China tells US to close Chengdu consulate amid rising tensions

close

Video

China tells US to close Chengdu consulate amid rising tensions

This is a rush transcript from “The Story with Martha MacCallum," July 24, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: One week closer. Hey there Bret. Good to see you. Have a good weekend. All right, here we go. Good evening everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is The Story. For the last several days, this first story tonight has been one of the most talked about controversies on Capitol Hill.

It's not about the virus or about the stimulus package. It's about what one member of Congress calls an abrupt conversation and another calls a verbal assault. As Americans start to show reservations about rampant cancel culture, this harsh moment between colleagues seems to be ballooning into something bigger.

Tonight, in an exclusive interview Congressman Ted Yoho is here to talk about his side of the story. Here is what Representative Ocasio-Cortez says he did to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I was minding my own business, walking up the steps And Rep. Yoho put his finger in my face. He called me disgusting. He called me crazy. He called me out of my mind. And he called me dangerous. In front of reporters Rep. Yoho called me and I quote, (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And here is it Rep. Yoho, Republican from Florida who is not running for re-election, giving his statement on the event. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TED YOHO (R-FL): I rise to apologize for the abrupt manner of the conversation I had with my colleague from New York. It is true that we disagree on policies and visions for America but that does not mean we should be disrespectful. Having been married for 45 years with two daughters, I'm very cognizant of my language. The offensive name-calling words attributed to me by the press were never spoken to my colleague and if they were construed that way, I apologize for their misunderstanding. I cannot apologize for my passion or for loving my God. My family and my country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has made this not about her and Mr. Yoho but she says it is much bigger than that. She says it's about our culture that is accepting of violence and violent language against women. Rep. Yoho joins us exclusively in just a moment.

Also coming up tonight on The Story, we'll talk to Professor Joshua Catz who said no more to calls at Princeton to offer compensation perks based on race and much more. We'll talk about that with him in this exclusive interview that we had with him tonight. Then Victor Davis Hanson will join us on the other end of that as well.

Also, tonight Congressman Eric Swalwell and Andy McCarthy on yet more breaking news on how the FBI did surveillance on the Trump team. Also, tonight, former NFL player Jack Brewer as baseball kicks off but not before the players kneeled for Black Lives Matter but we begin as promised evening with Congressman Ted Yoho.

Congressman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I know it's been a heck of a week for you and we're glad you came here tonight to sort of tell your side of the story. So it seems that what prompted this on your end at least according to what we're hearing, is that you were appalled by the comments that she made about the fact that poverty and unemployment was leading people to commit crimes. Is that what sparked you?

YOHO: That was part of it. Yes. I mean but it's been a series of things. I could go into that but that was something and I just, I asked her if we could have minute of her time and ask her a question.

MACCALLUM: You did? Because she said you just accosted her and she didn't know what was coming at her and then she said you called her disgusting. Did you call her disgusting?

YOHO: No ma'am. I was coming down from voting from the Capitol as I walk across as I always do and I was coming up just she was coming up the stairs and I asked her, I said, Hey do you have a minute? She goes yes. And we've never had a conversation before, and I wanted to ask her about this policy that she was telling people it's OK to shoplift if you're hungry and it went backwards from there.

MACCALLUM: So, did - all right, did you call her disgusting, and did you suggest that she was losing her mind?

YOHO: No.

MACCALLUM: Did you use those words? You never said she was disgusting? You never said she was losing her mind?

YOHO: No, everything was directed at policy. When she told me that yes, she thought it was right for people to go ahead and shoplift if you're hungry, I said seriously where there's many social programs and faith-based programs and all these other food kitchens around, the best that you can do is to offer people in your district to go ahead and shoplift while you're calling at the same time to defund the police. I said those are just absolutely the most fricking, crazy policy ideas I've ever heard, and I said your policy ideas are disgusting and I turned around walked away.

MACCALLUM: Now when you turned around and walked away -

YOHO: And that is as long as that interaction lasted.

MACCALLUM: OK, these stories are so totally different that the two of you are telling so it's kind of hard to know you know which version is the truth but when you turned around and walked down the stairs, did you refer to her as a f-word b-word.

YOHO: No, I walked down the steps. I said this is just such a fricking BS and that's all I said and then a reporter came up to me and said what was that about. I said no comment. Did you say this. I said no comment and I left.

You know there's another part of the story that's not being told, that she doesn't tell and I don't want to get into that because the policies that they're telling, to tell people you don't have to fund the police department, we need to defund it. I mean, it got defunded in New York, $1.5 billion and then to go out and tell people it's OK to shoplift.

Well, I don't believe it's OK for the shop owner who owns that stores, trying to make a living for his family to have somebody come and say well Ms. Ocasio-Cortez says it's OK or what about the student or the child that's watching this with her mom and dad and well, I guess, I can go and shoplift mom. She said it was OK.

These are the things that are tearing this country apart and it needs to stop and I can go on and on but I don't want to because I know that's not the purpose of this. These are the policies.

MACCALLUM: I'm just curious. You said that she's not telling the truth about. What is that? Because you know this story, I was actually surprised at how much traction it's got but it's getting a ton of attention. People are clicking on it all the time so is there something else that we need to know about what happened between you two?

YOHO: Well, I thought it was interesting like I said, I've never had a dialogue with her and I've been meaning to but with the pandemic and the way Washington's working, we're running out of time and I wanted to address this and I do this with a lot of members and I've done this with many members, questioning policies and just to try to get to where they understand.

You know so we have an understanding but as I was coming back from my second vote series, I was walking back to my office and all of a sudden, I hear somebody go Ted Yoho. She yells it out. I turn around and she's pointing her finger at me, she goes Ted Yoho, I am not done with you. I'm like OK. And I mean like I said, and so I guess you see what's going on now is she's making hay out of this.

She's fund raising off of this. She's out in front of the capitol wearing her COVID-19 mask playing that song boss, I'm not going to say it. Playing boss so and so. Making fun of this but yet she's on the floor, crying saying how bad this is but yet she's out there saying the same thing and you know it's disingenuous. In the meantime, I haven't said a word about this.

MACCALLUM: All right so you think she's leveraging this.

YOHO: I've been going.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

YOHO: Well, I mean -

MACCALLUM: Well, you got up on the floor and you said, and you apologized. She said she didn't consider that an apologize. I'm sorry that we keep stepping on each other. We do have a little bit of a delay, but she then came back to your latest statement and she said that she didn't see what you said as an apology at all. She said if he wants to continue to lie about what happened, that's his business. They think their little man card will be taken away if they apologize for their absurd behavior. That's her most recent comment.

YOHO: No.

MACCALLUM: What's your reaction to that?

YOHO: Well again, what is that attacking? I mean that's attacking a person's character, his manliness I guess is what she's doing and then she spun those into saying that I'm attacking all women and it was women of color. This was strictly policy and those policies are bad for this nation. I mean do you think it's right. I'm going to ask the American people. Do you think it's right to advocate shoplifting instead of going to your representative and getting help and assistance? Whether it's food stamps and I've been on this thing.

MACCALLUM: It sounded to me.

YOHO: I talked about that.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you have. I did hear you say that. You know it sounded to me that that video that she made, got a lot of attention and it did sound like she was excusing some of that behavior. At least she was saying that she understood where she thought it was coming from and she said she wasn't talking about people getting shot in Chicago and Seattle and elsewhere.

She said she was talking about small crime that came from people who were out of work but you know what I want to get to is the point that you just touched on because you said I have had similar conversations with other people about policy. Now did you get heated in those conversations. Might any of those people have thought that you were out of line in your language with them and were those people men and were those people women and did they cross the gender line?

YOHO: Sure. I've had conversations with Ro Khanna, Terry Sewell, Luis Gutierrez on several things and we don't always walk away agreeing but we always wind up, it seems like afterwards laughing about things and you know we're going to disagree on that but we're always amicable.

And you know I'm there to solve problems and there are many problems in this country.

MACCALLUM: So she's really laying down the gender card here. Here's part of her speech which got a lot of attention. Let's play that because I want to get you to react to this.

YOHO: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: This harm that Mr. Yoho levied, tried to levy against me was not just an incident directed at me. But when you do that to any woman what Mr. Yoho did was give permission to other men to do that to his daughters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about that?

YOHO: You know she's entitled to her opinion. That is nothing to do with our conversation. It was strictly about her policies and I went to the southwest border the week after she left. I went into the same cell she was in where she said children are being snatched away from their parents and the detainees were made to drink out of the toilet and she was cussing in front of the workers there and what I found out.

They said this is a drinking fountain. This is this and so this has been a history of what she's doing and it's identity politics and I don't play that and I've got a pretty good reputation, whether it's up there or down here in my district. I practiced for almost 30 years. I'm not going to try to defend myself. I feel bad for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez who thinks this was - I called these names. I did not call her these names.

This was strictly on policy and then again, I've been quiet about this. I'm not, I'm not worried about this. I can - I'm not asking anybody to defend me. I'm not going on YouTube. I'm not out in front of the Capitol playing whatever that boss something, what's that music. We've got serious problems in this nation. We've got $30 trillion in debt. I've got China breathing down our throats and I'm not going to -

This is what's wrong with Washington. They'll capitalize on stuff like this and have identity politics and it's not moving this nation forward and it needs to stop.

MACCALLUM: Well, you say you've had similar conversation that got heated with men and women and she clearly is trying to make this into an attack on women. She called you out and said that you weren't decent just because you have a wife and daughters so we you know, there's no doubt that she explained this to the hell and she's got a lot of support behind her from Nancy Pelosi and Ayanna Pressley and other folks who are really making this into a much broader topic.

You've also got the bread for the world organization suggesting that maybe they should take you off their board. What do you say about that before I let you go?

YOHO: Well, I think it's interesting and I saw the clip before this on Fox news that said I was loser of the week. You're supposed to be fair and balanced. Nobody's even talk to me and if the breadth of the almighty wants to do that, that's fine but I think it's funny how the definition of a democracy is mob rule and you're hanging somebody before you even talk to him. That's wrong and that's another thing that's wrong in this country. We need to come together.

MACCALLUM: I agree with you there.

YOHO: And if we can have - if we have a disagreement, let's talk about it and let's move on and we may not always agree on and I know that. I mean, I've been married for 45 years and anyways, you take care and I thank you for the opportunity to come on here.

MACCALLUM: You're very welcome and we always like to hear both sides of the story. We did not call you or anyone else the loser the week. We don't do that segment here, but we also invited her to come on and talk about it as well so.

YOHO: I think it was that show before you.

MACCALLUM: OK, all right. Ted Yoho Representative, thank you very much and as I said, we - open invitation to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez because clearly these are very divergent stories and we would love to bring you both sides. Thank you, sir.

Coming up, new documents reveal that the FBI was using candidate Trump's intelligence briefings as a place to kind of dig around for dirt in his campaign. We're going to tell you more about this when we come back. Stay with us tonight on The Story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Also, tonight, evidence that the FBI used an intelligence briefing to then candidate Donald Trump to kill two birds with one stone essentially. While they briefed him, they were poking around for any Russia connections that may be revealed by Mr. Trump or General Flynn.

A source telling Fox news that the briefing was a "cover." Agent Joe Pianka wrote in a summary, "During ODNI briefs, writer actively listened for topics or questions regarding the Russian federation."

Among other categories document was filed under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the code names for the probes into the Trump campaign and into Michael Flynn and the document was approved by FBI officials Kevin Clinesmith who's name you may recognize from the Carter Page line of this story and Peter Strzok, of course you know of quite well.

So President Trump was asked about this newest revelation last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a terrible thing that happened. It should never happen to another president. The fact is that President Obama and Vice President Biden and the whole group of them with Brennan and Comey and McCabe and Lisa Page and Strzok, her lover and beyond them, long beyond them ,they spied on the campaign, using the intelligence agencies of our country, they illegally - this is illegal as can be, this is treason. This is many things you can call it. They spied on the campaign of another party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell joins me now. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, good to have you with us today.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): You too. Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: When I listened to this and I read the documents from - from this story Peter Strzok says at one point that they should use the CI guy in the briefing, a counterintelligence person in this briefing which is supposed to be an intelligence briefing for the candidate to assess the demeanor of the individuals during that briefing.

So they had a counterintelligence investigation into this back in August of 2016 based on what we learned from the Mueller investigation was no evidence that there was any connection between the campaign. So this goes back to what Bill Barr said. It's - it's not legal or ethical to spy on a presidential campaign without proper predication.

What's your reaction to this new information?

SWALWELL: They were right to do it and I hope they do it if a Democratic candidate ever does that with any country so Martha remember, right before this meeting occurred, candidate Trump said Russia, if you're listening, I hope you hack Hillary's emails.

And what did they do? They actually did it.

MACCALLUM: In front of an enormous crowd on national television.

SWALWELL: That doesn't make it better, that makes it worse. That makes it worse.

MACCALLUM: You think that's something sneaky and spying? Oh my gosh.

SWALWELL: Yes, he wanted them to -

MACCALLUM: So, the fact of the matter is that they had - there was no -

SWALWELL: Let me finish Martha, let me finish. You asked my thought.

MACCALLUM: There was no evidence Eric -

SWALWELL: So, I'm going to tell you what I thought so Martha.

MACCALLUM: - that there was any connection. No, but I was just blown away by that's your answer. OK, go ahead.

SWALWELL: Like if they don't confront him, that's when we would have a problem. So one, he had just recently said that. Two, by the way, he says in the meeting, Joe, are the Russians bad? It's like yes, the Russians are bad and don't eat glue like should we even have to tell you that. Three by the way Martha, he told the country for years that he was never given this briefing and now we learned that he did which is in line with him saying he never had a Trump tower deals and Moscow extending him to do so.

MACCALLUM: Yes but no, no, no.

SWALWELL: He constantly lies about the Russia, that's what he does.

MACCALLUM: So two things, two things. So one is just based on the facts of the story that we have - I've covered for a long time and you have also been involved in for a long time too. So President Trump was under investigation. Jim Comey said he was not. He said that to Congress under oath. So the President was indeed under investigation.

SWALWELL: What would you want a counterintelligence official to do when the President is asking the Russians to hack and they're actually hacking. I hope they look into him. I hope if Joe Biden was doing this with any other foreign country that is seeking to influence our elections, that the FBI would look into it.

MACCALLUM: That's fine. I'm just saying -

SWALWELL: Thankfully it's not.

MACCALLUM: - they have to do it properly.

SWALWELL: But that's kind of their job.

MACCALLUM: You have to base it on evidence and then if you -

SWALWELL: And by the way two months before his son met with Russians at Trump tower.

MACCALLUM: - we have the President under investigation.

SWALWELL: And two months before his son met with Russians at Trump tower.

MACCALLUM: So what? You're allowed to meet with Russian people. I mean this -

SWALWELL: Are they our friends Martha?

MACCALLUM: People meet with Russians all the time.

SWALWELL: They were told that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

MACCALLUM: I mean that meeting was thoroughly investigated and you know as well as I do that they came up with nothing from that meeting and then it's in terms of the briefing, you say that you know he said, he never received a briefing. Everybody in that room was in on the briefing except for the candidate. He's the only one who was not - no one explained to him, look Sir, you are running for president of United States, we have reason to believe that this campaign, that the Russians might be trying to find some soft spots in your team.

That is what needed to be said if the concern was as great as you say but that wasn't what was going on.

SWALWELL: Because he's the kind of guy that listens to intelligence briefings like he's given pictures and graphs now because he doesn't have the attention span to listen, Martha so they had a challenging job in the beginning. They have a challenging job now.

MACCALLUM: So it's about the fact that he's not smart enough. I'm so confused at what you're getting at. OK.

SWALWELL: Yes. Picture woman, man, camera, TV.

MACCALLUM: OK fine, Congressman, thank you for being here. OK, fine, it doesn't add up to in terms of the counterintelligence investigation.

All right, so let's bring in Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and Fox news contributor. Andy, your thoughts on this latest revelation that came out in these documents in terms of putting in a CI person, a counterintelligence person in the middle of this briefing that is now been called a cover.

ANDY MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Martha, it's the same thing that happened when Director Comey used the opportunity to brief Trump after he won the election and they treated that as an investigative event, not an actual briefing. This is the same thing. It's a common tactic. You try to say provocative things in the hope that you're going to get the suspect to say things that are either incriminating or events consciousness of guilt.

I just want to say two things. Number one, Trump didn't invite Russia to hack the Mrs. Clinton. In fact at that point in time, the FBI had Mrs. Clinton's servers in their possession. There was nothing to hack at that point and secondly, Trump didn't deny having this briefing. What he's denied which is true is that his campaign was never given a defensive briefing to be given some information that they may have been infiltrated by Russia.

It doesn't make sense for them to have done that because Trump, I think was the main suspect but this briefing was not a defensive briefing. This briefing was an intelligence and security briefing that's commonly given to candidates for President.

MACCALLUM: So given these documents, which as you say line up with a lot of what we've seen before, everyone wants to know if there's ever going to be any prosecution in any of this and everyone would like to see what the fruits of John Durham's investigation are. Are we going to see that anytime soon and what do you think based on what we're learning now?

MCCARTHY: Well, they're saying the end of the summer Martha. I think you're going to get probably two things. You'll probably get some indictments in terms of like the lower level people, if this is the investigation that implicates the very highest level so being low here is relative but you know, you're talking about people who manipulated evidence, made direct misrepresentations to courts. I think they have a lot to worry about.

If you're talking about an overarching scheme, where they would get the top players, I don't think you're ever going to see an indictment along those lines but I do think you'll get a narrative report about it.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Andy McCarthy, always good to talk you. Thank you very much.

MCCARTHY: Thanks Martha.

MACCALLUM: Coming up, moving vans seen clearing out sthe China Houston consulate today after an active retaliation from the Chinese government. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: There is discussion that China may retaliate by asking us to leave one of the six embassies that we have in China, we also have one in Hong Kong. And it looks like Chengdu and potentially Wuhan are at the top of that list. Will we be vacating any of our embassies in China, Mr. Secretary?

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Martha, let's go back to first principles. And so, the Chinese government will get to make its decisions about our diplomats there inside of China. We'll make sure that we do right by the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: One day after that from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo China is making its decision ordering the closure of the United States consulate in the southwestern city of Chengdu, a move seen as payback for Houston which was shut down this afternoon at the demand of the Trump administration.

Reuters reporting tonight that men who appeared to be American officials were seen forcing open the back door with power tools and crowbars after padlocking another door.

Joining me now, Dr. Michael Pillsbury, the director of Chinese strategy at Hudson Institute and the author of "The Hundred-Year Marathon."

Dr. Pillsbury, always good to see you. I want to start by putting up a piece of a quote, I should say from Wang Wenbin China's foreign ministry spokesperson who said, "We urge the U.S. government to abandon the Cold War mentality and ideological basis, look at the bilateral relations correctly and stop its negative behaviors and create favorable conditions for bringing relations back on track."

So, where are we now and what do you see in all of this, sir?

MICHAEL PILLSBURY, DIRECTOR, CENTER ON CHINESE STRATEGY, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, the Chinese continued to deny anything wrong on their side and they deny the technology and deny mistreatment of Uyghurs.

I saw a clip with the Chinese ambassador in London a few days ago saying the Uyghurs are very happy in Xinjiang in the reeducation camps. So, this is a phase we're in right now --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: (Inaudible) there.

PILLSBURY: -- where President Trump and Secretary Pompeo are raising the pressure on China, but they are still not making significant concessions at all, Martha. So, things are going to get grimmer would be my forecast.

MACCALLUM: So, I asked Secretary Pompeo if we're in a Cold War with China last night and he didn't choose to answer that directly. Do you believe that we are in a Cold War with China now? Closing embassies is typically one of the first stages of that.

PILLSBURY: We're surely headed toward a Cold War. The Cold War term for those of us who lived through it had a nuclear dimension and a lot of nightmares like the Cuban missile crisis, military crises after military crises. It had period of detente. So, you had the Eisenhower spirit in Geneva, you had Jimmy Carter trying things differently.

So, a Cold War doesn't mean really wide. It's just friction and tension. We're certainly in that situation now where Xi Jinping just doesn't seem to get the idea of the seriousness of the pressure.

I might say, Martha, it's bipartisan. Joe Biden has some experience in China, has got some very hawkish advisors around him. Nancy Pelosi used to be the strongest person on human rights and civil rights in China and especially the Dalai Lama. So, there may be a temporary competition going on over the next few months of who can be tougher on China, the Biden camp or President Trump. I just point I put my money on President Trump --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You say --

PILLSBURY: -- after the speech last night.

MACCALLUM: You say that this is a new area for the president in terms of the political pressure versus the trade pressure.

PILLSBURY: Yes. Yes. It's one thing to get concessions on trade. And I really admire the phase one trade deal, 95 pages, enforcement mechanism all kinds of details. That was got the hard way with terrorists. Chinese understood it and the tariffs are still on and that's a good deal the president got even though he says he's not too interested anymore.

This other area, politics, democracy, human rights, there are violations at the Indian border like that, much harder to put pressure on.

MACCALLUM: Dr. Michael Pillsbury, always good to see you, sir. The Story is not going anywhere. We'll talk more -- we'll talk more soon. Thank you, sir.

Coming up, a Princeton University professor taking various heat for rejecting a letter that was signed by 350 of his colleagues that would base compensation at Princeton University and benefits in part based on skin color. He felt that was wrong. We're going to speak to Dr. Joshua Katz exclusively, next. And Victor Davis Hanson with his thoughts after that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A Princeton professor facing the wrath of his colleagues and students and the university president for refusing to sign on to a faculty letter signed by 350 members that called for radical changes to counter anti-black racism. The letter called for differing compensation levels according to race.

It also called for course relief, summer salary, and one additional semester of sabbatical. It said that they should reward the invisible work done by faculty of color with course relief and summer salary, also called for additional human resources for faculty of color.

So, in objection, Princeton professor Joshua Katz wrote a public Deliration of Independence right around the Fourth of July in part, writing this in part. It boggles my mind that anybody would advocate giving people extraordinarily privileged people already, let me point out, Princeton professors extra perks for no reason other than their pigmentation.

Dr. Joshua Katz joins me now, professor of classics at Princeton University. Good to have you with us, Dr. Katz. Thank you for being here.

So, you know, you read this document that that goes through these additional things that they wanted to give people almost as a form of -- almost as a form of reparation of, you know, sort of, way to compensate people. So, what disturbs you, what irk you so much that you decided that you were going to speak out?

JOSHUA KATZ, PROFESSOR OF CLASSICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Well, I think every reasonable person of goodwill wants the world to be as just as equitable as possible. And I wrote my piece out of the conviction that my colleagues, the many colleagues who had drafted and signed this faculty letter dated July 4th seek equity and justice in misguided in ways, indeed in some ways that are illegal.

So, the points that you just mentioned, for example, I said I thought were really very bad but I should have made the point much more strongly. They're in violation of title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, if you want to implement them, at least at the moment, Princeton would receive no federal funding at all. That would be very bad news.

MACCALLUM: I mean, you make very -- very solid points. So why do you think there is so much support for this among all of your colleagues? Why do you think so many people decided to sign this when as you point out it clearly goes against some of the foundations of our country? And the Constitution.

KATZ: Well, in my -- sure. So in my -- in my simple Declaration of Independence, I think just a bit, there were four possible reasons people might have signed, and I concentrated principally on the one that I still now some weeks later believe also on the basis of things colleagues have told me is the main one. Mainly that colleagues believe that some of the ideas in the letter are good and so therefore decided to sign on as one might call allies and not worry about the other ones.

There are plenty of things in the letter that I agree with or at least believe more reasonable myself, but there are enough.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

KATZ: In fact, more than enough that I thought it was a mistake to sign.

MACCALLUM: Yes. They talk about forming a committee that would basically decide, you know, who was racist and who isn't and what racist language, what is -- what connotes racist language. But one of the things that really got people fired up in your letter is this mention of the black justice league which you write was active on campus from 2014 to 2016 and you call it a small local terrorist organization that made life miserable for the many including many black students who did not agree with their demands.

And boy, do they come at you for this from your own classics department. They said that you had heedlessly put our black colleagues, students, and alums at serious risks. Tell me about that.

KATZ: Yes. Right. Well, let me start from the end. So, it's true that I'm receiving an enormous amount of heat from my own department and we're going to have to see how that plays out. The fact is however, that I have not been canceled the university has admitted that thanks to the so-called University of Chicago principles of free speech that the faculty adopted formally in 2015 I am allowed to say pretty much what I want.

And so, by the way, as the president and so at least on non-departmental pages or my colleagues. So, I haven't been canceled, I have survived and that's a good reason for places that don't have the University of Chicago principles to adopt them.

As for the phrase terrorist organization, I have tried to justify it. I believe I was justified in using the phrase. I understand that some people feel that I was unjustified in using the phrase. This to me is not a remarkable disagreement. People have disagreements like this all the time.

The important point here is that people are focusing on this one phrase or that one paragraph and ignoring all of the demands in the letter and the things that I said about the other things. It's not that I'm not willing to defend this point, but they're seizing on --

MACCALLUM: Right.

KATZ: -- a piece of rhetoric and ignoring all of the very, very large issues which I don't believe should be ignored. I don't think they think should be ignored either.

MACCALLUM: Well, we're glad that you haven't been canceled for the basic fact that you should have the right to express your opinion and not be afraid or feel that it's not an environment where you can express your opinion and lay out your own arguments because that's what should be happening at universities across this country in a fair and honest exchange.

So, we thank you, Dr. Katz for being here tonight.

KATZ: Thank you very much for having me, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, let's bring in Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "The Case for Trump."

Victor, you've heard this discussion, and I know you've read about Dr. Katz's situation. What do you think first of all of the demands that this Princeton faculty made in the first place to treat people differently based on the color of their skin?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTE: Well, as Professor Kat said, they're illegal, you can't let a university on Orwellian principles like that. But it's a good -- it's a good example. If one -- one person and Professor Katz is a world-renowned linguist and comparative philologist. But if one person speaks out, look who he was speaking out against, Martha.

The president of Princeton University is a constitutional scholar. Classics department is supposed to be devotees of Socratic proof and constitutional history and (Inaudible) and Aristotle. And they were on the wrong side morally and on the wrong side of history, much less Princeton University itself. But he spoke out and what happened? It dissolved.

And that's what we are seeing now we're are reaching peak Jacobinism. And by that, I mean, that Professor Pinker of Harvard spoke out. The Wall Street Journal just recently said we are not going to involve ourselves in this ridiculous cancel culture.

Then we had Bari Weiss at the New York Times, the Harper's letter, Goya failed boycott. We had A&E losing half of its audience because one show was canceled.

I think what we're seeing is that we are reaching the peak of this and it sort of a bluster and it's like a big helium balloon that it takes one fair-minded brave scholar like Professor Pinker or Professor Katz to put a hole in it and remind everybody that this is sort of like the Salem witch trials or the 1793 reign of terror in France. That it's some period of mass insanity and mass hysteria and if you stand up to it, it will pass and restore, you know, restore calm and sanity of the country.

But you have to stand up to it. If you don't, and you grabble and you apologize you just feed this monster.

MACCALLUM: Great point as always. And you know, you have to feel bad for the people who get caught up in that peak moment --

HANSON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- because usually cooler heads eventually prevail. And I think all the examples that you gave --

HANSON: They do.

MACCALLUM: -- are a point to the fact that that's starting to happen.

Victor Davis Hanson, sir, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

So, days after the NBA unveiled black lives matter on their basketball courts, professional baseball players last night got back to the game and they kneeled in support of the movement as well, praise -- raising the debate about whether political statement are appropriate and are fair game in sports.

Jack Brewer when The Story continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: As professional sports begin again and hurray for that on this Friday evening, many leagues and teams are out with the bolden brace of the Black Lives Matter movement as they get back on the field in the court.

The NBA this week made a statement on its games court -- on its game court and then at the home opener Thursday night of the Yankees and the Nationals players took a knee in tribute to the Black Lives Matter movement. Similar gestures took place at the Giants and Dodgers game except for one player which got a lot of attention.

San Francisco Giants pitcher, Sam Coonrod refused to kneel and he said this was why. He says I'm a Christian. I can't kneel before anything besides God. I can't get on board with a couple of things that I've read about Black Lives Matter. How they leaned towards Marxism and they've said some negative things about the nuclear family. I just can get on board with that.

That from the Giants pitcher.

Joining me now is Jack Brewer, a former professional football player and CEO of the Brewer Group.

Jack, always good to have you with us. Thanks for joining us tonight.

JACK BREWER, CEO, THE BREWER GROUP INC.: Good to be back.

MACCALLUM: So, what goes through your mind as you see these symbols on the NBA court and then also the long line, I mean, I remember when this kneeling action started it was Colin Kaepernick alone. But now it will be probably close to everyone I would imagine.

BREWER: It really is, you know, for me, I get saddened when I see it. I see, you know, a culture that's kneeling down for black lives matter when their doctrine is antifamily. Their doctrine is antichrist. This is an antichrist movement.

If you look, you know, they are promoting our sexual morality issues that go completely against the bible. It's like and these folks are kneeling to this movement and not kneeling for God. You know, you remove God from every portion of our society. And it's time for athletes to start stepping up for religion and for our religious freedoms and the things that are really affecting our communities.

You know, we have a spiritual war going on in our country and for Black Lives Matter to hijack that word. Black Lives Matter, yes, they should matter to everybody. But the actual organization is representing the things that are across our society, antifamily, when fatherlessness is running rapid in our country and the people that we see in our streets, the folks that are locked up.

You are six times more likely to live in poverty if you don't have a father. You're 20 times more likely to go to prison if you don't have a father. The same people that are having the run-ins with the law enforcement officers are fatherless.

And this, this organization, Black Lives Matter in their doctrine in their mission statement says they are against the patriarch system. The bible calls for patriarchy. The bible calls for us to have sexual morality not sexual immorality.

This has to end and it's time for athletes across America to stand up for what's right, what's right in the word of God and stop letting this shame, the shaming and this cancel culture completely destroy our nation. Enough is enough. Our kids are dying in the streets every weekend.

MACCALLUM: I can't imagine anyone could say it better than you just did and it would be so great to see a lot more activism aimed at what you're talking about in terms of keeping families together and the importance of fathers and what a difference they make in the success ability for the kids educationally and in life.

This is Lou Holtz. I spoke with him for my podcast. Just listen to what he said when I asked him about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOU HOLTZ, FORMER COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH: When I look at the sporting event I looked to be entertained and I look at competitiveness and not to get a political message or something else. Don't tell me what I should believe, how I should say, et cetera.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I mean, it is. It's divisive if you look at that picture standing there, so it, you know, forces this conversation between players in the place where it would be kind of nice to leave all of that aside, I think everybody needs a little bit of an escape from everything that's going on right now.

BREWER: Yes, you're so right. I mean, think about sports should be reuniting us. And now you're seeing it divide our nation. And it's just not right.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BREWER: Major League Baseball is America's game and we got to get back to that unity one blood, one nation in Jesus Christ's name.

MACCALLUM: All right. Jack, I got to jump in, we're going to get off. Thank you very much, Jack Brewer. We're going to be right --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: That is The Story of Friday, July 24th, 2020.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.