This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 22, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Great family. All right. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to “The Story.” I'm Martha MacCallum. So, there were no classes today at Covington High School. The teachers and the parents feared for the safety after students were branded racists in a story that let's say on the theme got out over its skis a bit, and is now kind of retracting into a shell of embarrassment in an apparent attempt by some to just disappear.

But the part of the story where anyone wearing a hat like this, that says "Make America great" on it is potentially committing a racist offense. Sticks around tonight and it attaches itself to the narrative that often gets played out against the President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE LOCKHART, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN: This idea that we're a country that deals in fear, dears in -- deals in bigotry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He certainly said racist things, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is in his heart, he would appear to be a racist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, look for knowing what is in the president's heart, either way, to be a running debate as we go into 2020. But is that a fair fight?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT: We now have a President of the United States who is a racist.

ANDERSON COOPER, ANCHOR, CNN: Do you believe President Trump is a racist?

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: Yes, yes. No question.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.,: The birther in chief. The grand wizard of 1,600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: In moments, former Congressman Trey Gowdy on how we can bridge the gap on this issue. But first, joining me here in the studio, Dan Henninger, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor, and Fox News contributor. And Juan Williams, Fox News political analyst, and co-host of "THE FIVE.

So, as I said, Juan, and I saw you kind of shake your head a little bit, you know, people definitely got out over their skis on this story. Would you agree with that?

JUAN WILLIAMS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, because they saw only part of it. I mean, but to me, the real story here and there's lots of different angles depending on the visions or perspectives you have is that you saw today, Twitter suspend this 2020 fight feed web site that had been feeding.

This when they discovered it wasn't a teacher in California with somebody in Brazil. And these people have been trying to divide us, Martha, quite intentionally. And the mainstream media and others have picked it up because now, kind of both the extremes, far left and far right had their own narratives and seek to somehow take advantage of this.

In addition, we just saw additional video come forward of some young woman who ran into this school group and said they were shouting offensive things to them before the encounter with the Native American.

MACCALLUM: But you know -- you know, goes back down to me, and I watched most of -- most of the main video. And then, I saw the one that Juan refers to today. Is this issue -- I've just like -- you know, everyone -- just do everyone knows what's in everybody's heart apparently?

Everybody digs it, you know, these boys are bigots, their parents are -- you know, horrible people for raising such bad children. Know all cost support, everybody just already knows what their intentions are.

DAN HENNINGER, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Well, that's exactly right, Martha. But it's intriguing here, you have just said, some of them think they are bigots, Juan was saying, the remarks and the behavior were offensive.

The one word neither of you have used that we have heard several times here in the opening was "racist". Is the president in United States as Bernie Sanders says a racist?

And I think racism is one of the most serious charges you can make against somebody. The idea that some class or group of people are somehow genetically inferior and ought to be repressed. That is the understanding of racism. And the left has now begun used this word over and over again, I think is a kind of form of moral imperialism to drive their opponents out of political debate, and simply silence them.

So, the idea that America -- Make America Great hat, again is racist is simply a corruption of language.

MACCALLUM: Yes, you know, it seems to me you can look at words, and you can look at actions, right? And so, you know, I know there are -- there are definitely moments in this presidency that people feel the President spoke in a way that was racially insensitive. Charlottesville, for example, OK?

But you go through the actions of the -- of the presidency, the policies of the presidency, are they racist? I mean, is there -- is the argument that's being made by these Democratic candidates that there's this blanket racism charge that applies to this presidency is tougher I think when you dig into his actions?

WILLIAMS: I don't. You know, I've written a book on this subject. You know, What the Hell Do You Have To Lose? Trump's War in Civil Rights. And let me just say, Martha, that you know, Fox polls, Quinnipiac polls, say about half of Americans say the president is a racist.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that's partly because they're told that every single day?

WILLIAMS: I don't think that. I think people are smart enough. I think Americans are smart enough. I think, by the way, I couldn't agree with Dan where it's just a difficult word to get out of your mouth. I don't want to say it about anybody. I think it shuts down conversation. Shuts down the ability for us to hear each other.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What do you think about all those Democratic candidates (INAUDIBLE)?

WILLIAMS: But no. I mean, if you spoke to something that's very important, policy. And when you look at his policy in terms of voter suppression, voter I.D. When you look at the biggest civil rights issue on the map today, Black Lives Matter, the police relationship with communities. Here's Justice Department, pulling back from consent decrees. You look at education.

Again, opposition to minority, affirmative action. Saying, "Oh Asians are discriminated against, or whites are discriminated against." What we see here consistently with the calling the NFL players who are out against police brutality. SOBs that should be fired. Maxine Waters, a low intelligence person. That kind of rhetoric, you know, even Republicans, let me just say. Republicans, 22 percent of Republicans in the poll I cited say, Trump has emboldened racist in our society.

MACCALLUM: Dan, I'm going to let you respond to that then we're going to Trey Gowdy.

HENNINGER: Well, I mean the remarks are often boorish and offensive but they're not racist. I flatly do not believe --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What about policy? That on were first.

HENNINGER: You can have disagreements over policy over questions like affirmative action. Whether such the Asian lawsuit up at Harvard questions the issue of affirmative action whether we should find a better way forward. That is an argument worth having, and how it's affecting the lives of Black Americans.

But to simply dismiss Donald Trump and all of his supporters as racist is a corruption and a destruction of argument.

WILLIAMS: I agree with that, by the way. It's not a blanket.

MACCALLUM: Gentlemen.

HENNINGER: It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be at all but that is where we are.

MACCALLUM: That is where we are, sadly. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Good to have you both here tonight.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Martha. Let's take a step back tonight to something that South Carolina Senator Tim Scott said on this show, the other night about how it might be possible to bridge this deepening divide. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM SCOTT, R-S.C.: We, as a Conservative Party have an opportunity to be heard by every single American in every court or the country if we are able to overcome some of the overtones that come from members of our party.

And by doing so, we'll talk about the fact that this president, President Trump has led to the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for African Americans. The lowest ever recorded unemployment rate for Hispanics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy is a close friend of Senator Scott. Illiterately -- literally wrote a book together about unifying the political divide, and he joins me now. Congressman, good to see you. Great to have you with us tonight.

TREY GOWDY, R-S.C., FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, when you listen to that intro. And, you know, this idea that anyone who wears a Make America Great hat is basically, you know, running into the same kind of buzz saw that happened in your state over the Confederate flag, for example. And that the president is seen by Democratic candidates as a racist and called that on a daily basis.

GOWDY: I'm just stunned that folks can look into other people's hearts. I've never tried to do it. I don't assign motives to people. I like Juan Williams, but he used, to just use the phrase war on civil rights. That is incredibly charged language.

Particularly if you're a person of color. And you hear that a party has a war on civil rights. You mentioned Tim Scott and his reference to unemployment and underemployment being down. He's also the author of something called Opportunity Zones.

It was Republicans who passed criminal justice reform, Republican House, Republican Senate, signed by a Republican. So, Tim is exactly right. We need to talk about policy. The rhetoric coming from some Republicans is indefensible, it is -- it should be categorically rejected.

But when I look at the Republican Party, I see Tim Scott and I see, Elise Stefanik. I don't see Steve King.

MACCALLUM: Well, when you look at -- you know, you talk about looking into someone's heart, I was going through some of the notes from when I talked to Senator Scott. And he essentially, you know, he was asked about Jeff Sessions and why he didn't come out and condemn him more forcefully over the issue of separation of family and all that. He said, "Because I took the time to get to know him, and I don't believe that what is being said about him is accurate."

GOWDY: I was with Tim. Tim told then-Senator suctions. I'm not going to vote for you unless you come to Charleston. I was at the table. There were ministers of color, there were law enforcement officers of color. And Tim was not going to support him until he knew and his well of souls that this is somebody who understands the plight, or at least, makes the effort to understand the plight of black and brown people.

So, that is not rhetoric from Tim Scott, he actually did it. I was at the table that this is what Republicans I think need to come to grips with. And this is advice that I got from a Democrat.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GOWDY: Luis Gutierrez, is who told me this. People will vote for you if they don't like you. They'll never vote for you if they think you don't like them. So, the policies, the Tim Scott's, the Elise Stefanik's, the new generation of Republicans, they are doing great but we have to be very mindful of the rhetoric that we use and the rhetoric that we condone on the Republican side, or we will continue to struggle in communities of color in this country, electorally.

MACCALLUM: What do you see when you look into the eyes of the boy from Covington High School and the Native American elder?

GOWDY: I see what happens when the media decides to make something viral. They could have picked a lot of things that happened over this weekend including lots of examples of my fellow citizens being kind and generous and considerate to one another.

That doesn't go viral. It doesn't make the news. I don't know either of the people in this video. I honestly, because I don't know them. I could care less what they think about almost any issue that impacts our country.

So, at least, take the time to get to know someone before you assign motives or assign what is in their heart. I just think it's a sad reflection on where we are politically, and media-wise that something like this would dominate the news cycle and not examples of my fellow citizens being considerate and kind to one another because that far outpaces, anything like what was represented in that video.

MACCALLUM: Trey Gowdy is going to stick around over this commercial break to weigh in on the breaking news on President Trump's State of the Union plans. Coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE: She cited security concerns as a potential reason to delay it. Those concerns were addressed by the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service. At this point, we are moving forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Sarah Huckabee Sanders moments ago is saying that the White House is moving forward with State of the Union plans. Sources telling Fox News tonight that while the President is full speed ahead, drama over the shutdown and Nancy Pelosi's call to cancel the speech are leading to some alternative possible plans.

The White House is working on a Plan B possibly outside Washington and other outlets are reporting that it could be similar to a political rally, an idea that we first floated here, actually, last week when we talked to Sean Spicer. So would that happen? Would that be a good idea? Joining me once again former Congressman Trey Gowdy.

So first of all, you know can -- just in terms of the rules, can the President forge ahead? He can't just walk over there and walk in the door and start giving an address? Can he?

GOWDY: No. I mean, the floor of the House belongs to the people's House. And right now for whatever reason, the voters decided to let Nancy Pelosi control that. He can go to the Senate. He can go to another venue in Washington. I talked to two of my friends before I came on air with you tonight. Both of whom are in leadership in the House on the Republican side. One thinks it will go forward next week and the other does not.

He has not been officially uninvited but there are things that need to be done this week that have been canceled. So where it takes place, the venue and the time is less important to me than the message. It is a unique opportunity for the leader of the free world to communicate to all Americans at once about the state of our country. I hope that he will do it. I hope it won't be a rally. I hope he will gather lawmakers who are willing to come and do it in a setting as close to the to the floor of the House as he can -- as he can come.

MACCALLUM: So you would advise against. So I mean, a joint resolution of Congress needs 60 votes on the Senate side I believe to get together even if it's on the Senate side according to what Chad Pergram is telling us. I mean, it is possible, but as you say the invitation was not officially rescinded and maybe Nancy Pelosi will not choose to go that far down that road. What do you think?

GOWDY: He was not uninvited. She just asked him to postpone it. But look, Paul Ryan gave his farewell address at the Library of Congress. There are lots of beautiful historic venues in Washington that would be a great backdrop for the President of the United States to address the citizenry. And it ought to be done on the floor of the House. That's where it ought to be done. But if she doesn't want it done there, he ought to go forward, don't do a rally.

This is for everyone including people that don't agree with you, including for Americans who will never vote for you. This is the leader of the free world, the leader of our country addressing the citizenry. I would encourage him not to do it in a rally.

MACCALLUM: Well, it'll be interesting to see the optics as we like to say of her sitting behind him at that speech whether or not Nancy Pelosi would show up to do that is all a question as you point out. It's just really important that he'd be able to address the United States in the way that he sees fit. I want to get your quick thoughts on this.

Joe Neguse, representative Joe Neguse, Democrat from Colorado believes that Judge Kavanaugh when he was in his hearings committed perjury and as a new member of the House Judiciary Committee, he would like to open an investigation into that. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOE NEGUSE, D-COLO.: There's no question, he committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth. So I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So they're likely going to take that up. He did not -- he did not point out any particular instance of perjury which is obviously a serious claim but he didn't back it up with any specific whatsoever, Trey.

GOWDY: It's so reckless on so many levels. Number one, the House of Representatives doesn't decide if somebody commits perjury. You have to be indicted and then tried by a jury of your peers and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And even if someone did commit perjury somewhere in America, the House of Representatives can't do a doggone thing about it.

So the recklessness of concluding that that someone committed perjury and then trying to convince your constituents that you can actually do something about it as a level of recklessness that even surprises me for the Democrats on Judiciary.

MACCALLUM: What about the possibility of impeaching a Supreme Court Justice?

GOWDY: Good luck. I think you got a win in the Senate. I don't see 67 votes in the Senate. But whatever happened to a presumption of innocence? Whatever happened to an investigation? Whatever happened to saying with particularity this is what you said that was materially false and that we can prove it instead of just getting a cheap applause line from constituents back home. I think both sides ought to be really careful criminalizing the fact that they don't like certain people. It's reckless.

MACCALLUM: Accordingly -- apparently, I should say, Christine Blasey- Ford's attorney said that she has no interest in trying to remove him from the bench. She wanted to be heard and she was heard and she has no interest in seeing any of that further. So we'll see where that goes. Trey Gowdy, Congressman, thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.

MACCALLUM: You bet. So accusations of espionage, state secrets, and now a new twist today in the case of an American who is now being held by Russia. Tonight, the brother of Paul Whelan is here exclusively joining me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Today, Russia denying bail to an American and former U.S. Marine who has been held in the country on suspicion of spying for nearly a month now. And tonight an attorney for Paul Whelan says that his client was handed a flash drive containing state secrets prior to his arrest. In moments, we will hear exclusively from Paul's brother, David. But first, Trace Gallagher has our back story tonight from L.A. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, HOST: Good evening, Martha. The Russian government contends that Paul Whelan was caught red-handed with Russian state secrets that reportedly included a list of Russian Defense Department employees who work in espionage and have access to classified information.

The allegation is that Whelan was trying to recruit Russian nationals to provide intelligence, though it is unclear what country Whelan is accused of spying for. He holds U.S., Canadian, British, and Irish citizenship. And some Russian authorities believe he's been spying on Moscow for 10 years. Whelan's family calls the claim preposterous.

But Paul Whelan's Russian attorney says his client was given a flash drive containing Russian state secrets but the lawyer contends that Whelan never looked at the flash drive and assumed it contained random information Whelan had requested from a friend. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR ZHEREBENKOV, LAWYER OF PAUL WHELAN (through translator): In reality, Paul was expecting to receive some personal information which is not a state secret. Information concerning culture for instance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes, like pictures, video, and other travel information. Though the person who gave him the flash drive has not been identified. Remember, Whelan who works as a global security director for a Michigan Auto Parts Company was in Russia for a friend's wedding just before Christmas. The State Department says it's confident Whelan is not a spy and Whelan's family believes he may have been entrapped.

The family is also worried about his ability to present his defense in English. Whelan made his first public court appearance today though he was held in a glass cage and did not speak to reporters. The judge ordered that he stayed behind bars until at least the end of February. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thanks, Trace. Joining me now in a STORY exclusive, Paul Whelan's brother David. David, good evening. Thank you so much for being here tonight. You know, the first thing that goes through my mind is what does it like to look at your brother standing there in that -- in that glass box in Russia?

DAVID WHELAN, BROTHER OF PAUL WHELAN: It was hard. It was hard for everybody in the family. We haven't seen him for over a month, any pictures of him Oh in over a month and that's not how you want to see a family member.

MACCALLUM: Did you feel like otherwise he looked like he's OK?

WHELAN: Yes. I mean, he looked a little bit like Paul when he's being pretty serious and I think he understands the consequences of a court case in Russia. And although he didn't seem to actually understand what was going on, he looked quite quizzical or puzzled to me in many of the pictures, but I think he understands the seriousness of it.

MACCALLUM: It's so unnerving. We're just watching people speak to him you know, through the crack in the door when he's probably as you say, trying to you know, get some clarification on what they're saying, what's going on. Talk to me about what the Russian attorneys, Zherebenkov said -- he said he can confirm that at the time of his detention Whelan had some documents containing state secrets but I cannot go into details and it was not clear whether how he received the documents or whether he was aware that they were on him, that he had them. What do you think about that?

WHELAN: Well, it's not surprising in a sense. We haven't had any official information from the Russian government about why Paul was arrested, how he was arrested, what he received as far as what they're alleging he did for spying. It's unfortunate really that we continue to hear just bits and pieces from either Paul's lawyer or from leaks to other Russian media about what apparently happened. I think it's clear to me now.

Certainly, I guess it's been clear to many people for a while that whatever happened Paul has been used as a pawn -and this is entrapment.

If it was indeed, if it was a real espionage case, I think we would have someone who was also under arrest and under similar charges for having transferred the information to Paul.

MACCALLUM: I mean, that is an FSB tactic that has been written about and talked about in the past where they try to plant some evidence on you and as soon as that happened it appears other individuals rushed into the hotel room and they grabbed him.

What are you hearing from Ambassador Huntsman or from the State Department? Initially, Secretary Pompeo's response is to whether or not Paul was a spy was somewhat ambiguous.

WHELAN: Right. And I think at this point it's probably the same statement, which is that, if the charges are unfounded, then they'll bring Paul home. And I think the frustration that we have now is that it's almost a month that Paul has been in detention and nobody seems to be able to get the information from the Russians about what happened and to show that the charges are unfounded.

Unfortunately, I think that means that Paul is going to stay in detention for many months now while this fiasco of a legal process drags on. And the only thing that the family can rely on is that the U.S. embassy staff and the counselor staff from Canada and Ireland and U.K. are also at least able to get into to see Paul as long as the Russians continue to allow that.

MACCALLUM: So, is there any part of you that thinks that your brother could potentially have a double life?

WHELAN: No, not as a spy, there's just no way.

MACCALLUM: David, thank you. Keep us posted, thanks for being here tonight. All the best.

WHELAN: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet.

So, coming up, still ahead tonight, Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio says that it is immoral to be a billionaire -- not all billionaires, but some billionaires.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: do you think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Big story developing here. The Supreme Court siding with President Trump's call to restrict transgender troops from serving in the military. It was a five-four decision, allows the ban to continue while a legal fight persists in the lower courts. The DOJ applauding the move, Democrats slamming this move and some service members aren't quite sure what to think.

Here now to break it down, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst. This was something that General Mattis agreed with. He wanted to put a hold on admitting transgender military for essentially further evaluation I guess in terms of the impact on our armed forces.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, the decision that is not on the merits, that is they didn't decide whether or not the president has the authority to do it, they just decided not to interfere with the president's management of the military while this case is challenged.

It does not remove anybody that's transgendered and is already in the military, it just blocks new people who identify as being transgendered from entering the military.

So, there will be, listen to this, there will be five trials throughout the United States, because there are all these different challenges. I also think the chief justice should consolidate them all at one time and at one place and before one judge. But during the pendency of the trial did the president violate their constitutional rights?

He can enforce the ban, that's all that happened today.

MACCALLUM: Excuse me.

NAPOLITANO: God bless you.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I was trying to --

NAPOLITANO: Will this -- right. Will this come back to the Supreme Court, yes, it will come back to the Supreme Court after the trials are resolved and after the appellate courts are resolved.

One of the things -- I'm smiling, you know why in a minute. One of the things the DOJ wanted was for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits now before it goes to the ninth circuit because they are sort of predicting the president himself has said this --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Right. What will happen --

NAPOLITANO: -- which way they think the ninth circuit will --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Do you think it's constitutional to ban transgenders from the military?

NAPOLITANO: I think that they have a very good argument that their personal sexual decisions are immune from interference or punishment by the government, they also think that their argument about it it's a motive of expression. It's not a motive of expression I would use, but it's a motive of expression they would use and that might be protected in the First Amendment.

It's certainly worth exploring. These are not cases that are going to be dismissed.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

NAPOLITANO: They are cases that are going to be tried.

MACCALLUM: You know, if someone is able to serve their country, they would be able to serve their country.

NAPOLITANO: But here's the -- correct. The other argument is the president is the commander in chief of the military. And his decisions about the movement of troops and who can become a soldier and who can't should not likely be interfered with. Those are the two arguments that, should judges be making these decisions in our system, that's where it ends up.

MACCALLUM: All right. A totally different topic, Rudy Giuliani has spent the last 48 hours basically correcting and, you know, changing out statements that he made about Michael Cohen and President Trump, and to what extent and for how long into the election period. They discussed the possibility of a Trump project in Moscow.

Your thoughts on how he is handling this. How does this look and what does it reveal?

NAPOLITANO: The initial appearance is that Rudy is a cheerleader for the president and is loose with the facts. But on closer examination it appears to me that Rudy Giuliani is the president's champion, not just as his lawyer but as a sort of P.R. person and is willing if he can to sacrifice his own image to lower the bar so that if the president is charged with a crime or an impeachable offense, it will be rejected by the public.

My other argument is there's an old rule of thumb that trial lawyers follow. If there is damaging information about your client, better it comes out of your mouth and out of the government's mouth.

So, Rudy has a good idea from all of his negotiations with Bob Mueller over whether or not the president is going to testify before a grand jury or sit down for an interview with Bob Mueller.

Rudy has got a good idea of what Mueller and company have on or about the president. If he can slowly release that drip, drip, drip, as opposed to the government coming down like an anvil and a pond all at once, it will be more palatable to the public and less shocking when it comes out.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I think you're on to something there. Yes. I think there is, you know, potentially an effort to sort of lower the expectations, then the response is, well, we've heard, we heard about this, we know about this --

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: Right, right

MACCALLUM: -- it's out there, it's in the bloodstream a little bit and it gives them a little bit more control.

NAPOLITANO: But that means Rudy takes the hits in the interim and he is taking them. And if he go in judicial --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. Put up -- put up the quote today from the New Yorker today. A reporter saying things for Trump not always being truthful about it, do you ever worry that that will be your legacy, does that worry you in any way? And Giuliani's response is absolutely, I'm afraid it will be on my gravestone. Rudy Giuliani, he lied for Trump.

NAPOLITANO: That I couldn't believe he said. But anybody willing to go that far is willing to do anything for the client, anything.

MACCALLUM: Judge, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, congresswoman, blasting capitalists, billionaires, and anyone who is not on board with her take on climate change.

Marc Thiessen and Chris Hahn are here and I think this is going to be a hot debate coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue --

(APPLAUSE)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: -- is your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And like, this is the war. This is our World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making an unabashed push for a Democratic socialist America speaking at an MLK event where she was basically going after the institution of capitalism, she called the economic platform immoral because she says it allows for billionaires to -- play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we live in an immoral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome in it of itself?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: No. It's not. It's not. I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Here now, Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise scholar and Fox News contributor, and Christopher Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and a syndicated radio host. Good to have both of you with us tonight.

MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: It's good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: She's a Democratic socialist, it should come as any surprise that she thinks that everyone should basically have their income allocated to them in a way that the government sees fit, not in a way that they have raised their own money and they live their life. Right, Chris? I mean, it's not a big surprise.

CHRISTOPHER HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER: That's not really what she said. What she said was it's really bad that there are people in this country who are still getting diseases that should have been eradicated decades ago while there are people living in access.

And that is a popular opinion right now if you look at polls, that pulls a lot better than anything the president has proposed for economics in this country. It's an economic populist message that is popular and that is resonating.

And one thing I love most about her is she really riles up conservatives every time she speaks and I hope she keeps speaking.

MACCALLUM: I mean, I would imagine she's riling up a lot of Democrats too, you know, who believe in capitalism, Chris. No?

HAHN: Yes, look, I believe in -- I believe in capitalism but I also believe that we shouldn't live in a country where people have nothing.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, you think it's all about -- it's all about income disparity, and you know, she's saying, Marc.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: That basically she doesn't want the kind of poverty that leads to lack of health care to exist --

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- when people are allowed to have billions of dollars and be fat cats essentially.

THIESSEN: Well, first of all, I mean, the fact is ringworm isn't deadly, it's a -- I mean, people get ring -- you know, it's like foot fungus.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It's not fun though.

THIESSEN: This is not like --

MACCALLUM: It's not great.

THIESSEN: This is not a -- there is not a ringworm crisis in America.

MACCALLUM: It doesn't, you know, we better not to have it.

THIESSEN: It's just an ignorant statement and the problem she's having is she's making ignorant statement after ignorant statement, she hasn't misspelled potato yet but she's on her way.

And the reality is that if you keep saying things that are factually incorrect or just ridiculous on their face, I mean, the Washington Post fact-checker, my newspaper just not -- which is not -- who is not a conservative, he's already given her six false statements so far and she's only been in office for a couple of weeks.

She said the world is going to end in 12 years. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that over time if you do -- if she keeps this up and doesn't start getting smart and briefed, everyone makes fun of Donald Trump he doesn't read his briefing papers --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Let's -- hold on.

THIESSEN: She's going to become --

MACCALLUM: Hold on, guys. Can we play the sound bite that Marc just referred to? And then Chris, I'll go right to you. Go ahead.

HAHN: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Millennials and people in gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up. And we're like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

(APPLAUSE)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: -- is -- your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And like, this is the war, this is our World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, she's making the World War II comparison. Chris, your reaction.

HAHN: Yes. Well, climate change is an existential threat to western life as we know it. It might not be 12 years away but it is a real threat and we do need a marshal like a plan to combat it and people are just talking about the costs and that seems to be where we go. I wouldn't say that that was an ignorant statement at all, I think she was quoting what many millennials believe about climate right now.

(CROSSTALK)

THIESSEN: The world is going to end in 12 years is not ignorant?

MACCALLUM: It may be what many millennials believe, Marc --

HAHN: I think many --

MACCALLUM: -- but is it true, you know, just because a lot of people believe it doesn't necessarily make it true.

THIESSEN: What she doesn't seem to understand, Martha, is that here's a fact. Since 1990, the number of people living in extreme poverty in the world has been reduced by 73 percent. We found out that in September more for the first time in 10,000 years of human history, more people are middle-class, the majority of the people in the world are now middle-class or wealthy. That's never happened in human history.

When did that happen? It started in 1990 when the onward march of socialism stopped what and the advance of freedom and democracy and capitalism began.

HAHN: Yes.

THIESSEN: And she's trying to take us back to a system that help people back from rising up --

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: No.

THIESSEN: -- through poverty. It's free markets, free enterprise that have lifted more people out of poverty than any system in human history and she's trying to destroy it.

MACCALLUM: Well, I'll tell you what. You know what, she -- I mean, she's incredibly charismatic, she gets attention, she speaks passionately.

HAHN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: She's going to get a lot of attention --

HAHN: She does.

MACCALLUM: -- and she's going to continue to and it's going to be such a clear divide between the two, sort of alternatives in her -- I mean, she's not old enough to run for president but you know, six years from now she would be old enough to run for president.

THIESSEN: No.

MACCALLUM: But it definitely created on a clear divide in the thinking in this country and she's pointing that out on a daily basis.

I got to go there. Thank you very much.

THIESSEN: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Next time I promise.

HAHN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, guys. See you next time. So, question, should the Pledge of Allegiance be altered to please immigrants in making it in a different language? We're going to show you what I mean. It's an idea that's being floated by Cesar Vargas who is a DREAMer, he's here illegally. He's an attorney. He's going to join us for a live debate with Mr. Charlie Hurt, coming up next. Thanks, gentlemen. Right after the break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And we place our hands on our hearts as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proclaim, we are one nation, under God.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: U.S. leaders of all political stripes alongside brand-new American citizens proudly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. But tonight, one of my guests argues that the pledge is not inclusive of immigrants and that, quote, "its history is deeply rooted in nativism and white supremacy."

Cesar Vargas is a DREAMer who served as national Latino strategist for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. He is the first openly undocumented attorney in New York State but he is now the proud holder of a green card. Also, Charlie Hurt in Washington, the Washington Times opinion editor and Fox News contributor. Welcome. Good to have both of you with us.

CESAR VARGAS, FORMER BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Good evening.

MACCALLUM: Let's jump right in here, Cesar. How is it nativist and white supremacist the pledge that we all just watched?

VARGAS: Well, its historical fact. It's not a political opinion. The fact is that Minister Bellamy when he created the Pledge of Allegiance, he meant to define true Americanism as someone that excluded being African-American, being Latino, or any person of color especially immigrants.

Those were the people who were coming in early in the 20th century European, Eastern Europeans who were supposedly invading the country, so it's a historical fact that this Pledge of Allegiance, the original one that we have currently now excluded people including my own family coming here.

MACCALLUM: I don't hear any of that in the language that we just heard from all those different people from all different countries all around the world. But here is your proposed pledge. "I pledge allegiance and love to our indigenous and immigrant heritage, rooted in the United States of America, to our civil rights for which we strive, one voice, one nation for equality and justice for all." Charlie, what do you think?

CHARLIE HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, America has always been more than anything, an ideal, it's not necessarily just a geographic location, it's an ideal, and it's a place where we believe that there is equal justice under the law, and we believe that all men are created equal. We believe in things like religious tolerance.

Those are the things that are embodied in the Pledge of Allegiance and in all of the founding documents of our country. And those are things that have no respect whatsoever for race, creed, color of skin, or even where you came from.

If you are here legally and you're abiding by the rules, abiding by the laws, then you are allowed to partake in the American dream and that's what we should be focused on.

This idea of going back and ripping up the Pledge of Allegiance is so stupid, and this is always the problem in our country. Whenever we look backwards, we do stupid things. If we look forward and fix real things like the broken -- the broken border that invites young children to be dragged across a very dangerous trek only to die at the border, things like that -- why don't we focus on fixing things like that? Why do we fix things like Democrats in Congress --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's ask Cesar. Why don't we focus on fixing things like that and not worry about, you know, you talk about the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance but when you listen to the words there is elasticity in those words that seems to have suited everyone very, very well. One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice, for all, not for some people, for all people, and that includes all people who all immigrants, generations of immigrants who come here legally as so many have, Cesar. That's a beautiful thing.

VARGAS: Well, we have seen the Pledge of Allegiance has undergone change. We added the United States of America, we added under God. So, it's not stupid to change it, we have changed it already. And also, most importantly, the reality is that when we are talking about ideals.

Yes, let's talk ideals. We don't feel, people don't feel like the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is respecting those rights that Charlie is talking about, people don't feel that the Pledge of Allegiance speaks to them because we are seeing African-Americans being stopped by police and being killed by police.

We see that Pledge of Allegiance not protecting people from Puerto Rico who are U.S. citizens and the federal government has abandoned them.

So, when we are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, yes, it makes people uncomfortable. But, so did declaring the independence from the British, so is --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Why would -- hold on.

VARGAS: So is abolishing the slavery, so is giving the right to vote to women. It makes people uncomfortable but necessary.

MACCALLUM: I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any connection to the words of the Pledge of Allegiance and why those words would make anyone uncomfortable. I got 10 seconds, Charlie. Go ahead.

HURT: We're always a nation trying to perfect ourselves and when we are doing that, we are a much better place. And let's just keep doing that and stop looking backwards.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, guys. Good to have both of you with us tonight.

HURT: Thank you.

VARGAS: Thank you so much for having me.

MACCALLUM: So that is The Story on this Tuesday night. Tomorrow, my exclusive interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tomorrow night at 7 p.m. Eastern, do not miss it. We look forward to bring that to you tomorrow evening. Thanks for being here, 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.