary Clinton who were Russian that wasn't testified about to the Intelligence Committee and they want to bring him back in to see if they can get a straight answer out of him.

You know, there's a number of folks who have been held accountable for having lied to Congress. One of the Michael Cohen just reported for a jail term, others you know, Michael Flynn and others have faced accountability. I don't think it's inappropriate for the Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis to put someone back in and question --

HENRY: But Senator -- sure, there should be accountability, there should be oversight for anyone on any side especially if they lie to Congress. But if -- and I stress if Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress, why didn't Robert Mueller with more than a dozen prosecutors at its disposal, the hundreds of witnesses in subpoenas we were all heard about, why didn't he recommend charges then if he lied?

COONS: Well, I think that's a fair question. One of the things that led a number of us on the Judiciary Committee to recommend that we bring Robert Mueller in for one session, one hearing of questioning was there's a lot of unanswered questions from the second volume of the Mueller report.

There's a fair amount of evidence that dozens of former federal prosecutors have said would make out a claim for obstruction that I think would be worth are having a conversation with Mueller about. And there was that conversation between Mueller and the Attorney General where Lindsey Graham our Chairman has that if there was a misrepresentation of that call, that would be grounds for bringing Mueller in.

HENRY: Real quick, though, Senator, what you're saying about concerns is different than what your Democratic colleague Richard Blumenthal said today. Listen to this.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: There is no question with Donald Trump Jr. about any sort of privilege to avoid this kind of questioning. If he fails to answer he ought to be put in jail. If he fails to comply with a lawful subpoena, he has no privilege. The prison is the only answer.

HENRY: Senator, I mentioned your efforts to bring people together, and I was sincere about that with your weekly prayer breakfast in the Senate. But how in the world does that square with the idea of what your colleague is saying that maybe Donald Trump Jr. should go to jail, that the President's son should go to jail?

COONS: Well, Ed, as you well know, it doesn't help promote a spirit of bipartisanship when we've got you know, leaders of one party chanting locker up about their political opponent or when other folks in my caucus are saying -- are prejudging what would be the appropriate legal outcome if someone refused to obey a subpoena.

I don't know. I wasn't there for that interview, but my hunch is that Senator Blumenthal is a former Attorney General is speaking forcefully about subpoenas and the importance of respecting due process. But to your broader point, I think the average American is looking for us to legislate on things that matter.

One of the things I regret is that there isn't enough coverage of when we do make bipartisan progress today, actually today in the Judiciary Committee, there were three different bills that moved out, several of them Senator Blumenthal was a co-sponsor with Republicans --

HENRY: Absolutely.

COONS: -- that are designed to protect law enforcement officers and designed to both provide bulletproof vests and support to prevent suicide of law enforcement officer. We do find areas to work on together.

HENRY: Well, important issue. We hope it gets thought -- we hope it gets through the House as well because those were important issues. Senator Chris Coons, we appreciate you coming in.

COONS: Thank you, Ed.


HENRY: All right, investigation fatigue apparently beginning to set in. According to the latest Harris Poll, a majority of voters 58 percent have had it and think that given the Mueller report, it's time to turn the page on the Trump investigations. Here now to talk about that is Mark Penn, he's Chairman of the Harris Poll and served as a pollster for the Clintons. Good evening, Mark.

Good evening.

HENRY: You could hear almost the pained expression, I think, in Senator Coons trying to find that balance. He wants to legislate and yet he admitted that there were some in his party who don't seem to want to get there.

MARK PENN, CHAIRMAN, HARRIS POLL: Well, look, just about two-thirds of the public, a little bit under 63, 65 percent say that they want Congress to stop investigating and to get back to legislating. And it's pretty clear, and you know, the Democrats that had a seven-point advantage you know, in the Midterms, that advantage in the latest poll has shrunk to a difference in favorability of only two percent of the parties.

And if I ask do you want investigations or infrastructure, 80 percent say that. So I think the public says look, we wanted to get the Mueller report. In the end, there was no Russia collusion. Let's get back to business. Congress itself has only a 23 percent approval rating.

HENRY: Yes. I want to dig deeper because you asked a question I think it's interesting, you might call it the Goldilocks question. Do you think Democrats in Congress are doing too much, too little, or about the right amount to investigate Donald Trump? And it shows a plurality of people. 41 percent say Democrats are simply investigating the president too much. How does that play as we head into 2020?

PENN: Well, because I think the voters are saying what are they getting from the Democrats. In many ways, they voted the Democrats in the House because they were dissatisfied with the Republicans for being log-jammed, and they are not going to tolerate another two years of log jamming, and this now is tipping over.

Look, I think the two bases of each party are happy to argue about the Mueller report and obstruction and collusion forever, but the middle of the country wants issues and is fed up.

HENRY: So The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about all of this a couple days ago, and they basically said that the Democrats want to keep their base happy, the resistors if you will, by saying we're investigating, we're going after them, we're not giving up but they want to stop short of actual impeachment. They called it a pseudo impeachment. You agree with that?

PENN: Well, that's I think exactly what's happening. You've got some chairmen in the committees who are in safe districts who are pandering to a base, a majority of Democrats would go ahead and impeach President Trump. And at the same time though, they're hurting the election chances over all of the Democrats as a party because 63, 65 percent what wouldn't do impeachment.

And so they're trying to walk that fine line. You heard it in that interview with Senator Coons. He's investigating, he's trying to do legislating. Look, you got to choose. And I think the public after the Mueller report is pretty clear what they want the Congress to choose.

HENRY: It seems like it. We'll see if they listen. Mark Penn, I appreciate you coming in.

PENN: Thank you.

HENRY: All right, up next, tensions rising between the world's two biggest economies. In just hours, the U.S. is planning hype tariffs. China now threatening to retaliate. Marc Thiessen and Juan William is here to debate President Trump's big deal next.



TRUMP: I have no idea what's going to happen. I did get last night a very beautiful letter from President Xi, let's work together, let's see if we can get something done.


HENRY: A race against the clock in the U.S.-China trade war tonight.

President Trump warns that at midnight the U.S. will raise tariffs on Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent as negotiators from both countries are meeting, as we speak, in Washington.

At the same time, tensions also rising in North Korea. The U.S. today seizing a North Korean cargo ship after Kim Jong-un's regime test fired more missiles.

So how's President Trump doing with all of this international deal making?

Joining me now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar and a Fox News contributor. And Juan Williams, co-host of The Five and Fox News political analyst. Good to see you both.



HENRY: Juan, the president got a nice letter from President Xi.

WILLIAMS: I want to send you a nice letter. I mean, come on. If Marc and I are sending you a nice letter it doesn't mean we have a deal.

In fact, what we see is threats to escalate this trade war, which has been damaging our farmers, damaging manufacturing and costing us jobs. But it's not just here. You stop and think about what happened in Venezuela with the Maduro regime, you know, we thought that we had one garner on the way in, that exploded, now the president has some bad feelings.

You look at what's going on with North Korea firing missiles again. It just looks like the Trump foreign policy is basically to trigger a crisis and then try to get something out of it with added leverage, but so far it hasn't worked out for him.

HENRY: Well, Marc, that's Juan's view, but it seems like China is not necessarily in the strongest position right now, and maybe President Trump sees that weakness because their economy is in bad shape.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I'm a little bit disappointed to hear my friend Juan taking that take on this situation. Because look, these are not partisan issues. I mean, he brought up Venezuela.

Republicans and Democrats have an interest in promoting democracy in Venezuela. Republicans and Democrats should both agree that China is an economic predator and that we have to confront them. Republicans and Democrats should both agree that North Korea is an existential threat if it gets a nuclear power to the United States.

HENRY: Sure.

THIESSEN: So, we should all be supporting President Trump and trying to help him get a deal.

And to his credit, Chuck Schumer is doing that. Chuck Schumer tweeted out the other day, that he said don't back down, President Trump. I don't China understand a strength. China needs to understand that when Chuck Schumer is tweeting support for Donald Trump, they are in trouble.

HENRY: Juan, that's a good question, Juan. What do you have -- what beef do you have with Chuck Schumer? Because Chuck Schumer is saying look, the president is right, that the only thing the Chinese understand is strength, Juan.

WILLIAMS: It's true.

HENRY: So why are you disagreeing with Chuck Schumer?

WILLIAMS: I'm not. By the way, I agree with what Marc said. I don't think this is necessarily a partisan issue.


WILLIAMS: If the -- the president is not responsible for the fact that we have a trade crisis with China, that's China did that.


WILLIAMS: But what the president did is a matter of strategy was to escalated by imposing tariffs, and now getting locked into a trade war with no agreement on the horizon.

HENRY: But he got their attention, Juan.

WILLIAMS: You can get their attention, but I would just say. Listen, let's have an objective measure, are we better off now, given Trump's strategy, given his provocative statements with North Korea than we were when we came in? No.

THIESSEN: Yes. Yes, we are.

HENRY: Answer that question, Marc.

THIESSEN: And so -- and so we are better off. And look, the reality is Trump has figured out that we are not going to get China to change its trade practices by filing a strongly worded letter. We talked about letters with the WTO.

The reality is that the U.S. economy is booming right now. We have a comparative advantage because 3.2 percent economic growth, lowest unemployment in five decades.

China, on the other hand, they have the slowest growth in three decades, their wages are declining, their manufacturing sector is shedding jobs, their population is aging and producibility is going down.

So, Trump calculates that one, the United States can better withstand a trade confrontation with China than China can, and two, Xi needs this deal more than he does. Because our economy is strong. We can -- we can withstand, when you are well armed, economically, you can withstand a trade war.

China cannot withstand a trade war with the United States, so we're in a position of strength to negotiate.


HENRY: Well, that's a good question for you, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Well, I just think you get -- I think you should -- I think you should then talk to the farmers. I think you should talk to the people in manufacturing --


THIESSEN: Well, Trump did.

WILLIAMS: And you should talk to the American people.

THIESSEN: You know --

WILLIAMS: Trump has a very -- when you switch the topic from foreign policy to economy, say we have a strong economy, you are exactly right, Marc.


WILLIAMS: The American people I think give his highest marks of approval on the economy, but when it comes to foreign affairs, he is way under water, only like 40 percent approve while 50 plus percent disapprove of the kind of explosive handling of foreign policy under this president.

THIESSEN: China tried that, Juan. Last time around, before the 20 -- before the last election, they imposed tariffs on soybeans to try and hurt Trump voters, they actually targeted Trump voters with these farmers, and you know what happened? Trump went to them and he said I'm fighting for you, and rural voters -- the suburban voters deflected from Trump in the last election, rural voters stuck with him.

So, Trump knows the rural voters understand that he is going to war to -- war with China to fight for them. And those voters are going to back him.

HENRY: And last point, Juan. You mentioned manufacturing a moment ago, this president has created more manufacturing jobs than we ever saw in the last administration.

THIESSEN: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: No, we are losing manufacturing jobs at the moment.


THIESSEN: That's not true. He created half a million.

WILLIAMS: You look what's going on with the promise to build at Foxconn in Wisconsin, you look at he just promised the new plant in Ohio --


THIESSEN: Half a million manufacturing jobs, Juan. That's not factually incorrect what you just said. Half a million manufacturing jobs have been added. Fast as manufacturing growth in 24 years, and the people who are benefiting the most are people -- in the Trump economy are people without a high school education, who are the forgotten Americans.


THIESSEN: Their wages went up six percent --


WILLIAMS: This is a declining sector of our economy.

HENRY: Well, Marc, I'm going to get those stats you cited --


THIESSEN: Not anymore.

HENRY: -- which I think you're right on manufacturing. I will send them to Juan --

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

HENRY: -- in a nice worded letter.

WILLIAMS: A letter? A letter to follow.

HENRY: Juan, Marc, I appreciate you coming in

THIESSEN: A lovely letter, yes.

HENRY: All right. Up next, Facebook back under fire. Is the social media giant doing enough to keep political and even terrorist propaganda off of its platform? Our next guest says no way.


HENRY: Breaking tonight, a former Intel analyst is charged with leaking classified information about U.S. military campaigns against Al Qaeda to the media. This case is marking the latest in an ongoing effort by the Justice Department to crack down on dangerous leaks. Something Attorney General William Barr told Congress just last week.


WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have multiple criminal leak investigations underway.


HENRY: It's a big story. For more on this, Trace Gallagher is live in our West Coast newsroom. Good evening, Trace.


The suspect just 31-year-old Daniel Hale, a one-time U.S. Air Force intelligence analyst who worked at the National Security Agency or NSA. And after leaving the military, he worked as a contractor for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, or NGA, where he had top-secret security clearance, and allegedly used his top-secret computer to print out dozens of documents related to U.S. counterterrorism operations, specifically drone strikes.

The Fed say Hale then gave the documents to an unnamed reporter, but court records say that reporter made a documentary about the U.S. military's use of drones which points to Jeremy Scahill, a founding editor of The Intercept, a news outlet that has also done extensive reporting on U.S. drone operations.

Daniel Hale's attorney calls him a whistleblower. And The Intercept released a statement that reads in part, quoting here. "These documents detailed the secret, unaccountable process for targeting and killing people around the world, including U.S. citizens, through drone strikes."

Other supporters call Hale's arrest an effort to criminalize journalism. The U.S. government maintains that Daniel Hale released critical information about military operations against terrorist targets, including terrorist identities and the identities of people who were screened because they were suspected of being involved in terrorism. Hale could be facing 50 years in prison. Ed?

HENRY: All right. Trace, I appreciate that report.

Tonight, new questions being -- new questions are being raised as to whether Facebook is doing enough to keep political and terrorist propaganda off of its platform.

Joining us now, Congressman Max Rose. He is the chair of the Homeland Security subcommittee on intel and counterterrorism. Good to see you, Congressman.

REP. MAX ROSE, D-N.Y.: Good to see you, Ed. Thank you so much for having me.

HENRY: What is your sense about what -- where Facebook is missing the mark?

ROSE: Yes. So, this is an incredibly disturbing report that just came out. You know, Facebook often brags, especially in recent months where we've seen incidents around, there are being terrorist content on their platform.

They brag that they have it under control, that they have an A.I. platform that can deal with this, that they have personnel allocated, and then we see problems like this, where 60 percent of terrorist content is leaking -- is sifting through leaking through their screen's controls, and being amplified then.

It's a gigantic problem, and they have got to tell us what they are doing to solve this. We requested three weeks ago, my committee -- my subcommittee on intelligence and counterterrorism, along with the chairman of the committee to actually tell us what personnel you are allocating to this. What are you doing to solve this problem?


HENRY: Yes. What is the answer?

ROSE: And they've ignored -- they've ignored us. They have treated us as if we were stepchildren in the corner, and it is not a laughing matter.

HENRY: Not at all.

ROSE: You know, at this point, Facebook's elitist snobbery and their woeful neglect of congressional oversight and their counterterrorism screening obligations, represents what I believe an incredibly serious national security threat, and they have got to do something about it.

HENRY: Well, let give me our viewers an example of what you are talking about, in terms of flipping through the cracks and what is going on.

So, the Associated Press had a look at this auto generated, we have some video of it, Facebook celebration video with various images. Look at this. Basically, it's an animated video that begins with a photo of the black flags of Jihad. Seconds later, it flashes highlights of a year of social media posts, that basically some of the stuff was being posted, and they thought it was, you know, some sort of celebration.

So, they said great, let's put this together like it's somebody's birthday video like we get on our normal pages. Instead, it's Jihad propaganda and it's just sort of auto generated, and then who knows, kids, others, are seeing this trash.

ROSE: You know, when we think about the most likely threat that we face today, it is a lone wolf inspired gunman, who the message and his actions are completely sourced from online social media. That's where he is inspired to do these things, and Facebook all they're thinking about right now is their quarterly profit.

And it's not just Facebook who has this responsibility. It's YouTube, it's Twitter, and it is the less popular sites like 8chan.


ROSE: Someone else who we also have to be focusing on, and as we've seen most recently, the FBI, the DOJ are not doing nearly enough to communicate out of with 8chan, as well.

HENRY: Congressman, real quick, you are not the only one pressuring them, they are getting pressure sort of from some of their own today. It was a pretty big story that one of the cofounders of Facebook, Chris Hughes, came out, he had a big op-ed in the New York Times and then he said this on The Today show. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think Facebook is dangerous?

CHRIS HUGHES, CO-FOUNDER, FACEBOOK: I do. I think Facebook has become too big, too powerful, because there isn't been -- there is no regulatory agency from the federal government.


HENRY: So, one of the co-founders is saying, it's time to break them up. What say you?

ROSE: Yes. Look, he is still enjoying the hundreds of millions of dollars he made of Facebook, so I'll take his comments with a grain of salt.

What I will say, though, is that we can break up Facebook and still face the same problem, which is incendiary language, terrorist content on our social media platforms. And if we don't have a strong public-private partnership that is completely focused on dealing with this crisis, we are going to continue to deal with this whether we break up these large social media companies or not, and that's what I'm concerned with. Keeping the American people safe.

HENRY: All right. Congressman, I appreciate you for coming in.

ROSE: All right. Thank you so much again.

HENRY: Up next, Martha has the untold story of Carly Fiorina. You'll hear about her life out in the campaign trail and how it's changed a bit since then.


CARLY FIORINA, AUTHOR, FIND YOUR WAY: I was prepared to win the presidency and do the job. I was also always prepared to lose, and do something else. And it was clear that I couldn't win, so it was time to get out.



HENRY: Tonight, the untold story of 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. In her new book "Find Your Way," Fiorina gives readers advice on how they can succeed in their own career. She opens up about the struggles she has overcome personally, including the moment she realized her dream of becoming president was over.

Now here is Martha, with Carly Fiorina's untold story.


FIORINA: Now I've seen politics really up close and at the highest levels of the game, and I used the term the game very explicitly.

George Washington said to us in 1789, the trouble with political parties is they will come to care only about winning. The genius of this country was in understanding that the citizen is sovereign and that people closest to the problem know best how to solve it.

That was the idea I ran my campaign on, but that's the idea behind this book, as well. That each of us have. I know this from my own life and from the people I've met along the way, each of us have enormous potential. More than we realize. And we can work with others and have an impact on the problems that impact us.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: There's a moment in the book when one of your advisors on the presidential campaign is standing outside of your house, and he is saying to himself, I need to go in there and I need to tell her that the campaign is over.

When you answered the door, you basically said it for him. You said, "To step away from the presidential race was simply the next right decision to make. It wasn't a failure, it wasn't cause for devastation, grief, or regret. To think that way would be handing my power over to emotions that would never pay me back." What do you mean by that?

FIORINA: I talk a lot in this book about getting on the path, and not getting fixated on a plan. And so many people get fixated on a plan. I need to have a certain destination, I need to be president, I need to be a CEO. None of those things are fulfilling in and of themselves. If you achieve those things, wonderful.

But what I have learned in my life is we have so much more power, we make so much more of a contribution when we are on a path towards fulfilling our potential and helping others fulfill theirs.

So, I was prepared to win the presidency and do the job. I was also always prepared to lose, and do something else. And it was clear that I couldn't win, so it was time to get out.

MACCALLUM: You talk about being locked up.


MACCALLUM: You know, so the people you are referring to, and I think we all feel this way.


MACCALLUM: It's not exclusion.


MACCALLUM: Everybody feels locked at times in your life in your career.

FIORINA: That's right.

MACCALLUM: Give us, you know, give us some advice on how to unlock.

FIORINA: I was very reluctant to talk about our daughter.


FIORINA: She suffered from the disease of addiction. And yet, I believed that leadership requires authenticity, which means you must be transparent. And this was an incredibly important part of my family's life.

And so, I had to write down, what am I afraid of? What it turned out I'm afraid of, I'm afraid that people will think what's wrong with Carly? Couldn't you stop this? You are a bad mother, you're a bad person.

And once I said that out loud, and I thought, all right, what's the worst that can happen? People think that what's the best that can happen? Maybe I can help someone else.

And the first time that I actually talked about Lori, of course it was very difficult. But this woman came up to me afterwards and she said, thank you so much for sharing your story, because I'm dealing with this. That was a blessing, for me.

MACCALLUM: Because seeing someone like you who couldn't fix that --

FIORINA: Yes, I couldn't fix it.

MACCALLUM: -- is very empowering.

FIORINA: Yes. You have to realize, it's not false modesty, but you have to realize I need other people to achieve something worthwhile and lasting. We all do.

MACCALLUM: When you look at women running for office, there's a lot more of them out there today --


MACCALLUM: -- what do you think about that, and how important is it, or not, that women hold high political office in this country?

FIORINA: Well, women are more than half the nation, so women should be more than half of everything, really, because if they are not, we are wasting talent. So, I think it's wonderful that more women are running.

I also think it's a shame that women have allowed themselves to be politicized and used, in a way.

When I was running for president, my candidacy was called offensive to women by a lot of women's groups who didn't agree with me. Well, my goodness, men don't agree, why should women agree?

We need to be able to resist assassinating someone's character because we disagree with them. And we also need to be able to resist excusing someone's character because we do agree with them.

And so, I hope we'll take a more holistic view of women and say, yes, whatever their beliefs are, we need more of them in the workplace, in political life, we need more of them fulfilling their potential and changing the order of things for the better.

MACCALLUM: Carly, thank you very much.

FIORINA: Thank you so much for having me.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you.

FIORINA: Great to be with you. Thank you.


HENRY: And there will be more of “The Story” next.


HENRY: And that's “The Story” for this Thursday night. Martha will be back here tomorrow night at 7 p.m. Eastern. I'll be back at 6 p.m. tomorrow hosting "Fox & Friends." In the meantime, Tucker is up next.

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