Mary Jo Kopechne's cousin reacts to 'Chappaquiddick' film

close

Video

Mary Jo Kopechne's cousin reacts to 'Chappaquiddick' film

Speculation continues about the circumstances surrounding Mary Jo Kopechne's death and Senator Ted Kennedy's actions. Georgetta Potoski, a cousin and confidant of Mary Jo's, shares insight on 'The Story.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 6, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Thanks, Bret. I had 13 on a whole last weekend, but that's normal for me. So, breaking tonight, President Trump saying, essentially, no pain, no gain when it comes to China. The vibrato rattled the markets big time, but the president says, they will adjust in time, and that this is "something that we have to do". China is calling it American arrogance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For many years, no president wanted to go against China economically. And we are going to do it. I have great respect for the President of China, President Xi, he's a friend of mine. And I'm a friend of his and I like him a lot, but he's representing China and I'm representing the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And there lies the difference. The president's move to threaten an additional $100 billion in tariffs, really should come as no surprise. He has promised this action for decades. He was clear on it all through the campaign trail and appears willing to call China's bluffs and to let the U.S. market gyrate in the process. And that is exactly what happened tonight. The Dow is down 570 points and that was one of the better numbers of the day. Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry joins me now with the latest. Hang onto your seat.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely, Martha. And there's really no surprise when you think about the fact that President Trump promised over and over in the campaign to get tough on China, that's straightforward. What's complicated is that by keeping that promise, there could be some real economic issues, but also some political ones in those midterms. The president did a radio interview today in which he said this talk of a trade war is silly. He said, in many ways, we've already fought and lost the trade war. China's cheating has been ignored by Republicans and Democratic presidents. He says, it killed thousands of American factories, millions of American jobs, and we're stuck now with the $500 billion trade deficit.

Here's the thing: even anti-Trump columnist and commentator, Fareed Zakaria, acknowledged today in The Washington Post, "President Trump is right, China is a trade chief. Previous administrations exerted pressure privately, worked within the system, try to get allies on board with limited results. Getting tough on China a case for I am willing to give Trump's unconventional methods a try, nothing else has worked." But the markets rattled as you say, in part, by confusing signals sent by the president's own team. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, today, flat out admitting there is, in fact, potential for a new trade war even as new Chief White House Economic Advisor, Larry Kudlow, keeps trying to calm everyone down by suggesting all of this is just a careful negotiation, to use threats to get China to make even minor concessions that start to level the playing field.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: We are considering adding tariff pressures, considering. I don't want to disrupt the economy, the president doesn't want to disrupt the economy, we need not to disrupt the economy. This is a moderate temperate approach that we are taking. It is moderate, temperate, and proportional. This is not a trade war.

TRUMP: But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished and that's what I'm all about. We have to do things that other people wouldn't do. So, we may take a hit. And you what, ultimately, we're going to be much stronger for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Calm, moderate, but we might take a hit. Well, all of that contributed to the roller coaster markets, along with this statement from the Chinese Commerce Ministry warning, "The Chinese side will follow through to the end. It will not hesitate to fight back at any cost. We're prepared and have already formulated very detailed countermeasures." That includes states where the midterms come into play. China being very crafty about directing their fury at mid-western battlegrounds in Trump country. Cities where soybean, corn, tobacco farmers may take a hit -- not just in 2018. There's another election, Martha, 2020.

MACCALLUM: There is. Ed, thank you very much. So, Hal Lambert is the Founder of Point Bridge Capital and the creator of the MAGA -- Make America Great Again ETF, which is a fund that trades, essentially, Trump friendly stocks and has done quite well. It took a hit today, like everything else, but it's done quite well. Jonah Goldberg, National Review Senior Editor, joins us as well, Fox News contributor as well. Jonah, thanks so much. Great to see you tonight. And Hal, great to see you. So, Hal, you created this fund, which I would imagine did really well as the whole market, because you looked for companies that have Republicans leaning and Republicans thinking leadership in them, right?

HAL LAMBERT, FOUNDER OF POINT BRIDGE CAPITAL: Correct. Yes, I mean, I started this fund in September of last year. It's the top 150 companies in the S&P 500 that supports Republicans including President Trump and has done well since its launch. It's industrials, its financials, it's oil and gas, it's a about a broad spectrum across the financial space.

MACCALLUM: All right. So now, your fund is taking a hit along with the rest of the market. So, why -- you mentioned to me earlier, you said you're not concerned. You believe what President Trump said, that eventually the markets will ride this out and that they will improve?

LAMBERT: Exactly. I think that, you know, the markets focused on very short-term trading patterns. And you know, President Trump has started these negotiations off; it's very public, and he started off with a stick. And China has responded, but the stick is not the final place that we're going to end up. We're going to end up in a place where we're both negotiating, and we're going to come out, I think, in a much stronger position long term. President Trump's a businessman, he's not a politician, and he's focused on putting America first. And China has been a predatory trade partner and it's been an unfair trade for many, many years. The previous administrations have started these negotiations off softly. It's always ended poorly and this is going to be different.

MACCALLUM: You know, it strikes me, Jonah, I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days, you know, reading and thinking about this whole story that we have been in a trade war for a very long time, we just haven't been fighting it. We've been letting it happen. So, why not step it up? And even Fareed Zakaria seems to be agreeing that nothing else has worked.

JONAH GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND SENIOR EDITOR AT NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, I just think there are a couple of things that need to be point out. First of all, it's absolutely true that on an intellectual property theft, China has behaved really badly and so have a lot of American businesses who agree to have -- basically agreed to have the mug and have I.P. taken from them, and then go whining about it to American politicians rather than refusing to be part of it. But if we had to get to tariffs to get some compliance from China, I would be open to all that. Where I see a major disconnect here is this idea that this is a thought out, serious plan about negotiating.

You had Larry Kudlow, who's an old friend of mine, surprised this morning -- he didn't know anything about these hundred billion-dollar tariffs. There is this, basically, I think what Donald Trump believe in, is in protectionism. He was honest about that, he campaigned on that. The markets don't believe in it. Companies that, you know, sell our products overseas like Boeing and our farmers in all of them, they don't believe in it. And we can't get a coherent message including the Chinese. We've been the same for months. They just want to know what the administration wants from the.

MACCALLUM: But, you know, when you look back at the early stages of this discussion, and I like looking way back. Because he's been talking about this in New York for the past 30 years -- first with Japan and then with China. Just saying, it's not fair, you know, this isn't a level playing field, all of that. But when he first asked for a deal on these China trade tariffs, they said, you know, maybe something in the $30 billion range? He said, no, no, I want much higher than that. So, they gave them 50. And now, he comes back and says, no, you know what, we need a hundred. This is classic Trump and you're right, it probably isn't thought out to the nth degree, but it's classic Trump negotiating tactic, that I would imagine is an effort to force them to say, we're going to have to go to the table and talk this out, Hal. Does that make --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Sorry, guys. Go ahead Hal and then Jonah. Thanks.

LAMBERT: Yes. Martha, I think that there's a little more to this. I think President Trump's been very clear. He believes in fair trade and believes in fair trade. Everybody in the administration believes in free and fair trade. That's what we're trying to get to. It's not for protectionism, it's free and fair trade. And here's the deal: China came out and put tariffs on our products and it was about 38 percent of what we sell into China. What we put on their -- on the tariffs we put on was about 10 percent of what we buy from them.

So, they put on four times the amounts of tariffs that President Trump had put on and that's why President Trump came out today and said we ought to look at doing $100 billion. So, this isn't some sort of willy-nilly thing that's going on. This is thought out, and this negotiations at public. And difficult for people to understand, but it's what's going on. And I think it's the appropriate thing that's going on, and he's looking out for American businesses. We have -- China has stolen billions and billions of dollars of intellectual property from our companies. They have massive tariffs already going into their countries, they're not an open society, they're not an open trade partner, and we believe in free and fair trade, and that's what President Trump is trying to get to.

MACCALLUM: Well, President Xi is going to be around for a long time. Jonah, final thought?

GOLDBERG: Yes. I actually don't think he's actually looking out for American business, he's not looking out for American consumers. Tariffs or taxes, even Larry Kudlow still says that. And this has been rolled out in the chaotic way. I'm in favor being playing tough with China, but we could've, from day one of the Trump administration actually filed a multi- lateral complain with the WTO. China is much more interested in being a good citizen with the WTO than the United States is if they have so much more to lose.

MACCALLUM: All right. We got to leave it there.

LAMBERT: There's 400 complaints with the WTO right now that China ignored. It takes five or six years to get through that process.

GOLDBERG: I agree, which is why, maybe they should have started earlier with the complaint.

MACCALLUM: Gentlemen, thank you very much. Jonah Goldberg, great to see you tonight. Hal Lambert, thank you. Thanks for joining us on "The Story." Very interesting, right? All right. So, coming up, remember this? It got some stickers at the time, but no more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: My new national strategy for space recognizes that space is a war fighting domain, just like the land, air, and sea. We may even have a space for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: It sounded like a movie, but as it turns out, space war is coming. We will show you what it looks like and what Russia and China are already doing up there. And breaking tonight, is the Facebook fight fair?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERYL SANDBERG, COO, FACEBOOK: We know at Facebook, we did not do enough to protect people's data. I'm really sorry for that. Mark is really sorry for that. And now, we're taking very strong action to get ahead of the problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE EISENBERG, "THE SOCIAL NETWORK": People want to go on the Internet to check out their friends, and what to build a Web site that offers friends, profiles. They're talking about picking the entire social experience of college and putting it online.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Those were the days, right? So, he is the college kid who built the multi-billion-dollar company connecting you to friends. But will he find it on Capitol Hill? It might be a very long weekend for $60- billion-man, Mark Zuckerberg, as he preps for grilling on Capitol Hill. Democrats up in arms, basically, because they think that Facebook made users an unwitting tool in the election. And Republicans think a social network is a big brother pushing liberal news. This, as the company's COO, Sheryl Sandberg, makes the media rounds, trying to do some damage control.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDBERG: Let's be clear, we do not sell people's data. We don't do it for ads, we don't do it for any other reason. We also don't give your data to any advertisers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Trace Gallagher live and our West Coast Newsroom with the story. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. Facebook is apologizing for a reason. I mean, the company has already admitted that of its 2.2 billion members, many have likely had their personal information harvested by "malicious actors", also known as bad people. Facebook CEO and Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, says these bad actors have been at it for years and at some point, have probably accessed your information. So, today in a sit down with Fox News Anchor, Dana Perino, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg says, Facebook is going to great lengths to make sure this never happens again. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDBERG: This is a long process we are going through and systematically looking. We expect to find more, just like we do this week, and then we're going to proactively come out. We're going to fix the problems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Most of this went public after revelations that some 90 million Facebook users have their data stolen by political intelligence firm, Cambridge Analytica. The information was then used for political purposes, but these types of breaches have been going on at Facebook for years, and Sandberg says the remedy is to create a system where everyone can safely share. Here she is talking about Russian meddling, including what they knew and when they knew it. Watch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST: How far back does it go? Does Facebook know in the fall of 2015 that it had a problem with Russians trying to influence the election?

SANDBERG: We learned about this late. We did not know then. We had seen some early activity, we had published some stuff but we didn't understand them, but now we do. And now, we're taking action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: The increasing transparency is also a top agenda item and considering that half of American adults get their news from Facebook. The company now says, it will only share news and information from trusted news sources, both conservative and liberal, and that includes vetting political sources. Here she is again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDBERG: If you are running, not just an election as you're a candidate, but you're running an issue and we're going to publish a list of issues. We're going to verify who you are. You're going to have to tell us your location, your identity. If you won't tell us that, or we don't think it's correct, we're not going to let you run.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: And if you missed it, Facebook executives would again like you to know, they're sorry. Martha.

MACCALLUM: They said that a few times. We're going to hear it a bit more on the Hill on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Trace. So, here with more, Jennifer Grossman, Former Speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush and the CEO of The Atlas Society. Jennifer, good evening, good to see you. You have written a very interesting piece that goes to the heart of that question because the mea culpa is what's expected. We're so sorry, we're going to fix this problem, we're not going to betray your confidence anymore, but you have sort of a different tactic that you recommended Mark Zuckerberg take on.

JENNIFER GROSSMAN, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH AND THE CEO OF THE ATLAS SOCIETY: Look, this guy can't win. Republicans are mad at him, Democrats are mad at him. He's going to be going into a very hostile situation on Wednesday. So, what I'm saying is, you know, sure, apologize, but why not take a stand on some principal and present with pride? Yes, they made a mistake, that's what happens when you do something, when you build something, when you create companies. If you don't want to make mistakes, you can just sit behind a computer screen and click like.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of what you think he should say because you're very specific in your piece that's coming out next week. What exactly do you think -- what's the argument that you think he needs to make?

GROSSMAN: I think that he should say that he built this company, not as he's been saying for the past 15 years, because he wanted to create community, but because he was interested in technology and he was interested in finding a market need where he could provide some value. And that now, that people are saying that, gee, well, we didn't know that we were just using it for free. Look, we can't do much about what Mark Zuckerberg is going to do, but we can do something about what we, ourselves do. And we should all know, we can all grow up a little bit, and know that nothing is free. And that even we're using this and thinking that it's free, that it was created by something. And that is going to have to be paid by someone, whether it's a user fee that we ourselves pay, or whether or not we are going to have services paid for, just like this television program is being paid for right now by advertisers.

MACCALLUM: Yes, it's interesting because he did speak to NBC earlier today and basically that was the suggestion. Can you have an opt out button: please don't use my profile data for advertising, and Sheryl Sandberg said. We don't have too opt out at the highest level, that would be a paid product, which I think is an interesting tantalizing suggestion on her part.

GROSSMAN: Well, I think if Facebook really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, look, it's true we all see all of the fine print and it's just way too much to read and it's written in language that we can't understand. And so, you know, the product that we want to use, and so we click yes, agreed to terms and conditions. But what if before you actually agree to those terms and conditions, Mark Zuckerberg himself came on, in a video and he said, you know, this isn't free and using our products, we are going to have access to your data and it's going to be shared.

MACCALLUM: Jennifer, thank you very much. We'll see what he does. We'll see if he takes any of your advice in terms of how he walks in there when it comes time for him to go to the Hill next week. Thanks a lot, Jennifer, good to see you tonight.

GROSSMAN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, there have been three crashes claiming five lives in less than one week. A lot of new concerns about military's aging equipment and our ability to fight at home and abroad. Plus, this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the very people that talk about how awful this problem is, send me back and I'll clean it up. They have no interest in cleaning this up, because they benefit from the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: A stunning new documentary showing just how deep the swamp really is in Washington as a new report reveals Republicans may be in more danger in November in the midterms than originally thought. The man who literally wrote the book on government waste, Former Senator Tom Colburn wants to weigh in on the midterms and Chris Stirewalt with an eye-opening look next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The House will definitely flip. Why would anyone vote Republican?

TOM SHILLUE, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, so they lose.

COULTER: Why would anyone vote Republican? There's no point, Tom!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Despite President Trump's approval rating inching higher in recent polls, the news is not so good for his Republican-controlled Congress. Could political noting bring changes in 13 House races, all in the Democrat's favor, and that Republicans "still trail Democrats on the general ballot by eight points. That is enough to offset the GOP's edge from favorably drawn districts and endanger their 23-seat majority, which is looking increasingly fragile. So, what would a Trump presidency look like with a Democratic House and the White House and the GDP seemed to be rattled or unnerved by this prospect. Here now, Former Oklahoma Senator, Tom Colburn, Watchdog for the U.S. Taxpayer and Former Author of the Congressional Waste Book, which a lot folks missed. Senator Colburn, good to see you again. Thank you so much for coming in tonight.

TOM COLBURN, FORMER OKLAHOMA SENATOR: Glad to do this.

MACCALLUM: So, what is your take? Because, you know, from a distance, you look at what's going on, and we all remembered the surprising, really, wave election of 2016. And Republicans crowing about how the control they had over the House, and the Senate, and the White House was what they had wanted for years and years and years. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and now they seem to be saying, well, we're pretty satisfied with what we got.

COLBURN: Well, I think, in my adult life, Martha, I've seen this play a lot. You get empower, you want to stay in power, so you become (INAUDIBLE) rather than doing what you told the people you would do. I mean, just think about it. We just saw a budget bill passed for $1.3 trillion -- $300 billion more than what we have spent last year in the same period. With no oversight, nobody knew what was in it, except the money, the interest that had something in it. I don't think that's what they want to be known for, but that's what they're going to be known for, rather than actually clean enough some of the mess and the waste, and the fraud, and abuse in Washington. And so, what they're doing is, they played the game shorthanded and say, well, maybe we'll make it. And what happens is people lose trust in them.

MACCALLUM: You know, when you look at the races that have happened so far, you know, I think of Pennsylvania, the Conor Lamb election. It didn't look like there was a tremendous rally around Rick Saccone, and, you know, you can talk about whether or not you think he was a great candidate. But the effort to hang on to these Republican seats, what you hear more and more from Republicans on the Hill is, well, you know, it's not unusual when you have the presidency, when you have, you know, your party's president in the White House that when -- come around to the first round in mid-terms, you'll lose the house. But you know, you look at what's been accomplished so far, and tax reform is clearly a big accomplishment for Republicans -- it's definitely something that was on their check list. But do you feel like they should be satisfied with the progress that they've made so far with this golden opportunity?

COLBURN: No, I'm not. You know, as a U.S. citizen that pays a lot of taxes every year, I'm not satisfied at all. Why haven't they created transparency on pricing on health care? One in every three dollars is health care is wasted. The average deductible now is $7,900 per family. They'd like to see a cheaper deal, a better deal. So, mandate that prices are transparent. They can do that, they can pass that bill. How can you be against being knowing what your prices before you pay for it? Of course, emergencies are different. You know, how about oversighting?

How about building a team to oversight the waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and getting rid of it? They didn't have to borrow $1.3 trillion. I mean, that's what our deficit is going to be this year. They didn't have to do that. They could've done it in another way. And what I would tell you is I bet you the American people, as a whole would much rather have seen a government shutdown than a bill passed in the dark of the night that nobody's read that adds a $1.3 trillion to our spending.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but there's a divide.

COLBURN: And then do the hard work.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: You know, when you look at those and you might've heard from Republicans that, you know, we don't want to shut down. We were there last time with Ted Cruz, and the president at several points along the way, he said, you know what, shut it down. Let's push the envelope and see what happens.

COLBURN: He should've vetoed the bill.

MACCALLUM: He should've vetoed the bill.

COLBURN: Yes, he should've vetoed that bill. You can't sign that bill and then say next time I won't sign it. You've lost all leverage because the momentum of the legislative body is do what's easy. And what easy is to spend American tax payer's money and grow the government. What is hard is to be frugal with American tax payer's money and oversight the government and hold it accountable. And so, you know, he lost his leverage on them. And they'll do this to him again. September 30th, I guarantee you'll see another continuing resolution bill. You won't see all the appropriation bill. That haven't since, what, 2003?

MACCALLUM: Extraordinary. And you're right, you're going to see a C.R., and then, probably, another omnibus bill in December. Senator Colburn, thank you. It's good to hear your voice on this.

COBURN: You will.

MACCALLUM: And hope to see you again. Thank you so much.

COBURN: Great to see you.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now -- great to see you, too. Chris Stirewalt is with me now, Fox News politics editor. Chris, you get the feeling when you watch this, this sort of posture, currently, and maybe it's really going to ramp up in the coming months as we get closer to the midterms. But the posture from many Republicans out there is, well, you know, we're pretty much done with business, we did the tax reform bill, we're super excited about that, and we think that's going to write us through the midterms. But even if we do lose the majority in the house in the midterms, you know what, that's typically what happens. I mean, I don't think that's the way that people who voted Republicans in the last election, and saw what happened, expected that this was going to play out. They thought it's going to be a real tremendous energy behind that win and acceptance of what it could mean from what they have wanted for so long.

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICS EDITOR: You know, one of the reasons the system stank is that people like Tom Colburn, or we're watching Trey Gowdy getting ready to pull up his tent and go home, these conscientious conservatives who stick to their guns on the issues that matter to them and to their constituents no matter what. They eventually get fed up and go home because they can't change it. Because you can't turn the boat. Tom Colburn is one of the clearest, strongest voices of American conservatism of the last 30 years, and he couldn't. Even he could not change the point of view of his colleagues in Congress, or this president, or anybody because it just takes on a gravity of its own. What we should remember, to be fair, to be merciful to people.

We should remember that finding issues, on which there are a lot of things the Republicans could legislate on that would be popular, but either one of two things. Their base would revolt completely if they were to do something on, let's say, gun control. Their popular position they could take. If they did something on immigration, they're popular positions they could take that would get 70 percent of the electorate, but their base would absolutely revolt and they'll killed him in midterms anyway. It's sort of like they're damn if they do, damn if they don't. So, they're choosing don't because, at least, you don't have to break a sweat.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that the White House has, you know, because President Trump is not formally a politician, do you think they have a sense of what kind of rap will be heading their way if they have a Democratic house? You know, when you look back at fast and furious, you look back at Benghazi, look back at the oversight efforts that Republicans had during the Obama administration. You're going to see -- I would imagine a mirror image of that that would be relentless daily, am I wrong?

STIREWALT: No, no. Scott Pruitt will have to go hide under all the rocks. Anything that the Democrats can get their teeth into, including Russia stuff, of course, up to and including impeachment.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

STIREWALT: All suddenly gets on the table. Let me tell you a different dangerous scenario for Republicans. There's a middle point, which is -- so they've got 24 -- they got a 24 seat cushion in their majority. If that 24 goes down to a handful, if it goes down to five, it's almost worse to have the majority because you can't govern. There's too many defections. You can't pass legislation. And your party is at war with itself, and the other guys don't have to take responsibility for it. At least when you lose the house, you can say to the Democrats, OK, what do you want to do?

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Well, the dirty secret may be that, you know, there may be some on the hill who say, oh, you know what, we're not in power anymore. Now, we're the opposition, which is kind of a good place to be sometime.

STIREWALT: Yeah.

MACCALLUM: If you want to stick around for eternity. Chris, thank you very much.

STIREWALT: You bet.

MACCALLUM: Always good to see you. Thank you.

STIREWALT: Happy Friday.

MACCALLUM: You too. So, coming up, it may sound like something out of this world, but the military says that a space war is coming, and that the United States is not ready. Next, how this could cripple America. And a new film shedding light on the late Senator Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick car crash that killed a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne. Her cousin joins me exclusively on what this movie means for her family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: This country has a deep connection to the Kennedy name and that is valuable thing, gentlemen. We can't just let that go to waste. We need to remind the American people what this family has been through and how much more we have left to achieve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Talk of space wars tonight, and whether or not we are ready for them. But the immediate battle appears to be in this orbit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I would project we're in crisis. Those are mishaps that occurred. We're going to look at each one in turn. Each one is tragic and we regret each want. We're looking at them carefully. I'm certainly not prepared to say that it's a wave of mishap, some form of crisis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He is talking about three separate aircraft's to crash this week that claimed the lives of five American service members, including these marines who died Tuesday in a helicopter crash in California. Officials insisting that this week's crashes are not connected to each other. There have now been five noncombat accidents this year alone killing nine service members. Last year, there were 37 aviation deaths. That is nearly double the number in 2016, which raises, obviously, a lot of questions about how to keep our members of the service safe. Joining me now, Rebecca Grant, a national security and military analyst who have worked for the Air Force. Rebecca, good to have you here tonight. So, the first question is what your reed is on the tragedies that we have seen unfolding, one after the other.

REBECCA GRANT, NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY ANALYST: Those crashes are not going to turn out to have any technical linkage. They are linked by the fact they remind us of the sacrifice and the patriotism of those aircrews. But they're three very different systems. We have to wait for the accident reports, but the crash of the 88B, I suspect that's going to be maintenance issue, that pilot was very lucky to eject, he did very well. With the marine helicopter crash, we don't know the causes yet. The Airforce Thunderbird F-16, that's a very highly rated aerial maneuver team and we'll have to see what caused that tragic accident there. But they're going to be unrelated. That said there is a crisis in military aviation. We need new aircraft for our cruise, and they need more funding and more flying hours.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, no doubt. And as General Mattis says, you know, we have to fund in our country to do this safely, and that has to be the priority. I do want to ask you about this other fascinating report about space wars and whether or not we need a separate space force in our military to fight them. Here's the president referring to this. And then, right after that, we'll hear from the Air Force -- the director of joint chief of staff. Let's play these sound bites.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: My new national strategy for space recognizes that space is a war fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea. We may even have a space force. Develop another one. Space force. We have the air force, we'll have the space force.

DAVID GOLDFEIN, AIR FORCE CHIEEF OF STAFF: I believe we're going to be fighting from space in a matter of years. And we're the service that must lead joint war fighting in this new contested domain. It's not only our destiny, it's what the nation demands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: You know, I think of "Star Wars" and you imagine, you know, battles that happen in outer orbit even. It's a stunning future, but, you know, the way that we watch things happen, it's fairly predictable that we will be fighting up there, isn't it?

GRANT: It is. What's driving this is that Russia and China have both developed counter space capabilities. And, Martha, our satellites are so important to our military and to our daily lives and to the global economy. We have to protect those satellites on orbit because of these advantages they give our military forces, and also for the precision, navigation and timing, everything they do that's laced throughout our daily lives. I mean, when you think about space war, forget ISIS and terrorism, this is something that could affect every single American if it comes to pass. We're going to be talking about this for the next several years.

MACCALLUM: Because so much of our technology is on these satellites, initially, right? I mean, you can take out someone's satellite and you can basically put them in a situation, which you say we practice already, our military, which is called a day without space and you say it's pretty ugly.

GRANT: Yes, our military depends -- think about all our deployed forces, ships, bombers, even our folks on the ground, all rely -- especially on that GPS constellation, and on other warning and timing. So, our forces exercise without space. But, we have some very important constellation. Take for example we have four missile warning satellites. They have great heat seekers, but they're about as maneuverable as water buffalos. So, they sit up there and they watch. A North Korean missile launch for example, they pick up the flume, and tell us where that missile may be heading. They're absolutely vital to world stability. But they're vulnerable to jamming. They're vulnerable to other interference. And so, our doctor analysis say, hey, Russia, China, anybody else, don't try it. We're going to start defending our space assets, and have a strategy so that we can compensate for any interference with our space capabilities

MACCALLUM: Incredible. Can't wait to see how this plays out. Rebecca, thank you so much. Fascinating. Great to have you tonight.

GRANT: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, her tragic death helped derail Ted Kennedy's political aspirations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You won't have a political future if you're in jail, Ted. You'll fight a battle in two fronts and you don't even know it.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I think you need to cool down here, Bob, OK. I understand my problems with the press and with the people of Massachusetts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Now, Chappaquiddick being told in a whole new light. Highlighting the Mary Jo Kopechne that her family knew. Up next, in a story exclusive, we speak with Mary Jo's cousin. She tells us what Ted Kennedy told them and reveals the news that made Mary Jo's parents feel like they lost her all over again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ten hours she remained on the water. What kind of a person would allow her to stay in that water, that black water, for ten hours?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: When we were ask, after Bobby was killed, I wanted to run this place. What would you have done? What would you and me -- what you have done?

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'd quit, leave Washington, never look back, which is exactly what I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That's from the new movie, "Chappaquiddick," which opens tonight. It was the night that ended a young woman's life and Ted Kennedy's White House aspirations. This telling wire copy was one of the first headlines that next day. It read Ted safe, blonde dies. The blonde had a name of course. Mary Jo Kopechne. She was a staffer for Bobby Kennedy. And her family says they feel this movie finally shows her as she was, a bright young woman whose life -- had a promising future that was snuffed out when Senator Ted Kennedy fled the scene.

In a new op-ed they write this, quote, Mary Jo Kopechne was not a wide-eyed Capitol Hill staffer. She was a seasoned idealist with big ambition. When you realize who she really was, the tragedy is greater. To this day, speculations continues about the circumstances surrounding her death, including what Kopechne's body was discovered in the backseat area of the car, and why another woman's purse was also recovered from that car. I recently sat down with Georgetta Potoski, Mary Jo's cousin and close confident and the author of the book, Our Mary Jo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What goes through your mind reliving this story and watching it on the big screen?

GEORGETTA POTOSKI, COUSIN OF MARY JO KOPECHNE: It was very powerful. It was very emotional and it was very sad. But we did like the movie. We thought they did a masterful job with it. I thought Jason Clark was -- we really thought you were watching Ted Kennedy. And Kate Mara was darling and sweet. And I think it captured Mary Jo's personality. And, I think they find -- at the same time, they walked a fine line with some of the scenes, so that not to imply the wrong thing, and we appreciate that because Mary Jo was a woman full of integrity and intelligence and ambition, and we still miss her to this day in our family.

MACCALLUM: I'm sure you do. I'm sure you do. She was from not far from where I live, and I can imagine that the loss is still so enormous for you to this day. I know you have a lot of questions about Ted Kennedy's role in all this, and just what they were even doing in that car together in the first place, right?

POTOSKI: Well, when we've first heard that he was -- he said that he was taking her to the ferry to catch the last ferry, I believe that because Mary Jo would not have stayed overnight on the island. She would have wanted to go home. And so, it seemed perfectly natural for us that they would be trying to catch the last ferry. And having lived in New England, we know that most ferry lines stop at midnight. So, when he said they left the cottage at 11:15 and were going to catch the last ferry that made sense to us, at least at the time that this was all happening.

MACCALLUM: You know, when you watch the movie and you see those behind the scenes machinations of the Kennedy clans getting together, really focused on trying to save Ted Kennedy's integrity, trying to save the Kennedy name and all of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We tell the truth, at least our version of it. And it ends with an appeal to the voters, to the people that elected me. We need to remind them that this family perseveres that we don't back down from a fight, that we don't get backed into a corner. We have a true compass and we follow it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: I can imagine that you're sitting there wondering, you know, what about Mary Jo?

POTOSKI: That was hard to watch, but not unknown to most people who lived through the Kennedy era. Most politicians have those types of personal family meetings to negotiate strategy and -- but it was a little hard. We kept thinking that he would make a right decision, but he had plenty of chances to do that. He just didn't do it.

MACCALLUM: There's a suggestion that she didn't drown, that she suffocated, and that she was alive for a long time in that car. I wonder what you think about that.

POTOSKI: That's one of the hardest things we had to accept. Her parents, in particular, thought that she had died instantly. And a few years after she died, they went up there and spoke with Jon Ferrer, the scuba diver, and he told us she could have lived up to three hours in the air bubble in the car, and it was like they had lost her all over again. Her father, in particular, just grieved. It was awful. It was awful.

MACCALLUM: I can imagine. You know, in terms of the movie, there is some discussion now that there was an effort to suppress it, that some supporters of the families didn't want it to come out. Does that surprise you?

POTOSKI: Well, yeah, there's always been a lot of suppression of books and stories, and this is the first time, almost 50 years of the movie is being made. And, when we saw the film, the scenes that they had photographed were just like the scenes that had been running through our heads for 50 years. So they did a great job.

MACCALLUM: Do you remember, you know, learning this news, it must have been such an enormous shock, obviously, for you and your family. Were you even aware that she was out there that night?

POTOSKI: No, no, I was not. My husband was in the navy when we're living in Narragansett, Rhode Island. And it was a Sunday morning but the phone rang and I was folding diapers. I have three little girls. And, Bill, my husband, took the phone call and I heard him say Mary Jo, that's too bad. And I knew she was dead. And he came in the room and he said Mary Jo has died in a swimming accident in Massachusetts. I said what happened? He said I don't know. No one knew actually what had happened for the whole week that the funeral was taking place. The Kopechne's, Mary Jo's mother and father have had a very brief discussion with the Kennedy people that said, more or less, if you just calm down and take it easy and we'll meet afterwards, and we'll tell you everything about what happened. So, they were destroyed anyway and they were not in any position to have any long, complicated conversations. So, we just got through the wake and the funeral and the burial the best way we could, and then we waited.

MACCALLUM: Georgetta, thank you very much for joining us. I'm glad that you and your family feel that this portrayal of her is closer to the Mary Jo that you knew, and I thank you very much for sharing your story with us, tonight.

POTOSKI: Certainly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Our thanks to Georgetta. Mary Jo's family is working to keep her legacy alive. You can find out more by going to Facebook and searching for the Mary Jo Kopechne's scholarship page. More of "The Story" after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: That is "The Story" for tonight on this Friday. We'll see you back here on Monday. Heading now to Tucker Carlson in Washington, D.C. Have a good night everybody.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.