This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 21, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: All right, everybody. Here we go, breaking tonight, two big campaign battles for Democrats playing out on Capitol Hill today and into the evening this evening. Impeachment and abortion. First, in front of the Supreme Court. 2020 Democrats rallying against the new laws that limit abortions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is the fall of the ideals of our nation.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: These guys think they're going to take women's healthcare backward.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is the beginning of President Trump's war on women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And they were joined by California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who fired up the crowd with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JACKIE SPEIER, D-CALIF.: I am one of the one in four women in this country who have had an abortion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono bragged about discussing abortion with eighth-grade children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HI: I asked the girls in that group of 8th graders, "How many of you girls think that government should be telling us women when and if we want to have babies?" Not a single one of them raised their hands.

And the boys who were there, among the (INAUDIBLE), I said, "You know, it's kind of hard for a women to get pregnant without you guys." How many of you boys think government should be telling girls and women when if we're going to have babies. And not a single one of them raised their hands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Lot's to talk about there in just a moment. All of that while behind closed doors, Democrats are battling over whether to start impeachment proceedings. Nancy Pelosi is in the no column, Adam Schiff says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I think the case gets stronger the more they stonewall in Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: In moments, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, and Democrat Chris Hahn. But “The Story” begins tonight with Fox News senior political analysts on both of these topics tonight, Brit Hume. Brit, good to have you with us this evening.

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: I mean, this just gives you an insight into how heated this 2020 race is shaping up to be already. Let me start with your reaction to what we saw on the steps of the Supreme Court today from the 2020 Democrat candidates.

HUME: You mean, you're talking about those discussion of abortion?

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: Yes, what was so striking was Jackie Speier, getting up and saying that she'd had an abortion and getting arousing cheer from the crowds. You know, it is one thing to argue that abortion is a right that should be available to women who in certain urgent circumstances may need to use it.

And it -- and it's the kind of thing one would think would be occasion of some sadness. Life is being taken, the possibility of a birth has been -- has been aborted. And while -- you know, you might be relieved and grateful to have the right to do it under certain circumstances, it's not something that one would think you would want to celebrate. And one wonders where we have come as a country when you were cheering the idea of someone having an abortion, or cheering a politician for saying that she's had one. That suggests perhaps, a certain decadence in our society.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and have Mazie Hirono talking about -- talking about it with eighth graders, and that was also I thought a little bit eyebrow- raising, to say the least. Here's another one -- go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Well, yes, and not least -- and not least, Martha, because does she gives us a highly tendentious view of what this is about. She's saying, you know the government is going to tell us about such things that's only - - that's really not what the government is doing. A ban on abortion at certain stages of a pregnancy is not the government telling women about, you know, what they can and cannot have in the way of health care.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: It is that -- you know, it's pretty narrowly tailored and, of course, that's a euphemism. Abortion -- equating abortion to women's health it's like -- you know, reproductive rights which are -- you know, about a right not to reproduce. And the list of euphemisms are used by abortion advocates, it's pretty long.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I could only think when listening to Senator Hirono, and she says she is talking to eighth graders and asking them to raise their hand about whether or not the government should decide when and if they have babies. And I'm thinking, and she's saying how none of the girls raised their hands and none of the boys raise their hands. I said they're probably a little bit confused about what she's talking about. I mean --

HUME: Exactly, she could be -- she could be talking about -- you know, birth control.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: And -- you know, real family planning.

MACCALLUM: Of course.

HUME: And not -- and not about abortion. But you know, that it is interesting that the abortion advocates find themselves needing to use such terms to mask what they're really talking about.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that -- just one more question, how do you think this plays politically because you know, most of these 2020 candidates seem to be all in on this, you know.

HUME: Oh, yes.

MACCALLUM: And it doesn't seem as if there's any room in the Democrat Party, a party that use to have lots of people, lots of Catholics -- you know, who were pro-life, felt very welcome in the Democrat Party. Is any - - are any pro-life people welcome in the Democratic Party anymore as far as can you tell?

HUME: Well, not so you'd notice. And I think, Martha, what's happening here is the passage of these laws intended to directly challenge Roe versus Wade, you know, the abortion decision has alarmed people who are in the pro-abortion rights movement.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I'm sure.

HUME: To the point where they are now out making an issue of it. But I think it carries risks. Because I think that there are great many people in this country that think that up to a point, early in a pregnancy that an abortion is a legitimate option. But we're not hearing that. What we're hearing about is people who are saying as Pete Buttigieg unmistakably did the other night without actually saying it that he couldn't think of a time in a pregnancy of a woman when an abortion wouldn't be appropriate right up until the day of birth.

That is what we are looking at here among many of these Democratic candidates. And I think for the national audience, that's a risky position.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to get your thoughts on what's going on with Chairman Nadler, and the no show from Don McGahn today, the White House encouraged him not to go today. How does all of this seem to be playing out to you?

HUME: Well, it will be interesting to see which route Nadler now takes. Will he go to the contempt route and attempt to start -- you know, impeachment proceedings with the, you know, the leadership would have to go along with that, or will he go to court? There is sound from him today in which he suggested that he would go to court.

My sense is if Nadler goes to court to try to force Don McGahn and others in the inner circle of the Trump White House to testify, he will lose. Executive privilege is asserted here by the -- by the president is not an unlimited privilege. It -- but if it applies to anybody and the courts have repeatedly, including the Supreme Court recognized that such a privilege does exist, if it applies to anyone, you would think it would apply to the White House counsel.

I don't think -- I'm not sure President Trump is on very strong ground when he is refusing to or trying to block the turning over of financial documents from some third party. That's another matter. But, when it comes to the testimony of Don McGahn and Hope Hicks, and I guess, others that have now been subpoenaed, who were from his inner circle in the White House, I think he's on pretty strong ground. I'm not sure the Democrats will win on that in court. In fact, I think, they probably won't.

MACCALLUM: Brit Hume, always good to see you, sir. Thank you very much.

HUME: Thank you. Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Also here tonight, we have Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, member of the House Judiciary Committee. And Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, and host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast on Revolver. We invited congressional Democrats to weigh in, but they declined. Thank you very much both of you for being here tonight.

Lot of heat under the -- on the impeachment tonight, Chris Hahn. Let's look at this most recent poll from Fox. Should trump be impeached? Is the wording here. No -- now, you have yes, 42 percent. No, 50 percent. Obviously, reports of behind closed door battles between Nancy Pelosi and an increasingly vociferous group who really want to get this thing rolling and start these proceedings.

CHRIS HAHN, HOST, AGGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PODCAST: Well, look, the more the president resists congressional oversight, which is reasonable and prescribed by the United States Constitution and federalist papers, and has been part of our history for years. The more likely it is that we are first going to go to court. And then, if he refuses court orders, he will be impeached.

Just like one of those articles of impeachment over Richard Nixon was about the president resisting congressional oversight. And obstructing congressional oversight, I hope that Congressman Gaetz will agree that Congress has an absolute right to perform reasonable oversight over the president of the United States. And the president of the United States does not get to choose what is or is not reasonable. That is up to the majority in the Congress.

And I'm sure that the Congressman, a William and Mary graduate, would absolutely agree with that.

MACCALLUM: Well, let's hear from him. Congressman Gaetz.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA: I absolutely do, but the operative phrase there is reasonable oversight. Oversight is different than harassment. It's different than an endless search or a witch-hunt. There has to be a reasonable legislative purpose for oversight to occur. And what's really instructive for context here is that there is a secret memo among the major democratic chairman of the committees that lay out their attempt to harass the president on a variety of issues that don't inform on a legislative decision.

Just take today. We had an empty chair in front of us because Democrats have an empty agenda. They don't have bills to bring forward to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, to deal with the crisis of illegal immigration on our border. And so, instead, we have these show hearings where we stare at an empty chair. And I would hope that people all over the country would expect more of the Congress than this type of coordinated harassment.

MACCALLUM: But, you know what, I just want to point out that -- you know, I mean, the chair was not empty for -- you know, it's on around 30 or 50 hours. I can't remember exactly how many that Don McGahn sat before the special counsel. And I remember the days when Democrats were pushing so hard for a special counsel.

HAHN: Right.

MACCALLUM: Had to have a special counsel, absolutely, got that because they wanted to investigate all of this.

HAHN: yes.

MACCALLUM: Got Robert Mueller, who they went -- you know, all over cable news saying he was the man, he was you know, it had great integrity, it was going to see this thing through. He did it for two years. Was given all the documents that he requested from the White House. So, Chris, you know, just a final word on this, and then I want to get to another aspect of this.

But you know, I guess, into some extent, the White House looks at this and says, you know when is enough, enough, and can we move past this at any given point or is it just going to go on and on and on with more subpoenas and more investigations?

HAHN: So, the White -- the White House doesn't get to choose what is reasonable oversight. That's not what the constitution prescribes. Congress gets to choose that. And it with it was OK and not privileged for him to testify before the special counsel, it's OK and not privileged for him to testify before Congress. It's like the president, it's OK with the (INAUDIBLE) written, but he doesn't want (INAUDIBLE) produced.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, you think he's going to say something that he didn't say already? Right.

HAHN: He doesn't want to see this. He doesn't want to see this want the public to hear these things being said, that's because he's hiding something America.

MACCALLUM: Maybe, maybe. All right. So, you know, let's move on to the other aspect of this because there's another side of this coin that's being investigated now. And that's you know, sort of how it all began. And you know, one of the things that that's at issue here is -- you know, the credibility of some of the people who were involved in it.

So, I want to play this moment -- you know, we've talked -- we've heard a lot about lying in front of Congress and the contempt that Bill Barr may be held in by Congress. He's -- you know, trying to find some ways to push back on that now. But this is Jim Comey, and then, Loretta Lynch on a moment that they have a discrepancy over the interpretation of in the process of all of this. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And here's Loretta Lynch. She says, "I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will. I was quite surprised by that, that, that was his characterization of it," she says. And she goes on to say, "Because that was not how it was conveyed to him, certainly not how it was intended."

Chris Hahn, what do you say about that because that's a pretty significant turning point in that whole story of the Hillary Clinton investigation because then, Jim Comey took the reins of it after that?

HAHN: Yes, look, I mean, it's word smiting. I don't doubt that somebody in justice tried to wordsmith it -- some political appointee. I've no doubt of that. I don't know if that's the end of the world. Jim Comey did what he did. And had he not done what he done. I don't think Donald Trump be president today. Had this been -- you know, and right now, we're seeing similar activities happening by this president's attorney general. And I don't see Congress doing anything about it.

So, it's very -- you know, it obviously, something happened there. And we have to understand which Jim Comey we're going to trust. We either trust all or we won't trust anything?

MACCALLUM: Would you want to investigate him for contempt for not telling the truth in front of that committee?

GAETZ: I would say that you've got a problem --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Chris, and then, Matt. Go ahead, Chris.

HAHN: I don't know if he didn't tell the truth. I don't know if he -- if he -- if he willfully lied before Congress. He did say that he was asked to wordsmith it by the Attorney General United States. Maybe she was saying, I call it a matter, and he was saying, I call it a case. So, you know, there's a lot of their, there, and maybe they should both talk about it.

GAETZ: It's sort of questionable to wonder which liar you're supposed to believe. Jim Comey repeatedly said that he wasn't leaking information. Only later to have to admit that that had happened despite prior testimony. And then, I don't think there's a single American who believes Loretta Lynch was talking to Bill Clinton on the tarmac about grandkids.

And so, I think, it's indicative of the broader dynamic as we get closer and closer to the truth and the bias and the corrupt acts that led to this investigation. You're going to see Comey and Lynch turn on one another. You're starting to see in the intelligence community.

HAHN: Yes.

GAETZ: Brennan and Clapper disagreeing with Comey about the extent to which the dossier funded by Democrats was part of the intelligence community's assessment. And so, I think that as Mr. Downer continues his work to look into the leaks, the fraud before the FISA Court, and then the corrupt intent back at the White House.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GAETZ: Those three things will open the door to -- I think a lot (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: I would say, Congressman, that the same amount of people who believe that the Trump Tower meeting was about adoption -- believe that the tarmac meeting was about (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

GAETZ: Yes, but we've got a conclusion on that.

MACCALLUM: Guys, we got to go.

GAETZ: The difference is there, you already have the conclusion with Mueller that there wasn't collusion. Come on.

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: Yes, I know, who know. That's why we got to hear from witnesses -- we got to read -- we got to read the full report -- read the full report. We got to really -- we got to really get (INAUDIBLE) I can't wait.

MACCALLUM: All right, Chris Hahn, Matt Gaetz, to be continued. You can't wait. Come back. All right. We'll pick it right there next time.

Chris Hahn, Matt Gaetz, Congressman, thank you very much.

HAHN: Thank you.

GAETZ: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you both. Senator John Kennedy, hot off a high stakes briefing on Iran. What he thinks now that he has heard from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Department of Defense Department secretary right after this about former CIA Director John Brennan.

Also, showed up to appear on the Hill today to talk with Congress about this issue, not quite sure why, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Our nation's top national security advisors in the Trump administration were on Capitol Hill today to brief both the House and the Senate on what is going on with the escalating tensions with Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK SHANAHAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We have deterred attacks based on our re-posturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces. Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence, not about war. We're not about going to war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State there but there were also some other people providing Congress with some information today voluntarily. Outspoken Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan acted sort of like a second opinion of sorts on this issue in his visit to the Hill despite his previous misinformation that he admitted to on the Mueller probe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CIA: I don't know if I received better information but I think I suspected that there was more than there actually was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Kennedy, great to have you here today. Thank you very much. You know, what do you think -- what was John Brennan doing on the Hill today?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: In my judgment, Martha, Mr. Brennan needs to take off his tin hat and get a job. He's lost his security clearance, the only thing he's well-versed in is the stuff he makes up. It's clear to me and has been for some time that Mr. Brennan is not a national security professional, he's a politician. And that's why I think he let the American people down when he ran our CIA.

In terms of what's actually going on, we had a classified briefing today. By we, I mean all of my Senate colleagues and I by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff. We're not trying to provoke war with Iran. Our moves are entirely defensive. We're trying to protect American soldiers and American interests and the interests of our friends in Iran. Iran -- go ahead.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this, Senator. After this briefing -- because we spoke to Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham last night and he said that he felt that when the broader group listened to this, that they would be alarmed by what he had learned in a smaller briefing.

Were you alarmed by the provocative nature of what Iran has been up to or do you not agree with that statement?

KENNEDY: Well I was I was alarmed in the sense that without revealing classified information it is clear based on our intelligence that the danger that Iran represents to the United States had been heightened by Iran.

I am comforted by the fact that I think our response was very appropriate. I'm not clairvoyant but I believe that that danger has been lessened somewhat. We can't let our guard down. The truth of the matter is that Iran is a cancer. It's a cancer on the Middle East, it's a cancer on the world, not the people of Iran but their leadership, the supreme leader, the Ayatollah.

He -- I don't -- he's not mixed up, he's not confused, it's not a question that his mama or daddy didn't love him enough, he just hates America. And his religion tells him -- his interpretation of his religion tells him to hate all those including but not limited to America who disagrees with him. And we just have to deal with that.

Now, the Obama administration thought that by making a nuclear deal with the Ayatollah, we could somehow change his behavior. As a result of that deal, the Ayatollah received between $50 and $150 billion, that's nine zeros. He didn't change his behavior. He used that money to export terrorism, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Hamas.

President Trump has responded appropriately. He send -- he send him with sanctions. And those sanctions are hurting the people of Iran. And Iran - - and I hate to see it for the people but I'm glad for the leadership.

MACCALLUM: Well, the question is where do we go from here --

KENNEDY: Let me tell you where we go from here. We have Iran down, now we need to choke them. That's the only thing that the supreme leader, the Ayatollah understands.

MACCALLUM: And will we do that with the with sanctions and continued sanctions or militarily?

KENNEDY: No sanctions.

MACCALLUM: All right.

KENNEDY: I do not believe we will have a war with Iran. The Ayatollah may be evil but he's not stupid. We have the sanctions on their oil exports, on the medical -- metals exports, on the Revolutionary Guard. They're hurting the leadership badly. They're also hurting the Iranian people which I regret. I hope that the Iranian people demand better leadership but we'll have to wait and see.

MACCALLUM: Senator Kennedy, thank you. Good to see you tonight, sir.

KENNEDY: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. So another sign of resistance against President Trump. California Governor Gavin Newsom is pushing a plan tonight that would cost millions of dollars and would provide health care to illegal immigrants who live in his state. That debate is coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: California may become the first state in the nation to provide free government-funded health care to adult illegal immigrants. Democratic governor Gavin Newsom wants to spend about $100 million a year to provide coverage for those ages 19 to 25.

The State Senate wants to go even further to include those over 65, and if the takes effect the state could be on a collision course once again with the Trump administration which is attempting to crack down on public assistance for undocumented immigrants.

Joining me now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar and Fox News contributor, and Austan Goolsbee, economics professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and former chief economist under President Obama. Great to see both of you, gentlemen. Thanks for being here.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Austan, let me start with you on that. Is this a good idea, is it, you know, economically is it a good idea and Joe Biden has also suggested that he should -- that we should cover illegal immigrants with healthcare.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO BOOTH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: I think that's inaccurate as to describe what vice -- former vice president's position is.

MACCALLUM: I don't believe so. Go ahead.

GOOLSBEE: In this case in California, Gavin Newsom, I was a little surprised by how you portrayed the program, there are people in the California legislature that are proposing using California's money to cover poor immigrants here illegally and Gavin Newsom opposed that. This is only a very small program that applies to college aged --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Nineteen to -- yes, we said it, 19 to 25.

GOOLSBEE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: We also pointed out that the legislature wanted a much larger program which was in the billions. And that this is the program that the --

(CROSSTALK)

GOOLSBEE: Yes. And that Gavin Newsom opposed.

MACCALLUM: -- we pointed that out. Yes. Which he was against.

GOOLSBEE: Gavin Newsom opposed it.

MACCALLUM: Correct. And he is --

(CROSSTALK)

GOOLSBEE: I'm just -- Gavin Newsom has got five different things where he is opposing the Trump administration far more --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That's right.

GOOLSBEE: -- glaring way than this.

MACCALLUM: But the suggestion, I guess, you know, on the basic question the suggestion that illegal immigrants should have, you know, either state paid for or federally funded healthcare, do you agree with that or not?

GOOLSBEE: It's not federally funded. No, I did not support that and that's not in Obamacare.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: In this case, it's state funded as I just said.

GOOLSBEE: It isn't in there at the federal level.

MACCALLUM: OK.

GOOLSBEE: At the state level, making sure that people who are going to college get their -- can have coverage so they can get their vaccines. Or we spend visas --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Even if they are illegal. That's the question.

GOOLSBEE: Or don't go to --

MACCALLUM: If they're illegal you would agree?

GOOLSBEE: It's paid by the states. This is not a federal government. If it's in state they want to use their money for that.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I said the federal government or the state government. Yes, I quite clearly said either entity the federal or the state in this case it would be the state. Marc --

(CROSSTALK)

GOOLSBEE: If the state wants to use their money for that, that's their business.

MACCALLUM: Yes, they can do what they want, I got it. OK.

THIESSEN: It's actually --

MACCALLUM: Marc?

THIESSEN: It's actually not the state's money it's the taxpayers of California's money. And you know --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, there's a point.

THIESSEN: -- if they elected Gavin Newsom who campaigned on making California a sanctuary state then they are getting what they paid for, what they voted for.

I mean, look, the fact is that if you make free healthcare available to illegal immigrants then by definition illegal immigrants from all over the country are going to come to California to get their free healthcare and probably some people who are not even illegal immigrants because they're by definition undocumented. And so, if you are undocumented, it's hard to tell who is an illegal immigrant and who isn't.

And he is not alone in this. you've got New York Mayor de Blasio has made such the same pledge in New York City. He is going to turn New York into a magnet for illegal immigrants who are coming to get their free healthcare.

And so, I'm a little bit perplexed by some of these Democrats who are so up in arms about the idea of President Trump's suggestion that he is going to release illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities. Well, if you are against that, why are you creating these sanctuaries? Why are you offering free healthcare to illegal immigrants?

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, speaking of that, Marc, let me just play this. Because what I want to point out is that the language has changed so dramatically in such a short period of time just over like the last decade.

And here is Joe Biden back in 2007 talking about sanctuary cities. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need.

Part of the problem is you have to have a federal government that can enforce laws.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about that, Austan?

GOOLSBEE: Well, that's completely different thing. This discussion about healthcare that's not what a sanctuary city is.

MACCALLUM: We're talking about --

(CROSSTALK)

GOOLSBEE: The question about -- this question about sanctuary cities --

MACCALLUM: -- benefits and taking care of illegal immigrants and not treating it as if it is a crime but treating it as if it's someone who also needs to be taken care of and given benefits to in a larger context.

GOOLSBEE: OK. That's a totally different question. The issue of sanctuary cities that Vice President Biden was talking about is that there were about 400 cities and counties that do not want to share their information and be required by the federal government to do the enforcement of immigration laws.

MACCALLUM: OK.

GOOLSBEE: And they say if you want us to do that you have got to give us the money to do it.

MACCALLUM: Marc --

THIESSEN: The fact is, Martha. That until recently everyone in this country, almost everyone in this country Democrats and Republicans agreed that illegal immigration was a problem and that we needed -- that we should not be encouraging illegal immigrants to come to this country.

In 2009, Chuck Schumer gave a speech at Georgetown and he said illegal immigration is wrong plain and simple. People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and should not be treated the same as people who enter here legally. That was a common position. If Chuck Schumer said that today he'd be strung up by the Democratic Party.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: He would be vilified. I got to go. But I just want to point in this, I'm just doing some fact checking here. Because this is Joe Biden on the issue of healthcare for documented -- he said, look, I think that anyone who is in a situation where they are in need of healthcare, regardless if you are documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see through that they are cared for and that's why we need more clinics across the country. Just to be on this --

(CROSSTALK)

GOOLSBEE: That's the emergency room rule. That's the law now. If you go into emergency room, they have to treat you.

MACCALLUM: All right. I just --

THIESSEN: He should hire you, Austan. You can explain it better than he can.

MACCALLUM: That is true. That is true. Austan, thank you very much. Marc Thiessen, thank you very much. Thanks, gentlemen.

Coming up next, the man who wants to take the gloves off and put the brass knuckles on in order to get conservatives like Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed in courts around this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILL.: With what degree of certainty --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT: This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.

This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: A defiant Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh defending his character amid an onslaught of sexual allegations leading up to his confirmation hearings.

My next guest was working behind the scenes to win that fight with Brett Kavanaugh after privately being called the general of Justice Neil Gorsuch's confirmation process and now he is employing tough tactics nationwide vowing to, quote, "punch back" in the battle to protect and defend President Trump's judicial nominees.

Here now exclusively is Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. Mike, thank you for being here tonight. I guess the first question for you is why is this necessary? The president has confirmed, I believe on unprecedented number of judges at all levels, right?

MIKE DAVIS, PRESIDENT, ARTICLE III PROJECT: Yes. The president has done a phenomenal job on judicial nominations. He has really delivered on his campaign promise here.

We are starting the Article III Project to continue to help President Trump with these judicial nominees. We have worked on judicial nominations in the White House from the nominee's progressive with Justice Gorsuch and for Chairman Chuck Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress.

And what we are seeing from the Democrats is unprecedented obstruction. And despite this obstruction, President Trump is winning. And the left's attacks are only getting uglier. They are going after these nominees. They are going after judges after they are appointed to the bench. They are going after the confirmation process trying to delegitimize the process and they're even attacking judicial independence.

You are seeing Democrats including presidential candidates who are pushing these radical schemes like impeachment and court packing and term limits. It's only getting uglier and the Article III Project is going to fight back.

MACCALLUM: And you say that you still believe they are still going after Brett Kavanaugh even though the fight is over and he is on the Supreme Court?

DAVIS: They absolutely are. We just saw this with George Mason University. George Mason University Law School ask Justice Kavanaugh to go teach at the law school and any law school in the country would want a sitting Supreme Court justice to come teach. It helps any law school, especially a law school like George Mason University that's on the rise.

And then you have these cupcake undergrads and these wacky faculty members and these George Soros funded groups attacking him saying that they feel threatened by having Justice Kavanaugh on their campus. What they failed to tell you is that he is teaching 3,600 miles away in England. And so, it's just another bogus attack on a very good man.

MACCALLUM: What do you think of the decisions that you've seen so far from Justice Kavanaugh and some where he is lined up with Justice Gorsuch that some conservatives have found a bit surprising.

DAVIS: Well, I mean, I think with any new justice on the Supreme Court, you have to look at their record over, you know, two or three years. You can't look at, you know, one decision that they make on one particular case. You have to look at their overall record over two or three years.

If you look at Justice Kavanaugh's record up to 12 years of service on the D.C. circuit, I mean, he had a -- he has a record where he has the judicial philosophy that President Trump campaigned on that he was going to appoint judges like Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. Those are the types of judges that President Trump was going to put on the bench.

MACCALLUM: You know, we were watching the protests today on the steps of the Supreme Court. Do you believe that there will be a contest, a contest of Roe v. Wade? Do you believe that there will be a show down over that decision?

DAVIS: I think Democrats are just trying to scare people here. Roe versus Wade whether you like it or you don't like it, it is precedent of at Supreme Court, it's been reaffirmed many times. Judges are bound by precedent. Especially lower court judges.

And so, I think this is a -- I think these are a lot of presidential candidates on the Democrat side who are just trying to scare voters and jockey for the nomination on the Democrat side.

MACCALLUM: Interesting. Well, we will see where the openings come on perhaps the Supreme Court or other places on down the line. And we will watch what you guys are doing at the Article III Project. Very interesting. Mike, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

DAVIS: Thank you for having me.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Coming up next, a story exclusive with the army ranger who accidentally killed American hero Pat Tillman in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan. He is opening up for the first time about living with survivor's guilt and PTSD and why he is choosing to speak out now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Former NFL player Pat Tillman became a national hero in the aftermath of 9/11, turning down a multi-million-dollar football contract to serve his country. But it came crashing down in '04 when the army ranger was shot and killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan.

Now the soldier who is believed to have fired those shots is opening up about his struggles that he has battled in the 15 years since that tragic day. Steve Elliott joins me exclusively in moments. But first, Trace Gallagher with the back story.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, Pat Tillman and his younger brother Kevin signed up for the army in response to the attacks in 9/11. After basic training both were accepted into the Elite Army Rangers. And after graduating ranger school Pat Tillman was deployed to Afghanistan but was killed less than five months into his tour.

Initially the army said he was killed by enemy combatants but the investigation revealed it was friendly fire. And Tillman's fellow ranger Steve Elliott thinks he might have fired the fatal shot and here is why.

After an army Humvee broke down in the mountains, Tillman's platoon was ordered to divide up. But as the two groups traversed the rugged steep terrain, they struggled to communicate with each other.

Then the second group was ambushed and Tillman's group scaled a ridge line to come back and help fellow rangers under attack. But squad leader in Steve Elliott's armored vehicle misidentified an allied Afghan soldier next to Pat Tillman as the enemy and open fire killing that Afghan.

That prompted Elliott and two other rangers to open fire on what they thought were shadowy images. It turned out to be Pat Tillman and 19-year- old Brian O'Neil. O'Neil wasn't hit and the army has either never determined or never released who actually shot Tillman.

But Steve Elliott and Ranger Trevor Alders were the most widely suspected. Although Steve Elliott's weapon was an M 240 Bravo machine gun and many believe the shots that killed Tillman were too precise to have come from a machine gunner, but Elliott says he was trained to fire his automatic weapon with the precision of a rifle.

Steve Elliott does not know if his rounds killed Pat Tillman but says it would be disingenuous for him to say they didn't. Elliott says he struggles with guilt every day and has suffered PTSD, though this has also brought him closer to God and his family. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Here now in his first television interview, Steve Elliott, former army ranger and author of "War Story." Steve, I had the privilege of speaking with you for a while during our podcast which is going to come out in a little while.

But tell everybody, you know, sort of, what it was like for you when you first -- because you say you knew within 24 hours that Pat was dead and it was a friendly fire incident.

STEVE ELLIOTT, AUTHOR, WAR STORY: Yes. Yes. It was very slow unfolding. I mean, we knew that myself and others from our vehicle fired on not just Pat but others in the squad. I knew that rounds from my weapon definitively hit the radio operator Jay Lane and I know that that my rounds wounded him.

And so, a lot of it was about the shocks certainly of losing Pat but then also in the debriefings that occurred in FAB in the coming days. Kind of the horror of all of those that we could have lost in addition because there's many others in the squad that were also right there with him.

MACCALLUM: I mean, did you know moments after you fired?

ELLIOTT: No, I didn't know until the following day. I had no idea until we were beginning to leave the objective the following night to go back to the FAB. I had no sense of that -- I didn't know there could have been friendlies on that ridge line until we begin circulating amongst the platoon and you start putting pieces together in terms of who is where.

MACCALLUM: What was it like when, you know, when you started to -- when that started to sink in?

ELLIOTT: I was shocked. I mean, it was a very long, dark four-hour ride back at the FAB as you kind of mold that over. But it took a number of months before that shock began to wear off.

MACCALLUM: You get home and you try to sort of tamp it all down --

ELLIOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- and get on with your life and that didn't work out so well?

ELLIOTT: No, in some respects it did.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

ELLIOTT: I did find completed my four-year enlistment and succeeded at every task that I was given in the army until I got out in '07, went on and started what became a successful career in wealth management. So depending on the score card.

MACCALLUM: Right.

ELLIOTT: I was doing great and depending on other score card with respect to my own emotional mental health, not so much.

MACCALLUM: So, you were haunted by the fact that you didn't want anyone to know who you were.

ELLIOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You didn't anyone to connect you to that story out in the real world --

ELLIOTT: That's right.

MACCALLUM: -- in life out at work.

ELLIOTT: That's right. Actually one of my partners at the firm I was working with. I never forget walking into the lunchroom and then he looked kind of tired, and I was like, did you get any sleep last night? And he said, man, this new John Krakauer book about Pat Tillman is just fantastic. And your heart kind of sinks.

And I asked him so, what part are you at? And he was at a part where my name would been mentioned. And it was obvious he hadn't -- I mean, you don't -- there's a million Steven Elliott and you wouldn't assume that that's the one that's working right next to you.

The next day I went band back and I said, you know, I'm going to feel weird if at some points you feel like maybe -- so, I was just like, I'm just going to tell you but it was exactly that sort of thing where you felt like you were a marked man.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And you know, at some point, just give us the Father's Day, was a very significant day for you.

ELLIOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Father's Day 2016. And you had almost you thought about killing yourself before that.

ELLIOTT: Yes. I was -- I mean, I was suicidal ideation as they call it was certainly becoming more and more prevalent just because -- not because I didn't have family or because I didn't have a good job. But I hadn't had a decent night sleep in over a decade just in terms of not just the software that was running nightmares, anxiety, depression, but then my own when you are not eating well, when you are drinking a lot and doings those sorts of things just sort of medicate that doesn't help your health.

And so, yes, I had found myself in a pretty the optics of my life were really good and, yet, if you kicked the tires, they were not. So, --

MACCALLUM: So, I want everyone to read the book to hear about your exchange with Mary Toeman (Ph) which you eventually had.

ELLIOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: But I don't want to lose the last minute we have here without asking you what you think Congress can do to start to lower the number of 20 every single day veterans who actually go through with it and take their life. What can be done in Congress?

ELLIOTT: We can't simply keep blaming the V.A. even though there is a myriad of problems there and lots of people in the V.A. who care deeply about our veterans and work hard every single day. We have to get to the points of trauma which is war.

And we have to stop conflating this broken idea of masculinity with the fact that we send young men and women to do things that their hearts and minds may be trained to do but have ramifications and can carry wounds.

And so, it doesn't make you tougher to go to war and have to shoot people. That's not -- that's not a masculine exercise. It's a sad exercise in our world. But we believe that the DOD and Congress -- we love to partner with them and doing so much more and change their policy to do that.

MACCALLUM: Well, we hope the members of the armed services committees are listening and that they will speak to you about that --

ELLIOTT: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- and all the proceeds of the book are being donated to mental health for our veterans. Thank you, Steve.

ELLIOTT: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: All the best to you.

ELLIOTT: I appreciate it.

MACCALLUM: More of “The Story” coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So that is “The Story” of this Tuesday, May 21st. But “The Story” goes on tomorrow. Hope you will join us. Tucker Carlson coming up next in Washington, D.C. Have a good night, 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.