This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 3, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: I will see you tomorrow in Kansas City. Thanks, Bret. See you there.

All right, everybody. Tonight, Joe Biden fights to save his shot at the White House with this video.


JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: In my career, I always tried to make a human connection. That is my responsibility, I think. I shake hands, I hug people. I grab men and women by the shoulders and say, "You can do this." The boundaries of protecting personal space having reset, and I get it. I worked my whole life to empower women. I've worked my whole life to prevent abuse. I've written -- and so, the idea that I can't adjust to the fact that personal space is important, more important than it's ever been, is just not thinkable. I will. I will.


MACCALLUM: So there you have it. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is “The Story.” So, it's unlikely that Joe Biden will be touching anybody, probably. If he had does end up heading out on the campaign trail in this coming presidential race.

Nancy Pelosi has said it is best to be a member of her club in politics when it comes to human touch.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'm a member of the straight arm club. I mean, I'm that straight armor. I mean, I just pretend you have a cold and I have a cold.


MACCALLUM: So, this is where we are in the MeToo moment, everybody. Likely, in a country where human contact is taboo, all things to run away weaponization and politicalization.

Now, we're even hearing that there are men who say that they don't even want to have lunch with women that they work with. And some who say they will shy away maybe from hiring too many women. It's just too complicated. Well done, America. What a huge step backward all of this could be for women in the workplace. More on that part of the story in a moment.

But first, the future of Joe Biden, which still may be in jeopardy after all of those creepy Joe encounters.

In moments, the Republican take from Senator John Kennedy. He has said this about all of this regarding the former vice president.


SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Somebody gets close enough to smell my hair, they may -- you know, get to smell my hair, but they may lose some teeth. This is no country from a creepy old man. And leaning in and smelling a guy's hair or a woman's hair is a little bit too close in my judgment.


MACCALLUM: So, he's up in a bit. But first, we began tonight with former DNC chair and Fox News contributor Donna Brazile. Donna, Good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.


MACCALLUM: You have known Joe Biden for a very long time.


MACCALLUM: Do you think that he has been able to right the ship with this video? And do you think this means he is definitely in?

BRAZILE: Well, I think Joe Biden is a terrific human being, and I've known him for a long time. But it is important to understand that these are not allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Instead, there is complaints that maybe he has invaded personal space. By the way, it's always been. At least, it should have been a code that everyone knew that you don't violate people's personal space if you don't touch.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely true.

BRAZILE: But I have to tell you this, as someone who's managed campaigns and have run campaigns, and know a lot about campaigns, you always want a candidate to touch, like good morning, hello, how are you doing, make eye contact.

And Joe Biden today said that he's going to own it. He's going to take responsibility.


BRAZILE: And I hope that this will allow him, if he decides to run for office, this will allow him to communicate his message to the American people.

MACCALLUM: But, you know, Donna, I wonder, you know about the question I raised in the intro here. Do you worry that -- you know, that touching becomes like this thing that people are terrified to do in politics and in life because of where the MeToo movement has gotten us here? Now, there's a lot of, you know, positive moment there. And people who are in -- you know, who are -- had egregious horrible behavior.

But then, you've got this on the very other end of the spectrum. And it just makes me wonder if -- you know, as I said, women are -- men are going to be wary about hiring women, about going to lunch with women that they work with. What do you think about that?

BRAZILE: Well, first of all, I would tell my male colleagues, there's a lot of talent that you are leaving on the sidelines.

MACCALLUM: That's for sure.

BRAZILE: If you decide that you do not wish to bring women into the boardroom, bring women into, of course, to office. Women provide a lot of talent and skills, and where necessary.

We're the majority of voters, but we're also the majority of consumers. That being said, we should not confuse, you know, these allegations -- these real allegations of sexual assault with a perception, perhaps that the behavior is inappropriate.


BRAZILE: I -- look, I respect women who come forward. I respect men who come forward. These are tough decisions that people make when they come forward to tell their truth.

MACCALLUM: Understood.

BRAZILE: But I also believe, Martha that we should allow Vice President Biden and others to express as he did today his remorse, and to take responsibility and own it. So that --


MACCALLUM: Let me ask you a political question here.


MACCALLUM: Here is Beto O'Rourke who's raised a lot of money. Joe Biden, then, out there yet. We don't know how much money is out there waiting on the sidelines for him.

But you know, he's among those who are -- you know, maybe, may be willing to take advantage of this moment of difficulty for Joe Biden. Here is Beto.


REP. BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we need to listen to those who are raising their stories, who have the courage to come forward, to share their experience, and also to be part of the conversation about either his candidacy or how he fares as a contender for the nomination if he -- if he jumps in.


MACCALLUM: We heard similar things from Elizabeth Warren. Are you worried that Democrats are eating their own here that they may be giving Joe Biden trouble, and he may be the person who has the best shot against President Trump?

BRAZILE: Look I still believe that we have the most talented group of individuals who are running for president. And they are more than ready to take on President Trump who has his own -- as you know, stories out there about sexual assault, and so forth.

So, I think it's important at this moment to allow the vice president, he's owned it, he's taking full responsibility, he's a kind and decent human being.


MACCALLUM: Do you still think he's the person that has the best shot to win the nomination?

BRAZILE: I don't know because I think the voters will make that decision. As a Democratic strategist, I think Joe brings a lot of assets to the team, and a lot of -- a lot of good -- a lot of good intelligence. And he's a proven leader.

MACCALLUM: All right.

BRAZILE: And there's no question that people would like to see Joe and Alana. But this is a decision that the vice president and his family must make.

MACCALLUM: Donna Brazile, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

BRAZILE: thank you.

MACCALLUM: Great to have you here.

BRAZILE: Thank you, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: And welcome to being a Fox News Contributor. We're glad that were -- you're around on a regular basis. It's great to have you.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: you bet.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up right now. We've got Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. Senator, good to see you tonight. Your thoughts, we heard your comment earlier about how -- you know, if somebody smells your hair, they might lose a few teeth, in the -- in the exchange if they get too close. What did you think of this video, and do you think that Joe Biden has done what he needed to do there?

KENNEDY: Well, I probably shouldn't have said what I said, Martha. That was kind of a juvenile comment, I'd like to have that one back. But the point I was trying to make not particularly artfully, I was asked my opinion, and my opinion is that the kind of behavior that the vice president has demonstrated repeatedly, it's -- to me, it's unnatural. I mean, it's abnormal, it's weird.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you're not alone. There's a lot of -- you know, Google creepy Joe. And you're going to see all these videos and pictures that have been out there for a long, long time.

KENNEDY: And what's particularly bizarre to me is that apparently, he didn't know what was unnatural, and abnormal, and weird. I mean, I suspect he does now, I don't mean any disrespect to the vice president, but -- you know, in my opinion, this is not a country for creepy old men, and we have learned in the past few years about some of the indignities that people including but not limited to women have suffered by people more powerful than them, and I just think it's wrong.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, I think that we all do better by sort of understanding these situations and understanding what makes people uncomfortable. And certainly, everybody has a right to come out and say, you know what, that's not -- I'm not OK with that, because that can -- you know, make people uncomfortable. But by the same token, you know I'm curious what you think about this idea that -- you know, he's -- he sort of has suggested -- you know, that "I'm kind of from another generation. And I'm learning as I go."

Is this generational or not? Because you seem to think it's not. That you know the difference -- you know, that other people know the difference as well.

KENNEDY: Well, I don't think it's generational. I mean, the vice- president in his video talked about the fact that he likes to connect with people and that's fine. But smelling somebody's hair are putting your hand on their knee and leaving it there is I guess you could call that connecting, but it's inappropriate connecting. And I was asked my opinion, and my opinion is it's weird.

MACCALLUM: So, I'm just hearing that the President Trump made a comment on this to the A.P. And he is saying and told me in the control room if I'm getting this right, that he does not think that Joe Biden should have to apologize for his behavior.

KENNEDY: That's the president is entitled in his opinion. This is America. If somebody smells my hair, the least that I'm going to demand is an apology.

MACCALLUM: So, I do want to ask you about your bill that you are bringing forward. It's a bill protecting victims of workplace sexual harassment. What can you tell us about that?

KENNEDY: It's pretty straightforward. It simply says, if you are a public employee if you work for the federal government or state government, or local government, and an allegation of sexual harassment is brought against you, and you settle the lawsuit with public money, then you can't keep it quiet.

It's only, you can't require the alleged victim to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Now, if the -- if the alleged victim wants to keep it quiet, he or she can. But if you're spending public money, and you're a public official, and you settle a claim like that, then people have a right to know.

MACCALLUM: I think -- I think that taxpayers will find that very welcome. And I'm wondering, is it retroactive or will it be beginning with the passage of the bill? Because a lot of people want to know about the money that has been flowing out of their tax dollar pockets to cover and to pay settlements of this kind of you know, people who work on Capitol Hill.

KENNEDY: Well, I want to make -- and try to make it retroactive, I don't want to make it unconstitutional in doing so. But I think it ought to be retroactive. If your tax dollars -- if this sort of stuff is going on and your tax dollars are being spent to make it go away, you have a right --


KENNEDY: You have a right to go. Now, having said that, just because you're accused of something, that means you are guilty of it. People have a right to due process.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

KENNEDY: But taxpayers also have a right to know how their dollars are being spent.

MACCALLUM: Senator Kennedy, thank you. Always good to see you, sir. Thanks for being here.

Coming up next, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, and Dana Loesch on the latest NRA battle over your right to have a gun, when we come back.


MACCALLUM: So, tonight, the NRA wants to block a new version of the Violence Against Women Act from becoming law. An issue is the, quote, boyfriend loophole, which would block people convicted of abusing or stalking a partner from owning guns. We're going to hear it in a moment from the NRA's Dana Loesch, but we begin with one of the authors of that provision, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. Congresswoman Dingell, good to see you tonight. Why is it so important that this boyfriend loophole be included?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL, D-MICH.: You know, to me, it's very simple. It's not a poison pill as the NRA is going to say. The fact of the matter is, it's closing a loophole. If there is a gun involved in a domestic violence situation, there is a five times more likely or 500 percent more likely chance that somebody will be killed. And it's not -- we are not taking away someone's due process. They have already been convicted. We are closing a loophole. And if you can save a life, shouldn't you?

MACCALLUM: I would say, absolutely, but the issue that as you say, they will bring up is that it's too broad. That it's overly broad and that someone could say something unkind about someone on Facebook, and their fear is that the next thing they know, they're being told that their guns are going to be taken away. Is that not true in your mind?

DINGELL: No, it's not true. First of all, you and I get a ton of Facebook comments every day. Mine may be worse than some of yours.

MACCALLUM: I don't know.

DINGELL: But, I don't know, they're pretty bad but they're not convicted. They are not -- they are convicted of stalking somebody, of stalking you or I. You have to have been convicted if you're going to be -- and there's a background check, whether it allows us the FBI to do a background check. And if you're a threat to someone, if you've been stalking someone, then that is when they would take the gun away. I mean, the statistics are they about what the threat is, of someone who has been stalked in the last year, the chance is 76 percent chance of your -- if you are killed that you were stalked in the last year.

So, I'm just trying to use common sense here, that if you can save a life, we should do it. And I believe in it that situation. I know what it's like to live in a home of someone who shouldn't have had a gun. And I lived -- I'm not trying to take people's guns away. I lived with an NRA board member, was in love with him for 40 years. That people that should have guns and people that shouldn't have guns.

MACCALLUM: I know this is very personal for you. And you talked about hiding from your -- from your own father, right?

DINGELL: That is correct. More than once, there were guns in my house. The night I remember the most was when I kept my parents from killing each other. My father pointed -- tried to kill all of us. I got my brothers and sisters out of there, and then, you know, people said that someone should get a gun. Well, my mother went out and bought a gun, and I remember what it was like to live in that household, and that constant fear. What would trigger it? This is just trying to use common sense. No child should have to live in that, but a woman who has been stalked by a dating partner who has turned violent, who has been convicted shouldn't have to live in fear that that person may kill them.

MACCALLUM: All right. Tell me about your confidence level with this -- with this closing this loophole, legislatively.

DINGELL: Well, I think it will pass the House tomorrow. I've talked to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm going to keep fighting for it. I don't -- I don't view the NRA as an enemy as many people do, and I've tried to be very careful in this. I wish they didn't call this a poison pill. But why can't we just do some common sense things that will save lives yet protect the second amendment?

MACCALLUM: Congressman Debbie Dingell, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight.

DINGELL: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, here to respond to that, Dana Loesch, NRA National Spokesperson. Dana, welcome, good evening to you. You heard what Congresswoman Dingell said and as she pointed out herself, her husband was on the board of the NRA for many years. She, you know, has been -- you know, believes in the second amendment, but believes that this would just simply make people safer.

DANA LOESCH, NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON, NRA: Right, and Martha I appreciate you discussing this issue. And like the congresswoman, I've been through domestic violence. It's part of my life story. I went through it as a child, and recounted a lot of that in my first book, "Hands Off My Gun" before I ever came to even work with the NRA. But the reason that I support as a woman gun rights is because I went through that. I remember the day that my mom purchased a firearm. It was a .38, and I remember feeling safer as a result of having an empowered woman in my home, who I knew could defend herself and me.

Now, as for what the congresswoman has said here regarding this law, what I don't understand are these provision in the Violence Against Women'sAct, no one -- that the reason that the NRA or any of our members have -- no one has ever said anything about the Violence Against Women's Act or even opposed it, is because there's never been any gun-control language in it. The problem with the "Common Sense" that I keep hearing in response -- in regards to this, is that no one is talking about the common sense efforts of following the laws that we have. There is no loophole.

Martha, a criminal act is not a loophole. If you, for instance, say or someone that you know drives under the influence, has their license suspended, but yet continues to drive under -- or to drive and operate their vehicle against what had happened, having their license suspended, that's a criminal act, that's not a loophole. We have so many provisions within the legal system within the justice system that deal with stalking. We have a lot more on that which talks specifically about intimate partners.

So, this idea that there isn't any recourse for this is simply false. And I say this as someone, Martha, I know you're in the same boat here because you do this show every evening, you see the stuff that said, you get stuff sent to you. So, I say this as someone who wants to make sure that I and many other women are protected. And Martha, there are millions of women out there who feel the exact same way but they don't have these same platforms.

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, I think that everybody listens to both of you and hears what you're saying. And you both have experience with this in your own homes but have a very different take on what makes you feel safe. And I think we have to respect both sides of that equation, but the Violence Against Women Act covers currently those convicted of domestic abuse. They can lose their guns or if they were formally married to the victim, lived with the victim, or have a child with the victim, or a parent or guardian of the victim. And they're saying that they want to extend this for people who have been convicted of abuse. If it is also someone that you've had a relationship with, but it's not a marriage. That it's a boyfriend, you know, a lover.


MACCALLUM: Because they site the fact that abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if their abuser owns a firearm. And roughly three quarters of all intimate partner murder victims are also victims of stalking by their partners. What do you say to that?

LOESCH: Well, (INAUDIBLE) amendments specifically covered intimate partners, and in 18 Code, Section 922(g) gets into absolutely everything that would render someone ineligible to go out and purchase and/or carry a firearm. If you're, you know, convicted of domestic abuse, if you are -- you know, a number of convictions, I mean, it lays it all out. All of this stuff is already legally covered which is why I'm -- when they say that there's a loophole, there isn't a loophole. I mean, it's already codified and we can see it here in black-and-white. The thing that -- really quickly, though, Martha, if I may.


LOESCH: One of the things that gets me, these are the same lawmakers that say they want to empower women, but yet, they're working to diminished due process for men and women, and working to disarm us. I wish they could get on the same page as our members and want to fast-track concealed carry license applications for women who have survived domestic abuse situations. Because so far, these champions of women refused to do that.

MACCALLUM: All right, Dana Loesch and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell both offering their opinions here tonight, thank you. Good to see you. Thanks, Dana.

Coming up, the House Intel Chair is still under what President Trump calls the collusion delusion.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: There's plenty of evidence of collusion and corrupt comingling of work between the Trump campaign and the Russians.


MACCALLUM: Look who we got out of South Carolina, Trey Gowdy live in New York City, coming up next.



REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: This was not transparency subpoena, this was a 2020 subpoena, it's all political theater, it has nothing to do with really getting to the truth.


MACCALLUM: Congressman Mark Meadows slamming Democrats after the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to authorize subpoenas to get the full unredacted, every single word and comma of the Mueller report. Now, some in the media outraged over the missed deadline yesterday that was set, some would say arbitrarily, by Chairman Nadler.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today was the deadline to release to Congress the full Mueller report. Attorney General William Barr appears to have blown off that deadline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Attorney General has just ignored that deadline.


MACCALLUM: Well, maybe because the Attorney General never agreed to that deadline. He said initially, it was probably going to take about 10 to 15 days to have the report ready. And he never really said anything beyond that.

Meanwhile, the head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff doubles down pretty much daily claiming that collusion Mueller -- that Mueller must have missed something in his investigation.


SCHIFF: As I've said along, there's plenty of evidence of collusion and corrupt comingling of work between the Trump campaign and the Russians. But I fully accept as a prosecutor that he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crime.


MACCALLUM: Here now, Trey Gowdy, former House Oversight Committee Chairman and Fox News Contributor. Good to have you in New York, Mr. Gowdy.

TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, Ma'am, thank you.

MACCALLUM: Mr. Gowdy, thank you very much for being here. So, you know, your reaction to the missing of this deadline and Jerry Nadler also has said, the chairman, has said that they are asking him to break his constitutional obligation. And before you answer I want to sneak in that sound. Let's watch that.


REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: We need these materials to fulfill our constitutional obligations, period. Our chief obligation is to hold the president accountable, especially in an instance where the Department of Justice says it cannot hold the president accountable. Those judgments must be made by Congress, not by a political appointee, the attorney general.


MACCALLUM: What do you think about that?

GOWDY: I think he is right in this limited regard. It is Congresses responsibility to investigate malfeasance by the president. So, Nadler, go right ahead.

Mueller interviewed 500 witnesses here, go ahead and start. But the executive branch does not have to produce its work products so Congress can then use it against the executive branch.

This subpoena deadline I'll be surprised if Barr ever produces everything. And they can go to court, but they will lose in court. What you saw today is for a public consumption. It's a communications war. It's not a constitutional war. That's clear. The executive branch does not have to comply with arbitrary deadlines set by a coequal branch.

MACCALLUM: All right. So tonight, one of the big questions has been whether or not the letter that we saw from Attorney General Barr accurately represented the principal conclusions in the Mueller report.

And I think that, you know, most of us have assume since we know that we've heard that Mr. Mueller has been kind of integral in that process as had Rod Rosenstein, the attorney general, deputy attorney general.

But there is a piece out tonight that just crossed moments ago on the New York Times which says that some of the investigators on the team, on Mueller's team feel that the portrayal of the president is more positive than they felt in terms of the findings from all of their work over the past couple of years. What do you make of that?

GOWDY: Not at all surprising. You have 40 agents and almost 20 lawyers, I'd be shocked if they all were of unanimous opinion. Remember with the Clinton e-mail, Jim Baker disagreed with James Comey. He believed up until the very end that they had a case that was prosecutable.

So, I'm not at all surprised by that. The only thing that matters is whether or not you had sufficient probable cause to criminally charge someone, whether you had some bad acts, some misbehavior.

The good thing about the criminal justice system is we have standards, it's beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction but as probable cause to charge someone. And if you don't have probable cause, how close you came to it is irrelevant.

MACCALLUM: All right. So full transparency, you feel that if those arguing in favor of full transparency really mean that, they are also going to want to produce a whole lot of other documents that explain another part of the story.

GOWDY: Well, those arguing in favor of full transparency will not be satisfied with the Mueller report. They will want to see the transcripts from the grand jury interviews. They will want to see the underlying data.

I mean, this same game is being played now which is we don't believe Barr's summary. They are going to say we don't believe Mueller's report. We want to read these witness interviews for ourselves.

So, you are then in a position of relitigating the Department of Justice's decision not to charge someone. And if we open that door, if we begin to go down the path where you can investigate but there's not enough evidence to charge, and then be required to turn over all the incriminating evidence you found, then I don't know why we have evidentiary standards.


MACCALLUM: Plus, I mean, the process it just goes round and round because the process that Congress has the right to investigate to look into it but they can't charge anyone. What they can do is sort of make a recommendation to charge and then it would go back to the DOJ who has already handed it and handed it off to special counsel for two years, correct?

GOWDY: Or they can impeach.

MACCALLUM: Or they can impeach.

GOWDY: And if they are really, if Adam Schiff is really concerned about collusion, the collusion that he hasn't been able to identify for the last two years, then he can have his own. I mean, Congress has a lot of power.

Bring in the same 500 witnesses that Mueller interviewed, but don't take somebody else's work and then second-guess it, micromanage it and pick and choose parts of it you like and don't like to try to use it for political purposes. Hey, Congress you are a coequal branch, go do your own investigation.

MACCALLUM: All right. Before I let you go, I got to ask you one question about a story that we did last night with regard to the security breach at Mar-a-Lago. Does it concern you that the president's other home is also, you know, a public place where people come and go. I mean, that's got to be a nightmare for the Secret Service I would imagine.

GOWDY: I'm sure it is. I was there two weeks ago. And I, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a huge fan of law enforcement. I thought they did a phenomenal job. It's really hard when you have the president who likes to interact with people to keep him safe.

I was stunned at how tight the security was when I was there. And in terms of secrets staying there, no one has reported how badly Lindsey Graham and Mick Mulvaney lost in golf to being the president. So that secret has remain --

MACCALLUM: They hear -- I heard it first, though, tonight, folks. Lindsey Graham and Mick Mulvaney will be giving you call after this.

GOWDY: I hope.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Trey Gowdy.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

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

MACCALLUM: So how the woman known as AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just used a croissant -- that's the French pronunciation -- to make a point about the value of human worth? Who better than Jesse Watters to break this down for us? Did you bring croissant, Jesse?




MACCALLUM: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez using a $7 croissant at LaGuardia Airport to criticize opponents of the $15 minimum wage, tweeting alongside gas-guzzling environmentally unfriendly commercial jets, the Green New Deal author writing this.

"Croissants at LaGuardia are going for $7 apiece, yet some people think getting a whole hour of personal dedicated human labor for $15 is too expensive?"

It's Wednesday so you know what that means. My friend Jesse Watters has come. So, what do you think? I mean, she is saying -- what do you think she is saying?

WATTERS: I don't know what she's saying.


MACCALLUM: This is like your bath time. What do you think she's saying?

WATTERS: I don't know what she's saying and I don't know if I can get inside of her brain, but I never thought I would be talking about pastry inflation on Wednesday with Watters.

I'll give it a shot. Here is what the deal is at LaGuardia, it's a monopoly. It's a croissant monopoly, there is no other pastry chefs competing across terminal C from each other.


MACCALLUM: It's like popcorn at the movie theater.

WATTERS: Right. So, they gouge --

MACCALLUM: That's right for everyone.

WATTERS: And there is nowhere to go plus the rent is very high at LaGuardia and they already have a $19 minimum wage. So, AOC, when wages are high, prices go up, when there's a monopoly, prices go up. When the rent is high, prices go up. that's called basic economics.

MACCALLUM: So, I mean, I think she is saying, you know, that people are willing to pay $7 for a croissant but they're not willing to pay someone $15 an hour which she thinks is a good living wage.

It's interesting that she has taken every member of Congress, they get a certain amount of money to run their office. She is not paying, she is not paying anyone less than $52,000 because she thinks that's like the basic, you know, livable amount of money that everyone should have.

I don't know who else -- it's very hard to get in touch with their staff.


MACCALLUM: But there might be only a couple of them. I'm not really sure. But, you know, when you look at the minimum wage, it can do damage to the economy in states like --


WATTERS: Well, I think in New York City, they raised it --

MACCALLUM: I mean, raising it, yes.

WATTERS: -- to $15 an hour.


WATTERS: And they fired a bunch of restaurant workers. Because the bosses are just sitting around and they are not going to pay everybody all that money to, you know, flip burgers. They are just going to, you know, lay off staff and do that.

But why is AOC at the airport, Martha? I thought she should be taking Amtrak. Isn't that more environmentally friendly anyway?

MACCALLUM: Good question, good question. She might have popped up on a big jet to go there.

So, it's in -- to Donald Trump -- President Trump had an interesting take on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and how she is intimidating all of these folks on Capitol Hill who had been there a long time. Watch this.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: You have senators that are professional that you guys know that have been there a long time, white hair, everything perfect. And they are standing behind her and they are shaking, they are petrified of her.


WATTERS: Trump is like the don king of politics. He goads people's egos into fighting each other. Because there is already tension.

MACCALLUM: Both men well known for their hair, by the way.

WATTERS: Well, good line. And both did very well in the fight game. There's already tension in the Democrat Party right now between AOC and the party leadership because she unveils this Green New Deal that Republicans are gleefully running against.

And Now Donald Trump is framing the 2020 election as socialism versus capitalism. So, they already don't like each other. And at this point it looks like, AOC has been more of a gift to Republicans than she's been a gift to Democrats.

MACCALLUM: Quick sound bite from Paul Ryan. He says, you know, I tried to help her but she didn't listen to me. Watch this.


PAUL RYAN, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She said, you know, when I came to the meeting, she's the youngest person out there and I gave her just some few little tips about just being a good member of Congress. I don't think she really listen to anything I say. You know, take it easy, just watch things for a while. Don't ruffle, you know. See how it works first.


MACCALLUM: Yes, that's not the route she took.

WATTERS: No. But I don't think AOC is going to listen to Paul Ryan.

MACCALLUM: None of the executive.

WATTERS: Right. She understands what's going on there.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you.

WATTERS: You, too.

MACCALLUM: Wednesdays with Watters. Thanks, Jesse.

So, coming up, the untold story of Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the former Fox and Friends host opens up about what it was really like between behind the scenes at The View and where her relationship with Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Walters are now.


ELISABETH HASSELBECK, FORMER CO-HOST: I'll write this book, but I'm not going to go to The View to talk about it. In fact, I'll make sure everybody knows that's the one place I won't go because I think I still had a little bit of open wound.



MACCALLUM: An explosive new book out on the behind-the-scenes drama at The View. The author is going to be here on Friday. It includes on and off feuds between the co-hosts. Elisabeth Hasselbeck spent 10 years at the show and had some really fiery disputes with Rosie O'Donnell who recently claimed that all along she had a little bit of a crush on Elisabeth.

Saying quote, "There are not many, in my life, girls with such athletic talent on sports teams that are traditionally male that aren't at least a little bit gay."

Now Elisabeth response to that and describes what it was like when she actually did end up going back to The View table for the first time since she was fired. This is her untold story.


HASSELBECK: I'll be honest, when I first knew that this book was in my heart, it was something that I knew God was asking me to write about. I thought, OK, I'm going to write this book, but I'm not going to go to The View to talk about it.

In fact, I'll make sure everybody knows that's the one place I won't go because I think I still had a little bit of an open wound there and was protective, probably in ways with my own heart. And the process of writing this book and taking the time to be quiet to sit in word and to just go back with the lens of gratitude on the times that God afforded me there. Ten years is a long time.

It actually changed my heart in the process of writing the book where I couldn't wait to go there and share the words and the time and the experience with the women that I had worked with before.

MACCALLUM: There is another book that's put out called "Ladies Who Punch," and in it, Rosie O'Donnell says that, you know, despite the fact that you guys were always mixing it up, she said, you know, I think I have a little bit of a crush on Elisabeth. And she said in some small way, I think the feeling was mutual.

HASSELBECK: It doesn't feel great to have something brought against you that's not true. Her full statement in that book which number one I think can undermine the value of women at a table having passionate debates on tough issues. I think there is a value to women at the table and even in the title I think it undermines the value of a woman's voice about these issues because it's not easy to do that every day.

But I do believe that suggesting that female athletes because of their athletic gift --


HASSELBECK: -- because of their great eye blacked, how tough they are, must be a little bit gay. That's just not true.

If you switch your name out to Ruben or Robert it would be nothing short of objectifying women in the workplace.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

HASSELBECK: So, I don't think she gets a pass with that. However, I'm looking at this and I'm trying to apply grace to the truth. And I think that's one of the most challenging things to do.

MACCALLUM: There is also a passage from that book that describes you getting really angry with Barbara Walters and swearing about it, and saying "I don't even swear." You know --


MACCALLUM: -- and walk, and threatening to leave and walk off of The View and not come back.

HASSELBECK: I take responsibility for my language and I even said it. I think I was so frustrated. I was, like I don't swear and I'm swearing and you know, expletives came. I'm not proud of that. I actually feel terrible that it shows my level of frustration, though.

I'm sure there are more creative words that would have identify my feelings better. I was defending with everything in me the right to life. And the moment of conception is where I believe that happens. That hasn't changed.

Now, where I was then in that conversation, if I were to have it right now it would sound a little bit different. And I think it would sound like more questions. Tell me why you think it doesn't?

I do think Barbara Walters, I was like her teenage daughter. I mean, I probably slammed the door, and you know, I don't want to -- I'm going to quit. And then fire me and I'll cry years later.

I love Barbara. For 10 years, Barbara Walters was the most incredible mentor to me. She has done more for women in broadcasting than any other woman. She did more for me personally than any other women.

When I needed surgery and a great doctor, Barbara made the call. When I was fired from The View, Barbara made the call to Fox for me. And it is an honor to be able to learn from her for 10 years. So, I have full of gratitude.

MACCALLUM: You also had an opportunity to have dinner with Queen Elizabeth II. How did that come about?

HASSELBECK: Those are the dangerous dinners if you're not used to fancy things. And I remember the invitation came in and it was fancy. I asked Barbara Walters, I said, Barbara, what do I do about this? And she said, darling, you must go.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

HASSELBECK: I feel like I'm in a Disney movie or something. So, I went, Tim and I. I'm also pregnant at the time. And do I courtesy, do I bow, do I -- what do I do approaching the queen? It was making me uncomfortable.

So, I finally get there and I thought it would be a big dinner. It was about 40 people. It was a state dinner with the queen. Jeb Bush was to my side and I was hungry and I'm gluten-free. And I remember -- I remember just waiting for something gluten-free come. And patiently waiting and I recalled seeing something of a rose infused treat on its way. And in front of me came this bowl. And I'm thinking I am going to like pass out if I don't eat something.

And the bowl comes forward, it's ornate and beautiful. And so, I went to go drink it and as I put the bowl to my lips, Governor Jeb Bush leans in and says you might not want to drink that. That's for your hands.

Before that, I was in a pretty good game of, mother, may I.


HASSELBECK: Like she stands, you stand. She leans, you lean.


HASSELBECK: If she picked up her fork, you pick up your fork. Those are game rules.


HASSELBECK: But it was again an honor. It's just interesting to be in those positions and there is such humanity in those moments.


HASSELBECK: And such grandeur. But it was such an honor to be invited. I just -- I think I just needed to study up a little bit more.

MACCALLUM: Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the book is called "Point of View: A Fresh Look at Work, Faith, and Freedom." It's great to have you back.

HASSELBECK: Thanks for having me.


MACCALLUM: It's great to spend some time with you. Thanks, Elisabeth.


MACCALLUM: It's great to spend some time with Elisabeth again. The full interview will be released on Monday morning on the Untold Story podcast at Check it out. More of The Story coming up next.


MACCALLUM: Well-known actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin and 10 other parents appeared today in federal court for their roles in the alleged multi-million-dollar scheme to get their children into college.

Trace Gallagher live from our West Coast newsroom with the story this evening. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. Ten of the parents accused of cheating their kids into college have now waived their right to pre-trial hearing and two other parents were arraigned, pled not guilty and were given new court dates.

All of the parents were set free and most are reportedly in the process of striking plea deals. But money and fame likely will not keep them out of jail.

TMZ is now reporting that prosecutors want prison time. Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are looking at five years, but experts say they would likely serve no more than six months.

Huffman is accused of paying 15 grands to have her daughter's SAT scores rigged and Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband Mossimo Giannulli are accused of paying $500,000 to have their daughters recruited onto the University of Southern California crew team even though neither had participated in the sport.

Today when they left court, Loughlin and Huffman said nothing. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Huffman, do you think you commit a crime?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Loughlin, anything you want to say to your fans? Do you have any regrets?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lori, Lori, Lori, pay for my tuition, Lori.


GALLAGHER: Yes, pay my tuition. The allegations have cost Lori Loughlin her television shows and endorsements. The damage to Felicity Huffman's career yet is unclear. But even the not so famous parents caught up in the scandal are seeing the consequences.

A USC dentistry professor has been put on leave and will likely be fired. A Northern California oncologist may lose his medical license and has already seen his business plummet.

A Silicon Valley investor kicked out of his firm as was as a high-powered corporate attorney. And don't forget the students they have had their acceptance letters rescinded, been expelled and could potentially have their degrees revoked. The leader of this scam, Rick Singer has pled guilty and is now cooperating. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Wow, what a mess. Trace, thank you very much.

So, thanks for being here tonight, everybody. That's “The Story” on this Wednesday. Tomorrow, our Town Hall with former Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz who is seriously considering a bid for the White House is getting a ton of attention. And Bret Baier and I will ask him questions and so will the people in the town hall. It all starts at 6.30 tomorrow night. We will see you then. Look forward to it. Tucker Carlson coming up next in D.C. Have a good night.

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