Are we seeing a clash between career diplomats and the Trump administration?

close

Video

Are we seeing a clash between career diplomats and the Trump administration?

Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee and former State Department official David Tafuri weigh in.

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

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Just one week and another big one is coming up. Have a good weekend. Thank you, Bret.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, in New York. Tonight, on “The Story,” the battle between President Trump, and those who make their careers in the kind of work that we've watched over the past couple of days.

Governor Mike Huckabee is here along with David Tafuri, who worked in the Obama State Department. Also tonight, Senator Tim Scott on impeachment and the 2020 battle that unfolds in South Carolina, which also very interesting. Jim Gray is here on the NFL brawl that everyone is talking about.

And the ladies are here for Friday night. But first, Adam Schiff, thanked longtime ambassador Marie Yovanovitch for giving America a window into how career diplomats serve our country.

Didn't learn that much about specifically what she had accomplished while Kent and Taylor sang her praises and so did everyone else on the diets today. Some in the diplomatic community say that she has not been tough enough on Russia.

Pointing to one example during her tenure, 24 Ukrainian sailors were taken hostage for 10 months and were not released until after she was gone. Then there's the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will be completed in weeks providing Russian national -- natural gas to European allies. Potentially igniting a cold war-style collision over Europe's dependence on Russia.

Now, one person probably couldn't have stopped those things, but there has been some people who felt that she wasn't strong enough on this. So, given the president's approach to foreign policy, it's really no surprise that a lot of these government employees are not happy.

The former ambassador complained that the ranks in her line of work have been thinned and the president was glad to weigh in on why that is today on Twitter. He said, "We have vacancies in various departments because we do not want or need as many people as past administrations -- and save great cost. And also, the Democrats delay the approval process to levels unprecedented in the history of the country," he writes.

Since taking office, President Trump has increased defense spending and he's cut the State Department's budget. Those are the numbers right there. That's the fact. While at the same time, choosing to make more political appointments at the ambassador post rather than selecting the kind of people that we have seen this week who are more career diplomats under different presidents.

Listen to how Ambassador Yovanovitch push back on that today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: The State Department is a tool of foreign policy often doesn't get the same kind of attention or even respect as the military might of the Pentagon. But we are as they say the pointy end of the spear. If we lose our edge, the U.S. will inevitably have to use other tools even more than it does today. The State Department is being hollowed out, this is not a time to undercut our diplomats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee -- and former presidential candidate and a Fox News contributor. And David Tafuri, former State Department official in the Obama administration.

Gentlemen, welcome to both of you. Good to have you here tonight. You know, I guess, Governor Huckabee, is it safe to say that what we have seen this week besides the -- you know, obvious discussion over impeachment is its sort of a clash between government, bureaucrats, or government longtime career diplomats, and the way things are done in the Trump administration?

MIKE HUCKABEE, CONTRIBUTOR: Donald Trump came in intentionally to be a disrupter and he's been every bit of that. But that's what he said he was going to do and I think people ought to not be so shocked that he has disrupted the normal flow of the way policy has worked, but that's why he was elected.

And Martha, let me point out. He was elected. He wasn't just employed or appointed, he was elected. The people elected him and foreign policy is the domain of the elected official, not the unelected bureaucrats.

I'm grateful for them, I'm grateful for this ambassador, and I think she's had a delightful career, I'm not in any way ever going to disparage her because I think she's a terrific professional.

But the president had every right to remove her from that post. And I would just remind people that Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post wrote back on December 3rd, 2008 an article in which he pointed out that president-elect Obama had told every single ambassador in every embassy, they needed to clear out by January the 20th of 2009 because every one of them was going to be a replace. I don't remember anybody getting upset about that.

And you know what? Republicans didn't either, because of elections have consequences to quote President Obama.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUCKABEE: That's the way this works. So, all this hand wringing is just absurd and it's just an indication that this is about the hatred of Donald Trump, not because it's some great big difference in the way things have been done.

MACCALLUM: All right, let's see what David thinks. David, what do you think?

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I agree that the president has the right to remove an ambassador. He has a right to have whoever he wants, be an ambassador to other countries. But that's not really what this is about. What we saw was career diplomats testifying this week. And they didn't engage in any partisan -- partisanship at all.

And we also have someone like Ambassador Taylor who was actually selected by the Secretary of State Pompeo for this purpose. So, he's really President Trump's choice to be serving in Ukraine. And you heard really stunning testimony from him about how President Trump corrupted the policy in Ukraine to serve his own personal purpose and put national security of the U.S. second.

And that's what this is really about is President Trump turning the State Department into a quote of personality that just serve his own personality.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But that was their -- that was their opinion, you know? I mean, we don't know that at this point, David. You know, I mean, I understand that that's the debate that's being had, but the motivation of the president is undetermined at this point because you don't have anybody who actually spoke to him. You have a lot of hearsay.

But that's sort of -- you know, the nut of the debate over impeachment. But I'm getting at something a little bit bigger than that, and you have experience in the diplomatic circles. And my suggestion is that -- you know, what we've looked at this week is yes, people with integrity, people who are very sincere in their desire to serve, I believe, but it's -- that just isn't necessarily the way that it works under this president.

And he has the right to put people in place and if he doesn't want someone there anymore, he's allowed -- he can send Rudy Giuliani if he wants to, to go talk to someone and be an envoy, he can send Rick Perry if he wants to, he can decide that Gordon Sondland is the person who's going to present his thinking when he -- when they go into Ukraine. I mean, can't he?

TAFURI: He can. But the American people have to evaluate whether those choices are actually serving them. Certainly, Rudy Giuliani who didn't have sufficient experience and who was engaging in diplomacy part-time at certain whims and in order to pursue an agenda that wasn't serving the American people.

Well, we have a right to value whether that was a wise choice. And I think it's on display how that was not a wise choice. And what you saw this week was career diplomats, the best of the State Department who didn't engage in partisanship, they were reluctant to say anything critical about President Trump, but they reported what actually happened. And the American people have to judge based on their testimony.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But the American people voted for President Trump in the last election, Governor Huckabee, and they're going to get a chance to do that again this coming November.

HUCKABEE: Well, and let me point out, the ambassadors who testified earlier -- Bill Taylor, for example. He'd never met President Trump -- hadn't talked to him. He talked about what he thought, what he felt, what he believed. That is irrelevant.

What he thinks, what he feels, and what he believes is not relative to the -- what the president has the right to do. And this idea that what the American people care about, that's why we have elections. And rather this -- than this impeachment hoax and sham that's going on.

If the people of America don't like the policies of Donald Trump, about a year from now, they can change it. But that's ridiculous to say that let's impeach him because we don't like the fact that he is doing things that are different every president does.

MACCALLUM: All right.

HUCKABEE: It's time to get on with the people's business.

MACCALLUM: Gentleman, thank you very much. David Tafuri, Governor Huckabee, thanks for being here tonight.

TAFURI: Thank you.

HUCKABEE: You bet.

MACCALLUM: Also tonight, the name that we heard maybe just as much as President Trump's today was that of Rudy Giuliani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YOVANOVITCH: I do not understand Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's lawyer and representative.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: This is the same Rudy Giuliani who orchestrated the smear campaign against you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We talk a lot about Rudy Giuliani.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe we should talk to Rudy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, will that happen? That's one of the big questions here. Will we see Rudy Giuliani in front of this committee and what would that look like even the reports that Republicans some are saying that they might be ready to make him the fall guy in this situation. He was asked about it today.

David Bossie was President Trump's 2016 deputy campaign manager. He was at the White House today and spoke with the president. David, good to have you here this evening.

DAVID BOSSIE, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: What do you -- what do you think about that?

BOSSIE: Well, I think Rudy Giuliani is beside the point. But the Democrats are in their witch-hunt, in their -- in their zeal to try to destroy this president, to try and meddle in the 2020 election. They can do anything they want, Rudy Giuliani can handle himself.

MACCALLUM: But, you know, I mean a lot of this in terms of the way this policy was carried out was based on Mr. Giuliani's belief that there was deep corruption in Ukraine in 2016 that it went to digging up dirt on Paul Manafort and that there's a connection between Alexandra Chalupa and the DNC and all of this -- he's built this case.

But what I'm trying to figure out is if that is -- if there's substance there and I know that he very firmly believes that there is, why didn't we hear any of the Republicans put those questions forth today?

BOSSIE: Look, you know, I can't speak for the House Republicans, I don't know what they were thinking. But I can -- because -- look, the conversation today was with an ambassador who has never spoken to the president, never met the president and the third witness with no first-hand information.

This is a witch-hunt that the Democrats are dedicated to. And they'll use whatever ploys they -- in the sham that they want to. Look, they attacked the president today for tweeting. This is ridiculous. There's no due process, Republicans get no witnesses, we don't get to ask questions.

The chairman Schiff is shutting down questioning. This is a railroad and the American people see it.

MACCALLUM: So, with regard to the question of Mr. Giuliani, just to go back to that for a moment, do -- is there any chance that there is daylight or that the president may be thinking at this point, you know, I didn't really, you know, know the extent of what he was investigating in Ukraine, he felt very strongly that we had to push this person out in favor of somebody who was going to be more favorable for our policy.

Is there any daylight between them or does the president stand behind him 100 percent on this?

BOSSIE: Well, all I know is that Rudy Giuliani is the president's attorney and has done in a magnificent job in destroying the last witch hunt, which was the fake Russia collusion story which some of these same players were involved in.

And I think that Rudy Giuliani was doing his utmost to defend the president from the fake Russia collusion story, and knows what some of these players were doing. And none of this -- none of this reaches anywhere near an impeachable offense.

This is a sham, and this is offensive to the American people. Which is why, I think, the Democrats are going to pay a price next year.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let me ask you about Roger Stone because that was another big story today as we were covering the impeachment hearings. The news broke that he had been convicted on seven counts, basically of lying to Congress and other accounts of, you know, not basically -- not telling the truth as part of that a whole investigation. What do you think about that?

BOSSIE: You know, unfortunately for Roger Stone, a jury of his peers convicted him on all accounts. I am not somebody who ever really knew Roger Stone and did not work with him at any time in my life. So, the last time I saw him was in a federal courtroom when I was a witness against him.

So, this is -- this, this is not somebody that I have an affinity for, and I got to tell you, Roger Stone put himself into this jackpot. And I -- and I, I hate to see that the law enforcement went after him, they targeted him. The Mueller team targeted him and I think --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: He says he's getting put away for supporting the president. That's the way he sees it.

BOSSIE: That's -- yes. And I -- and I could see how he could think that. And I tend to agree that if he was not associated with Donald Trump, if he did not help President Trump get elected, then none of this would have happened.

MACCALLUM: David Bossie, always good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

BOSSIE: Thanks' Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, with the release of the I.G. report on FISA abuse, now we are hearing that it's imminent -- I know we've said this before, but that's the word today. There is new speculation about what it may mean for ex-CIA director John Brennan.

Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker will explain. He's going to connect all the dots here on what we learned today about John Brennan after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So it's a Friday night and anticipation is building once again over the release of the investigation's findings involving the President, the DOJ Inspector General's report, all of this into the origins of the Russia probe.

The Attorney General William Barr dropping some hints that that report from Michael Horowitz may indeed be very soon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: And it's my understanding that it is imminent. A number of people who have mentioned the new quarter having an opportunity right now to comment on how they're quoted in the report. And after that process is over, which should be very short, the report will be issued. That's what the Inspection Gentlemen himself suggested.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So that comes as a new report claims that former Obama era CIA Director John Brennan was at the center of the collusion story. RealClearInvestigations is reporting this. "It is clear that Brendan's role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception." That is RealClearInvestigation's work.

Here now Matt Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General under President Trump. Matt, always good to have you with us. Thank you very much for being here. So let's go to that first. With regard to John Brennan, what is -- explain to everybody the ICA report, and why they think that it proves that CIA Director got involved in FBI investigation and that it all started earlier than people think.

MATT WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. So the ICA is the Intelligence Community Assessment, which was -- when they say that all the Intelligence Community agrees that Russia was the one that interfered - -

MACCALLUM: In fact, Murray said that today, just to point out. Go ahead.

WHITAKER: Yes. And so -- and it appears that Mr. Brennan at the CIA was instrumental in drafting that. But we've seen FBI Director Wray testified that he agrees with that assessment. I haven't seen any daylight in the -- in the Intelligence Community.

I think the interesting thing is that CIA, you know, they sort of do the foreign intelligence piece of the work and so they're interacting with a lot of their counterparts in other countries. And it appears that Mr. Brennan, but based on these -- some reports, took that information and sort of took it across the transom to the FBI. And that's how the original counterintelligence investigation was launched.

And, you know, again, I think this Inspector General report is going to be probably one of the most consequential reports we've had in many years.

MACCALLUM: Really?

WHITAKER: I think it's going to demonstrate that people took advantage of a FISA process where there's nobody on the other side to argue in their own interests, and its ex-party process. And I think we're going to learn a lot about not only the Carter Page FISA, but how they do business generally. And I think there's -- I think some Americans are going to be troubled by what the Inspector General's going to ultimately report.

MACCALLUM: Well, we all remember when Attorney General Barr said that he - - you know, that it could be that there was spying going on and that he was very concerned about that and wanted to dig into it. He says that he believes this report will be a credit to the department.

But in terms of the difference between the Durham's report and the Horowitz's report, Horowitz's report is going to basically focus on those FISA requests. And I think as you say a lot will be revealed around those once that we have more clarity on those. But with regard to John Brennan, that would be part of the Durham investigation since he is no longer employed by the government, right?

WHITAKER: That's true. They're actually kind of looking at two sides of the same coin while the Inspector General is looking at the Carter Page FISA specifically and then generally the FISA program. Durham's investigation is a lot broader. Now we understand it's even a criminal investigation. That's going to look at the actual origins and whether people not only did their jobs, but in doing their jobs, did they violate the law? And that's, you know, if it's a criminal investigation, there's some suggestion that there's at least some evidence that suggests that.

MACCALLUM: Here's John Brennan. He gets very riled up at any suggestion of this, which I guess is understandable. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, I don't think it's surprising at all that we continue to hear the sociopathic ramblings of Mr. Trump claiming that there was this effort to try to prevent him from being elected or to unseat him. And I welcome any type of, you know, continued investigation in terms of what we did during that period of time that we were in government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Final thought on that, Matt.

WHITAKER: I watched that interview and I thought he seemed awfully defensive for somebody that should have nothing to be concerned about. So we're going to see. We're going to learn a lot in the next couple of weeks.

MACCALLUM: Well, it's going to be very interesting. We're going to have a lot to cover. Matt Whitaker, always good to see you. Thank you.

WHITAKER: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, a terrifying discovery what the police found behind the walls of a daycare center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look, I'm completely betrayed. Every parent that I've talked to, we all feel completely betrayed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Very disturbing discovery at a Colorado daycare is getting national attention tonight after more than two dozen children were found hidden behind a false wall in the basement. Fox News Correspondent Marianne Rafferty has the latest on the investigation from our West Coast Newsroom. Hi, I'm Marianne.

MARIANNE RAFFERTY, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. Well, those 26 children all under the age of three were discovered after the State Department of Health Services asks the Colorado Springs police department to assist them with a welfare check.

The agency received a tip that Play Mountain Place daycare owner Carla Faith was caring for too many children than what her license would allow. When officers arrived at Faith's home, she refused to cooperate and no children were located. But after the officers heard children's voices, they discovered a false wall leading to the home's basement where faith had been attempting to conceal the kids.

Three adult workers were arrested for misdemeanor child abuse due to neglect, but those charges were canceled pending further investigation by DHS. The 58-year-old Faith, however, was not arrested. Police say they are working though to pursue the appropriate charges against her. And while the day care's license has been suspended, parent reaction to the news was mixed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANETTE CONDI, MOTHER: I'm completely betrayed. Every parent that I've talked to, we all feel completely betrayed. It's hard to trust your children with people. And we felt like we could really trust them and that they were hiding all of this.

SHERRY MACWILLIAM, MOTHER: I'm hoping that this is a really poor judgment by Carla. She's trying to accommodate parents and not inconvenience parents. She seems like a great person. She seems like she has a great spirit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAFFERTY: But this isn't the first time she's been under scrutiny by state Child Protective Services. An L.A. Times investigation back in 1998 found that Faith while operating daycares in the Los Angeles area, "secretly house children in unlicensed facilities operated under unsafe conditions and repeatedly handled dozens of toddlers at her house despite being licensed to care for only 12.

Now in one incident after investigators visited one of her facilities, they found daycare employees hurting 31 children aged 18 months to four years, some of them without shoes through an alley in an attempt to hide them from officers. And at that time Faith said she was clearly being unfairly targeted by the state, also calling it harassment. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Boy, that is quite a situation for those parents. Thank you very much, Marianne Rafferty. We'll see where that goes. And did you see this? Cleveland Browns Myles Garrett suspended by the NFL after hitting the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback with his own helmet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's beyond words, Joe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gosh, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen on a professional sports field.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: One of the worst things you have ever seen on a professional sports field. Jim Gray joins me with his thoughts on that and on Colin Kaepernick's new move and the tryout tomorrow. He'll be joining me when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MCCALLUM: Unreal. That is called one of the worst incidents on a professional football field. And now Cleveland Browns defense end Myles Garrett is hit with a record punishment.

Today, the NFL suspended him indefinitely for ripping off the helmet Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph and striking him in the head with it.

In the final moments of last night's game Garrett has since apologized for the violent outburst. But tonight, both teams are still paying the price for the violence on the field last night.

Joining me now Fox News contributor and sportscaster Jim Gray. Jim, always good to see you. What did you think about what you saw last night?

JIM GRAY, CONTRIBUTOR: That was awful. I've covered the National Football League for more than 40 years and I don't recall a worse incident. It was despicable, deplorable, and there is no justification, no excuse, no raw moment of emotion that can explain it.

MACCALLUM: Yes. The apology went up, Garrett statement last night, "I made a terrible mistake, I lost my cool. What I did was selfish and unacceptable." He goes on to say that he wants to apologize to Mason Rudolph.

And then you have a tweet from Arian Foster, former Brown's teammate saying, "The outrage is dumb. Baseball and hockey fight all the time, every time football and basketball players get into it it's some ethical issue lol, so stupid." Jim?

GRAY: That's not even worthy of perpetuating. That is so asinine and ridiculous that -- let's move on to the next question, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You know what, I mean, when you look at there's -- it was a very rough game all over. We have another image of another hit that Mason Rudolph took that was also a very big hit. He was sandwiched basically in between two hams -- let's see if we have an image of that.

And then I just want to remind everyone that just a few weeks ago, there is the other hit, a few weeks ago this is what happened. He was hit and went flat out cold. It was a very, very frightening moment, Jim, as you know, players around him just went to their knees. They didn't know he was going to get up.

GRAY: You know, at least you can say that's a part of the game. And one of the inherent dangers and risks of the game was that hit that Rudolph took a few weeks ago.

What happened last night is not a part of the game.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GRAY: It is so far away from anything that's part of the game. It's an outright vicious assault and you could call that a deadly weapon. Can you imagine what we would be talking about today, Martha, if he would have hit him with the crown of that helmet? Possibly split open his head?

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GRAY: Possibly more than a concussion? May be a coma, maybe even worse. I mean, it's so heinous --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Especially given that he's just coming off of that other concussion just a couple of weeks ago. You know, you look at the protocol, and to have a hit like that just a few weeks later is just awful. What should the punishment be do you think? Some people are talking about assault charges. Is that appropriate?

GRAY: Well, I think it is appropriate. I don't think it will happen. It took place in Cleveland. The Cleveland authorities, the Ohio authorities as of now, Rudolph has not filed any charges. His lawyer has said they will consider it as well the team as they go down the road here. But that's a very difficult path.

It really should be handled now with the players and the commissioner, and that should be the highest authority. The player is standing up. He said he's OK.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I got it.

GRAY: So, I just don't think that going through the courts -- I mean, Marty McSorley did this in 2000. He swung his hockey stick at another hockey on the ice. And he connected and he got 18 months probation. So, just because you're in between the lines doesn't mean you shouldn't have immunity from prosecution but I would say it's doubtful in this case.

MACCALLUM: So. Colin Kaepernick is going to go out tomorrow, 11 teams are going to watch him work out. He's going to get this very unique opportunity to sort of have a tryout to get back in the game.

I know you spoke with Tom Brady and he said he thinks that, you know, it would be cool and he think that he deserves a shot. What do you think?

GRAY: I think he deserves a shot and if he can play, I think he's going to get the opportunity.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GRAY: Look, if Colin Kaepernick is capable of playing football, I think that everybody will move on from the kneeling. They are now trying to assess whether or not a guy who has been off the field for three years, which is a really long time.

MACCALLUM: Long time.

GRAY: Three weeks off the field for a starting quarterback or a quarterback is a long time in the NFL and he hasn't played in those three years, so I think it's going to be difficult. But I think if he shines in his tryout, there will be a team that will hire him and will give him an opportunity.

MACCALLUM: It's going to be interesting to watch. Jim, always a pleasure to see you. Thank you very much.

GRAY: Thanks, Martha. You too.

MACCALLUM: Have a good night.

So, when we come back, Senator Tim Scott on the state of the 2020 race in South Carolina, his home state, and what those candidates might be missing. Plus, his reaction to what we watched on the Hill today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: To send in the hard-earned tax dollars to any country --

(CROSSTALK)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I've indulged you with extra time.

JORDAN: I appreciate.

SCHIFF: But the indulgence is wearing out.

JORDAN: I appreciate it.

SCHIFF: There is a question, right?

JORDAN: Our indulgence worn out with you a long time ago, Mr. Chairman. I had to tell you that.

SCHIFF: I'm about to gavel you down. So, if you have a question, I suggest you --

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: Well, I'm --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Democracy at work. So that moment today illustrating the divisiveness inside this week's impeachment hearings and the American people apparently very divided as well on this whole issue.

Here's a new Fox News poll that shows a majority of Americans have made up their minds. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say that no matter what they see out there, new evidence is not going to change how they feel about this. Thirty-four percent say that they are open to seeing some new information and it might sway them.

My next guest wrote a book on how to unify the country despite this deep, deep divide. Here now with his reaction to today, Republican Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina. Senator, always good to have you on The Story. Thank you for being here tonight.

SEN. TIM SCOTT, R-S.C.: Thank you, Martha. Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: So, you try to bring people together. What's going on there? You know, they don't let people speak, you're not allowed to pipe up. You know, they love -- you know, Adam Schiff just loves banging that gavel.

SCOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Not a lot of cooperation going on.

SCOTT: No. The Schiff show is quite remarkable, frankly, giving himself 40 or 50 minutes to pontificate, bringing in their counsel as the next person to ask question shows just how demented the entire process is.

The average person in the country who is watching this and saying, what? What happened to fairness? Where are the Republicans, when will they have a chance to ask questions?

Frankly, thankfully, the former ambassador did more good for the president than any harm. I was shocked that they called her as a witness. Her -- in response are simply this, no corruption, no bribery, no crime.

And frankly, she was got in May, May still comes before July, the call happened in July so she wasn't even part of the administration to have a serious question and/or impact about what occurred on the call when she was no longer with the administration.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCOTT: So, what her role was, she's an Obama holdover, what her role could have been during that process questions -- I don't understand why she was there.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, Devin Nunes said as much, you know. He said it sounds like you're very upset --

SCOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- about why you got pushed out of your job, you know. He said, it feels like this is more of an oversight or H.R. kind of issue because you're not relevant to the time period that we are talking about in terms of what happened here. That was his argument.

I want to -- I do want to show you this Trump tweet --

SCOTT: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: -- by the president. Because I know that, you know, you support the president, but you don't always -- you don't always support him of what he tweets. And he got a lot of heat for this today.

He said "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast-forward to Ukraine where the new Ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It's the U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

And that got called, you know, basically intimidating the witness in real time.

SCOTT: Yes. I don't think so. I mean, if she was watching her Twitter account while she was in the hearing, I would be shocked and amazed. There's no doubt that the left, the media, the left wants to find any scintilla of information and/or evidence to bring the president down on a couple of notches.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But Adam Schiff read it to her. I mean, he jumped on the opportunity to tell her what happened.

(CROSSTALK)

SCOTT: Well, that reinforces. Martha, that reinforces what I'm suggesting however. Is that, the only way for any information to be in the hearing is for someone on the left to bring it up so that they could use it as a power or a tool of intimidation.

The truth is she could not have known what he was tweeting because she was not able to get to any device that had the tweets on the devices.

So, for that to happen, that only reinforces why the average person in this country sees the narrative of the left is based on emotions and a vitriol and animus towards the president and not a fact pattern that we should be focused on.

We should be focused on the transcripts from July 25th, if we focus on that, we come to one simple conclusion, the president is innocent of an impeachable offense because there is no quid pro quo there, no quid pro quo there. There is nothing that is even out of line we can talk about whether or not he should be asking about the Bidens but he did so about 2016 and not 2020.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCOTT: So, there is a lot there that we should focus on and all of it leads to one conclusion, that the president is simply innocent of an impeachable offense.

MACCALLUM: Let me go to one of the topic before I let you go.

SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: And there is a lot of discussion obviously on South Carolina and the vote that is coming up there in the primary that will be coming up. Talk to me a little bit about whether or not we could see, you know, sort of a shift happening in the black vote.

Some people see that in the tea leaves, the Washington Examiner wrote a piece about it today.

SCOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Is it the year the black votes switched, will 2020 be 1936 in reverse? What do you think?

SCOTT: Well, Martha, good question. There is no doubt that the number of African-Americans in South Carolina who are encouraged by the results of the economic policies of this administration is sky high.

The truth is that we are making so much progress in so many indicators from a 73 percent cut in taxes for the average single mother to the opportunity zones that are bringing about $60 billion nationwide.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

SCOTT: We have new corridors of technology happening in South Carolina. Our unemployment rate is under 35, 33 percent. We're seeing such a huge surge in the economy that African-Americans are starting to ask the right question, who is responsible? This is the Trump economy and it's undeniable.

And so, the Democrats continue to look for ways to give away something to entice and attract the African-American voters back to their side. That will not work this time. I expect the president's numbers to rise two to threefold in 2020, which scares the dickens out of the Democrats.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Very interesting.

SCOTT: Good news.

MACCALLUM: All right.

SCOTT: very.

MACCALLUM: We are going to keep talking about this, senator. We always love to have you on. Thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight.

SCOTT: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet.

SCOTT: Have a great night.

MACCALLUM: You too. So, coming up next, Kellyanne Conway confronted on live TV like never before and she swung back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I want to talk about your marriage. I know that there are issues there. Your husband, George Conway, is a lawyer.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: What did you just say?

BLITZER: Your husband, George Conway --

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: No, no, you just say there is issues there. You don't want to talk my marriage --

BLITZER: I don't want to talk about -- no, I don't want to talk --

CONWAY: Why would you say that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Boy, I mean, if you didn't see this, you got to stick around. Ladies' night is up next with that and much more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: This, without a doubt, was one of the most talked about moments of the week. Kellyanne Conway was confronted live on CNN about her marriage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It's a substantive question. I don't want to talk about your marriage. I know that there are others issues there. Your husband, George Conway, he's a lawyer --

CONWAY: What did you just say?

BLITZER: Your husband, George Conway --

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: No, no, you just say there is issues there. You don't want to talk my marriage --

BLITZER: I don't want to talk about -- no, I don't want to talk --

CONWAY: Why would you say that?

BLITZER: I just want your reaction to the substance of what you said.

CONWAY: So, before you play the clip, which I haven't seen, why, and why are you doing that? Come on. (Inaudible) And he's married to me?

BLITZER: You know, he happens to be married to you. What's wrong with that?

CONWAY: But you can run -- you can run the clip of Jeffrey -- he happens to be married to me? That's bizarre.

BLITZER: Correct.

CONWAY: What you just quoted is said every single day of other voices. But you wanted to put it in my husband's voice because you think somehow that that will help your ratings or that you're really sticking it to Kellyanne Conway?

And let me make very clear, you didn't stick it to Kellyanne Conway. I think you embarrassed yourself. And I -- I'm embarrassed for you.

BLITZER: You're always welcome to come back and join me here on set.

CONWAY: You'll stay in my prayers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I'll keep you in my prayers. Whoa. And you know, I advise you to watch the whole thing because she goes after CNN, you used to be a legitimate network. She just keeps laying in and laying in.

Joining me for ladies' night, Jessica Tarlov, Lisa Boothe, and Carley Shimkus. Jess, what do you think?

JESSICA TARLOV, CONTRIBUTOR: I thought she handled herself incredibly well. I was watching that live and couldn't believe it. I think there is a very valid way to integrate George Conway's criticisms of the president into a conversation about impeachment.

He is one of the most vocal critics. He's been a Republican. He was part of the Clinton impeachment team. Him and Brett Kavanaugh were one of the elves. I get it.

But to say, you know, I know there are issues there. How do you expect anyone to have any sort of real conversation with you --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: After you say that.

TARLOV: Right. And --

MACCALLUM: I mean, what do you know, Wolf?

TARLOV: Right.

MACCALLUM: I mean, with all due respect, and you know, I just, you can't say to someone well, there's issues.

TARLOV: Just because they fight on twitter.

MACCALLUM: I mean, you know, it's just so -- it's so --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: And unprofessional.

MACCALLUM: -- invasive. And she is there as a professional to discuss. I mean, I just was floored. Lisa?

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: No. I thought his line of questioning was sexist and I would be annoyed if I'm Kellyanne Conway as well because the primary reason why people are paying attention to what George Conway says is simply the mere fact that he is her husband. And they are seeking to embarrass her.

I mean, that's the -- the entire premise of Wolf Blitzer's line of questioning was to embarrass her and to try to shame her essentially and I think that's wrong. And I also think, you know, looking at George Conway, he seems like such a jerk. I think to be out there constantly and try to embarrass your wife in that way and try to divide your family, it seems like a terrible human being, a terrible husband, and terrible father.

CARLEY SHIMKUS, REPORTER: Well, I wouldn't say any of those things about --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I don't know if any of those things are true.

BOOTHE: To be a father, though --

MACCALLUM: You know, it seems like out of respect --

TARLOV: There are plenty of people who (Inaudible) in the public eye.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: -- you would just want to not say --

BOOTHE: But that's your wife.

SHIMKUS: There has been other political couples of course, even Wolf Blitzer brought up Mary Matalin and James Carville. But I'm sure he never accused them of having marriage problems.

The media coverage of the story has also been quite something. Vanity Fair's headline, Kellyanne Conway really, really doesn't want to talk about her husband. The Daily Beast said, Kellyanne Conway blows up at CNN's Wolf Blitzer. So, they are basically portraying her as an emotional, hysterical woman.

MACCALLUM: Which she was not --

SHIMKUS: Yes. And that is not in keeping --

MACCALLUM: -- by the way. And kept her cool way more than I would --

SHIMKUS: -- with the feminist spirit either. Yes.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right. Let's talk about another woman who is trying to keep her cool, Taylor Swift is very upset. This is what she tweeted. With regards to her appearance, she wanted to do a montage of all of her music. You know, she's been battling with these former producers who own her music.

Guys, it's been announced recently that the American Music Awards would be honoring me as artist of the decade. I've been planning to perform a medley of my hits, Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun have said that I am not allowed to perform my old songs on television."

Let's go to you first, Carley. What do you think?

SHIMKUS: Well, this is a complicated situation but it all boils down to the fact that she does not own the rights to her music and the person who does, she can't stand. So, now, she's saying that they are denying her the rights to perform her songs in two really big upcoming projects.

Scooter Braun Big Machine Records came back and said that's not true. And Taylor Swift's camp turned around and said yes, it is true and we have this statement to prove it.

The crazy thing here is that young artists are forced to sign these contracts that basically say we are going to take a chance on you and we are going to pump a lot of money into your career.

MACCALLUM: But that's the contract, right?

TARLOV: Yes.

MACCALLUM: That's the trade-off.

SHIMKUS: Well, that's the trade-off. The question is really should it be, and Taylor Swift is not trying to fight against that to give artists more rights. And she is, the way she is handling this now is she is going to re- record all her old music, but she can't until November of 2020.

TARLOV: But also, the point that she's emphasizing now moving forward and we do have these conflicting statements so I'm sure there will be more back and forth amongst lawyers.

But the point that she's been making to her fans and to young artists out there is to say, consider this at this moment if you are 15 years old and you've got it, right, so a Hollywood producer is going to get you a coach, a stylist, and you know, make your first big pop hit, you're going to turn into Britney Spears.

Think about that at this moment because at 29, look what's happening to me now.

BOOTHE: Yes. She's also --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Young performers at that age are saying I need a break.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

TARLOV: Of course.

MACCALLUM: Because the deal they're offering me it's my one-shot and there are trade-offs for that. This has been going on in music forever.

TARLOV: Yes.

BOOTHE: She's also trying to claim sexism when there is no evidence of sexism whatsoever. She's made comments about saying controlling a woman, or basically be a good little girl and shut up is what they are trying to say to her.

But as you mentioned these are deals that so many artists have signed, men or women. There's absolutely no evidence that there is anything sexism related to this, yet she's trying to play the victim which I think seems to be sort of a standard way that she operates in the public eye. Yes, she has --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: I like her.

BOOTHE: I'm not a good fan of Taylor Swift.

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: I like (Inaudible) it off. I'm into Taylor Swift.

SHIMKUS: Yes. I like her too. Although she has been accused of the whole victim thing.

BOOTHE: She did tis with the Kanye West as well.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

BOOTHE: She gave --

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: But I think she has a very legitimate point. I mean, she's writing these songs.

MACCALLUM: What happened if she just gets up there and sings it? You know. I mean, what are they're going to -- what are they're going to do to her?

SHIMKUS: Well, if she sings it live, that's different because it's not a copyright issue.

TARLOV: Right.

SHIMKUS: If she records it --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: It's for her documentary.

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: But it also -- but this happened with Kanye West as well. She has her explicit consent for a line in a song, and then --

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: I just think it's crazy that she --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And then he got on stage and hold the microphone out of her.

BOOTHE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: But he has a whole new person now.

TARLOV: Those were the days.

SHIMKUS: That's right.

MACCALLUM: Kanye is a whole new person now. It's one of my favorite --

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: I think --

MACCALLUM: All right, guys. Thank you very much. Good to see you all, ladies.

That is The Story of Friday, November 15th, 2019. But as always, The Story continues. We will be back here Monday night at seven. Have a great weekend, everybody.

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.