tv The Story With Martha Mac Callum FOX News January 26, 2022 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
texas, ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, we'll talk to him of other news of the day, and the retirement of justice breyer. >> trace: i don't think i'm going to come back, every time i see you the place catches fire. >> sandra: there you go, lots of news. great to cover it with you. great to have you today. >> trace: >> thank you very much. good afternoon, everybody, i'm martha maccallum. a lot breaking this afternoon and moments ago word from the white house as they say president biden stands by his pledge to nominate a black woman as the next supreme court justice of the united states. justice steven briar reportedly retiring. that would give president biden a chance that every president wants to have. and that would be to fam mate a supreme court justice.
it would happen in this time frame before the midterm elections when republicans hope that they will regain control of the house and the senate. obviously time is of the essence more this decision and this process for the president of the united states. president biden. so if that happens, and he makes that nomination and it goes through, it would presumably keep the balance of power on the high court as it is now. you would have six justices appointed by republican conservative presidents, three appointed by liberal presidents. democrat president. so the court would probably not change in that dynamic. that balance of power dramatically. at least, that's what we think at this point. justice breyer was subjected to an overt campaign who was rude as the they way went after him to get him to back down and retire. parked a truck in the highest court of the land with a big banner on it with breyer retire
with his face all over it. you can see that making the rounds in washington, d.c. now the 83-year-old justice has indicated this week, really, that he will do just that. no sign about whether or not it was due to their pressure. but indications are that this was his own personal decision. not influence by the progressive. and so it begins. the battle over the next justice to sit on the supreme court. let's bring in katie and mike davis. former senate judiciary council as well and president of the article three project as well. watches these issues extremely closely. great to have all of you with us today. mike, let me start with you. as i suggested in that intro several times, justice breyer has not spoken on his behalf. this is not, at all, the way these moments typically go down.
the word is the white house got news of his plans to retire last week. what do you think happened here? why didn't he get that important minute to announce this in his own way to the american public? >> that is a very good question. justice breyer is a very good man. he was very good to my former boss justice gorsuch and his low clerks when we joined the supreme court. he's been on the supreme court for 26 years. this is a huge announcement for any justice and for it to leak out like this is unheard of. that is a very good question for the biden white house. and it appeared at the press conference that even president biden was upset this leaked out the way it did. >> mike, we are just getting some indication that breyer is putting out there that he is not upset about what happened here. is that your understanding? >> i don't know. i have not heard that from anyone at the courts. i would suggest that this
leaking out through nbc instead of coming out of a statement by the supreme court is highly unusual. >> highly unusual. >> unprecedented. >> okay. unprecedented. katie, let's get your thoughts on this. and also the con fir mission cot we just got from jenn psaki who would not confirm any of the justices plans because it has come forth in an unorthodox way. but she did confirm it is president biden's plan to nominate a black woman. and there is a lot of names out there circulating to the highest court. >> well, the first thing is that all day we have heard this is a decision made by the justice himself. progressive politics didn't push him into retirement. on the other hand, as we just noted, this information has leaked out somehow. and you've got to believe that politics are behind this. president joe biden, of course, is up against a mid-term election. it looks like it will be very negative for him. he is on the ropes with his left in his party and moderate
democrats in his party. and now all of a sudden he has an opportunity to make good on one of his campaign promises. which is to nominate a black woman to the supreme court. even though we have not had the official announcement come out today. the question moving forward for the senate is going to be it's a 50/50 senate. republicans generally have been more open to looking at nominees on the merits, rather than on other issues. and so i foresee democrats accusing republicans if joe biden follows through with his own standard of who he thinks should be a supreme court justice. accusing anybody that opposes this nominee of sexism and racism just like we have seen with criticism with vice president kamala harris and her performance. >> we have pictures of some of the judges who are sort of expected to be in that top list. katani john jackson replaced garland. and there are some of the other
individuals who all have very, very strong credentials to be considered for this office. what i'm wondering what you think about that. why is it that we have to, sort of, present it this way? why do you think the president wants to present it this way? that he would choose a black woman rather than saying i'm going to choose the absolute best person for this position? >> i think there has never been a black woman on the supreme court. i think there has been two black men. so there has only been two black people. justice thomas is there now. justice marshall was his predecessor. thomas replaced marshall. but never a black woman. it's always a white man is the standard for the supreme court. so i think when president biden was running as a candidate, i think he spoke to the idea that, you know, it was time that there would be some sense of full representation for all sorts of people in the united states on this court. >> but i'm just saying if you pick the person who is the most
qualified and then you choose, you know, someone like katani john jackson, it doesn't diminish that selection by saying i already narrowed the group of people i looked at. i think it takes something away by elevating someone like judge jackson or some of the people we see on the screen. when you say in front of it, i will only choose a black woman. do you understand what i'm saying? >> i think it's wrong. i just think, in fact, you have extremely qualified people. judge jackson is on the d.c. court of appeals right now which is real bad for qualified, extremely qualified americans. >> absolutely. >> the emphasis here is that, qualified black women have never been given the opportunity and president biden is trying to speak to that. i think that is clearly the case when justice marshall was put on the court by president johnson. i think that when president bush
put clarence thomas on the court, he understood there was a need to make sure there was a sense, among all americans, that there was some diversity of opinion. nobody questioned justice thomas at the time in terms of his credentials. >> i just think, katie, maybe you have a thought on this. a quick thought on it. i don't recall them saying i'm going to pick a black man or i'm going to pick a woman. when it's the first consideration, you want that person to shine and say i have chosen this woman. rather than saying i have chosen this woman who check these boxes. >> we have all seen how justice clarence thomas has been treated over the past 20 years of his career at the supreme court by the left who claims to be open and tolerant to diversity unless it's diversity of intellectual thought. the irony here is the supreme court is about to hear a case about affirmative action in colleges and whether it's constitutional to allow students
to be eliminated from consideration for entry into universities based on their ethnicity, race, and skin color. here you have the president of the united states already saying he is going to make this choice based on exactly that. >> mike, quick thought on that before we go? >> president biden has some good contenders for the supreme court. there is a process. there is a hearing and we'll see what happens at that hearing. >> all right, thank you all. juan william, katie, mike davis, great to have you with us. former cdc director robert redfield on explosive new documents from the outset of the pandemic that reveal that doctors anthony fauci and others intentionally down played the wuhan lab leak theory to the american people. new evidence that was unveiled last night on special report. that's coming up. >> notes of that hastily arranged meeting reveals
safely return to the classroom, the san francisco school board focused on renaming schools and playing politics. and they've even saddled our district with a $125 million deficit. our children can't wait for new leadership. here's our chance for a fresh start. on february 15th, please recall school board members collins, lópez and moliga before our kids fall even further behind.
>> martha: russia is promising, quote, retaliatory measures if the united states rejects russia's demands. as a potential invasion of ukraine continues to loom. those demands includes guarantees that ukraine and other soviet republics never would be allowed to join nato. putin also wants no nato forces present in the central european countries. what happens next now that the secretary of state anthony blinken has made clear that the united states will not agree to
any of those demands? we make clear there are core principles we uphold. including the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances. >> steve harrigan is covering it live. steve, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, martha. there is two tracks going on here. there is the talks and the discussions and back and forth. here in ukraine, weapons continue to arrive too. military hardware from the u.s. part of a $200 million package and among that hardware over the past 48 hours has been several hundred javelin antitank missiles would be useful for frontline. there has also been mixed messages here. you have five western embassies pulling out part of their staff over fear of destabilizing situation. and yet you have ukrainian
officials telling them nothing to worry about. if an invasion happens at all, it would be at the very earliest weeks away. >> we can say 100 times per day that invasion is eminent. but this doesn't change the situation on the ground. in the eastern part of ukraine, russian separatists have been at war for ukrainians for the past seven years. >> we live on the frontline and we don't know what tomorrow holds. if they bomb us, they bomb us. we live here and we don't have any other place to go. that fighting has already led to 13,000 deaths. martha, back to you. >> martha: steve, thank you
very much. davis hanson is about to join us. william taylor, now vice president of strategic stability and security at the u.s. institute of peace. good to have you with us. thank you very much for joining us. what did you think of anthony blinken statements today about what the united states would not concede in terms of promising that countries like ukraine would never be allowed to join nato. nato? >> martha, that has been a consistent message. it has been a consistent defense of principle that we have heard from all levels of the united states government. we have also heard it from nato allies. we've also heard it from the ukrainians and the ukrainians are on the frontline as your reporter just reported. just said. that there are ukrainians on the frontline with russia and there are at least 100,000, maybe 175,000 russian troops on those
borders, an three borders of ukraine. and yet, ukrainian government, president zalinski has not been intimidated into trying to appease president putin. so i was pleased that secretary blinken continued to have that strong defense of principle. >> what do you think will happen? you watched this from up front as ambassador to ukraine. do you think russia will invade and when? >> i think that there is only one person that can answer that question. and that, of course, is president putin. and maybe he hasn't even answered it for himself. maybe he hasn't decided the answer to your question. which is a good one. is he going to invade? if he invades, if he decides to pull the trigger, it will kill thousands, tens of thousands of ukrainians, military and civilian. martha, it will also kill
thousands of russian soldiers. this will be a major land battle, such as we have not seen since world war ii. it will be a major battle, major catastrophe. major death. major number of deaths on both sides. and president putin will have that on his responsibility. >> martha: we hope that is the kind of reality might desuede him. one quick question for you, if i may, do you believe it's time for the united states to take our forces out of germany, especially given their lack of hopefulness in this matter? and should they be moved to poland? >> martha, i don't think this is the time to have intranato disputes. i don't think it's time to move troops from one nato ally to another. what we have to focus on is the russians. that is the focus, that is the threat. yes, the germans can have
certain policies that we don't agree with. having to do with weapons sales and over flight rights. those kind of things. but the over all thrust, the over all pitch is to defend ukraine, is to support ukraine, and that has got to be the nato focus right now. not intranato disputes. >> martha: germany is, obviously, the most powerful europe nato member and they don't have any intention of defending ukraine, it seems at this point. i think it makes a very clear difference of opinion at this point. bill taylor, thank you. very good to have you here, sir. victor davis hanson watching this closely as well. very weak poll numbers out as whether or not americans see the president as a strong and decisive leader.
>> martha: in the face of a looming threat from russia to pushing to ukraine and the line with china to dominate a new world order potentially in a big picture scenario, new polling shows that voters lack confidence in president biden's decision making. this is a gallop poll that is out today. only 37% say the president is a strong and decisive leader. that is a nine-point drop from their september 2021 polling. victor hanson is joining us now.
he is the author of the dying citizen. you were listening along with my discussion with william taylor, the former ambassador to ukraine. you see these poll numbers how the american people assess the president's strength in leadership in this crisis that he is watching over. what do you think? >> i think it's a larger question. historians and political scientists help four or five ways of calibrating leadership. one is, can they get their agenda through the congress when they have majority in both parties? i think that is problematic. he couldn't get the build back better. he couldn't get the national voting act through. and then they say can he reach across the aisle and get a bipartisan consensus, that is absolutely zero. he has pretty sharp rhetoric that makes it even worse. people say, how is his outlook in the next election? the midterms? i think we will see the biggest democratic defeat since 1938 or
2010. so then we fall back, is he personally magnetic? can he rally the american people to override congress? is he white at jfk at a press conference? and the answer is pretty dismal. and then the final calibration is, how does he appeal to people abroad? when he first entered office, we had that embarrassing scene in anchorage when a chinese diplomat insulted us and we didn't retaliate. russian hackers were attacking insulations, organizations, agencies in the united states. rather than tell them to stop and force them to stop, he's asked that he put off limits, i think 16 areas, but didn't say it was wrong to otherwise hack american companies and institutions. so i can't find an area of traditional analysis where he radiates confidence. and i think that is why we have germany freelancing saying, you know what? i may be the richest nato
member, but i'm not going to get involved in this. and we have turkey with the largest army. and they are pulling more anti-american every day. and both of those countries, if you were disinterested in peer call, you could argue they have closer relationships or trying to be closer to russia than they are to their nato patron the united states. >> martha: it's interesting that you point out that cyber proclamation in terms of, don't ever touch these areas. that would be a red line. and we see a similar path that president biden has taken, these are the things we would consider. we might pull our missiles positions back from your border. and we are not going to say that ukraine is going to be in nato any time soon. those are obviously, they are offering concessions. this is jenn psaki talking about what they hope will happen in this situation just moments ago. listen. >> they have the ability also to make the decision to deescalate,
to bring troops back in the border, to participate in good faith in a diplomatic conversation. and that certainly would be our objective. >> martha: how do you think that is going to go? >> that is absurd, martha. it's absurd. vladimir putin makes a cost of benefit calculation. if he feels it's in his interest, he will do it. he didn't listen to barack obama or joe biden or anybody. he invaded twice. and then he stopped for four years he didn't try it again. and now he's back at it. so we ask ourselves, why is that? and the answer is whether accidentally or in naive fashion, we suggested to him that in a cost benefit analysis, he could get more out of being aggressive than he would fear being punished. that is what he thinks about. and if he gets away with this,
he would look at the baltic states and say i have a blueprint. taiwan and chinese and it will snowball. we've lost deterrents. and a lot of americans are saying, we've lost deterrents, but i don't want to send troops over there and die in europe's backyard when they have a billion people and economy eight times larger than the nato members russia and they don't seem to be on board with it. we've got some existential problems within that alliance that nobody wants to talk about and everybody knows. >> yes. it's quite clear the issue that is going on with germany and francis. victor davis hanson, thank you. always good to talk to you. we have a big lineup still ahead. robert redfield, dr. mark seagal, and roy murdock after this.
there is no reason why these two poor officers had to die. they were babies. >> i stay up at night. i try to figure out whose fault is it? it's time to take back our city. >> when is enough, enough? >> martha: a rally today here in new york city to support the police after the killing of two police officers in a shooting last week. 27-year-old will bert mora died yesterday. became a hero after the death by donating his organs. his 22-year-old partner, jason rivera, died after the shooting on friday night. these two young men, obviously, a tremendous loss to the city of new york. they dedicated their lives to keeping people safe here. in n this response they were responding to a domestic dispute between a woman and her adult son when the son came out guns blazing. today they lined the streets and escorted officer mora's body as
it was taken to a funeral home. and new york city mayor eric adams calling for the nation to come together to end gun violence. >> it's time for us to use the same abilities that we displayed during september 11th to stop the internal terrorist threat. >> martha: joining me now deroy murdock. deroy, good to have you with us. obviously there is a lot of pressure on the new mayor, eric adams, to turn this city around. like so many cities that is plagued by violence right now. what do you think of his approach so far? >> martha, it's good to be with you. what a terrible occasion in which to do so. mayor adams, a lot of us are hoping will have a different approach on crime that we had under de blasio for eight years. but is doing so much what so many do is focus on guns. the people behind them pull those triggers i want to see a
focus on those folks, getting them off the streets, locking them up, and mayor adams may have talked about that. we have a da here named alvin bragg. he says there are numerous crimes he is not going to prosecute. unless that changes, the guns, you can have guns all over the place or not all over the place. but if you have people pulling triggers, that is a problem. and we had that woman pushed in front of a subway and killed last week. that didn't involve a gun. and people that have been stabbed to death. those didn't involve guns. as far as gun control, i want to see criminal control. we need to focus on that. >> martha: just a half a minute left here. president biden will come to new york to meet with mayor adams next week on thursday. your thoughts on that. >> well, they ought to talk about crime. if i were joe biden, what i would do is give a major speech and denounce these other left
wing prosecutors that have decided their job is to basically act as defense attorneys. these people don't represent the democrat party, these are terrible ideas. and he could have a very serious sister soldier moment and gain a lot of popularity if he came out against crime. >> martha: what do you think chances are on that? >> about zero. >> martha: deroy murdock, thank you very much. always good to see you. thank you for coming on. >> good to see you. explosive investigative reporting from fox reveals correspondence between health officials at the very top intentionally suppressing the idea that covid might have escaped from a lab in wuhan, china. >> dr. gary later says a consensus is reached among the experts on that call. quote, one, don't try to write a paper at all. it's unnecessary. or two, if you do write it, don't mention a lab origin as that will just add fuel to the
why were we waved off of that so early on when now we are being told we don't know and we should do a thorough investigation of exactly that? >> martha, i deny you were waved off of that by me. i would say you were waved off of some more outrageous conspiracy theories that had no categorical sense to them. but the idea of a lab leak is anything that i thought was impossible. >> so you remember that interview here on the story then? nih director francis collins, he has retired.
confirmed that it was plausible that covid escaped from a lab. as new internal documents obtained by fox news from months prior reveal a concerted effort to suppress that idea from making it into the public per purview. >> january 31st, dr. christian anderson, a noted viewologist at the scripts lab tells fauci that after discussions with his colleagues, some of covid-19's features potentially look engineered. just four days later, five american british and australian researchers that were all on that fauci conference call, authored preliminary findings that abandon their earlier private beliefs that covid was likely the result of a laboratory leak. it's unclear what new evidence prompted a drastic 180. but various drafts of their report are sent to fauci and collins for editing and approval. more than a month later, we now
learn doctors christian anderson and robert gary who were in close contact with dr. fauci, are awarded a nearly $9 million research grant from fauci's agency. >> martha: okay. so that is a lot to absorb; right? in an e-mail from april 2020, francis collins asks dr. fauci, how they can, quote, put down this very constructive conspiracy. dr. redfield is joining me now. dr. redfield, welcome to the program. what do you make of these e-mails? what stories do they tell you? >> thanks for having me, martha. as a clinical veriologist, i always have said i don't think it's biologically plausible this virus emerged from a bat to
somer into intermediate species. that this virus clearly had a detour and that detour was being educated on how to infect human tissue in the laboratory. i think the problem i have with the e-mails and everything that we've just seen, everything that brought up which is so important, is really about set call to science. the purpose of science is to have rigorous debate about different hypothesis. i have never experienced in my life where there was private telephone calls among scientists that had a decision on what position they would take collectively. and to see that position published in a scientific journal like lansit individuals like myself that had a different
scientific hypothesis, somehow had to be put down and veered as conspirators. i have firm belief that science eventually will resolve and solve this mystery of the origin of covid. in order for science to do it, we have to embrace science. and what we saw here in these e-mails is really about theatrical to science. >> the question is, why? why would dr. fauci and dr. collins as i asked him in that interview, wave everyone off the lab theory. and you can see them talking about doing exactly that in these e-mails. why didn't they want people to think it came from the lab? >> well, i think their intentions were, in their view, good intentions. i think they believed that somehow discussing a possible leak from a laboratory would be detrimental to science. in reality, the way they responded to this, in my view,
has been detrimental to science. and it's not just the nih leadership. it's the broader scientific community that decided in a really antiscience way, that there was only one way we were going to let people think about this. they were concerned that if this thought this may have come from science in a laboratory, that, that would harm science. and they were trying to protect science. >> martha: did they think it would harm science? or did they think it would throw shade on them and their relationship that the nih and funding and money that went to these experiments, you know, juicing up these viruses, coronavirus in this lab? >> well, there is no question that there is that complicating factor, also as you know as this research was funded by the nih, but i really do believe that the
real goal behind this was a fear of hurting science and the power of science and the ability of science and what it can contribute to society. in reality, they accomplished the opposite. i thi science has been very harmed by this. and i think, you know, i'm still going to be an optimist that the scientific community will come back to embrace the principles of science and have a rigorous debate and use science to unravel the origin. i think if you look at data that we have and presented some of it, there is a lot of data that has been gathered over the last two years that really point the hypothesis they support that this virus evolved in the laboratory. and there is very limited data that we've gotten over the last three years to support dr. collins and dr. fauci's position. >> martha: isn't it dangerous to ignore your side of the theory? because especially now that we are dealing -- when you and i spoke, you said this virus was
super charged in the lab. and that is why it is so veer lent and so able to spin off these variants that we are still dealing with. dr. fauci is still in charge of overseeing the handling of this virus in this country. and if he doesn't accept that notion, doesn't it make it pretty harm for him to dictate the direction of dealing with it and tamping it down? >> yeah, i think it's harmful in the way that it's the most harmful from my point of view is what i put in the op-ed in the wall street journal. until the larger society can debate whether it has value for society and if we are going to do it, how we do it in a safe and responsible way. i do not believe this is a decision that should be made by a group of scientists. it has enormous impact. and i do think the most important thing is we have gain of research being done around the world. and we only used to have to defend ourselves against a
pathogen that came from nature. now we have to worry about a pathogen from the lab or nature. >> do you think dr. fauci should be fired? should he lose his job for not recognizing this side of the equation? which is very serious and led to serious ramifications around the world. >> well, i hope tony would reflect on this and provide the science leadership that we need to move forward. i'm not going to comment. i have a lot of respect for him over the years. i think he needs to step back and not try to second guess and make things the way that he thinks the world can hear. we should just tell the truth. >> martha: that says it all. dr. redfield, thank you, very much, sir. it's always good to see you. florida governor ron desantis goes head to head with the biden administration to revoke authorization of what he sees as life-saving antibody treatments. so what is going on here?
we have an update on the retirement of supreme court justice steven breyer. justice breyer had quote, fully made the decision on his own to step down at the end of his term and an announcement was imminent but someone jumped the gun a bit. justice bray you are was surprised the word had got out but already committed to his decision. john desantis is fighting. the agency says it's highly unlikely the treatments will work against omicron which is causing 99% of the cases in the united states. the governor says it is too soon to be sure on that.
dr. marc siegel is standing by. >> restore emergency use authorization for two of these treatments. you may remember this week, the fda pulled support because they were not effective in treating omicron. omicron the dominant strain of covid in the u.s. it argues other treatments would work better. but governor desantis says this decision was being made hastily and also amounting to a political attack from the biden administration. we heard from the governor last night. >> we had thousands of people in the queue at our treatment sights in florida, laura, and they all of a sudden wake up to saying you are out of luck because of the whims of the biden administration. what they are doing is just fundamentally wrong. >> the governor says it's possible that florida may take action to force the federal government to restore shipments, but we don't know what that action will be. meantime, the biden administration is firing right back. we got a statement to fox saying the administration is focused on making sure if an african ameris
sick -- if an american gets sick with covid-19, they are able to help. we heard from federal health officials today that says the government has more treatments now than ever before in this pandemic. martha. >> martha: mark, thank you very much. let's bring in dr. marc siegel. dr. siegel, so let me get right to it. do the treatments that the government is not allowing to be used in florida anymore, do they work against omicron? >> they work enough that they shouldn't be withdrawn. they work probably 30-40-50%. if you are facing a situation as a practicing physician as i am and dealing with a patient who is getting sicker and worried about them going into the hospital or already in the hospital and you want something that works, we want the gsk antibody but we don't have it. it's very scarce. we want the pfizer drug, but
it's very, very scarce. so if the regenron and the lily product work, i agree with the governor, they shouldn't be withdrawn. he set up clinics all across the state to give these antibodies, i want the option to be able to use them. by the way, there is another thing that nobody is talking about which is continuesless sent plasma. the plasma you get when you get over omicron. governor desantis is right, we don't needth fda involved in drawing something we still want to use here. >> martha: so if those other drugs are not available to doctors, they should have the option to use something that has a 30 to 50% chance of helping a patient. now, i think americans are outraged when they hear you say that these drugs that you want to give to people are not available. and they are not going to be available in some cases until
june or september. so what is going on here? and why weren't these, why wasn't there some kind of defense manufacturing project to make sure as soon as these got approved, we have them by the millions. >> they should have been. it should have been another operation warp speed instead of an operation snail speed. they should have been prepurchased. a drug company is not going to make it. they are not going to gear up and make the production line unless they are told by the government we will buy this in advance and it's ready to go out of the shoot. the way we saw with the vaccines. we needed to do that. >> reporter: >> martha: we all remember president trump saying we will have everything ready and the second we get approval we will start churning out these vaccines. 2,000 people dying a day, how many of them could be saved if they had it in the first days of getting covid? >> i think many of them could. and it's 2,000 to 3,000 dying a day and hospitalizations 150,000.
it would keep people out of the hospital. i have seen it in realtime working, martha, it would work to keep people from being hospitalized. we need it now. we needed it yesterday. >> martha: what a travesty. this is a big, big story. dr. siegel thank you very much. that's the story for this wednesday. as always the story goes on. thank you for being with us today. we look forward to seeing you back here tomorrow at 3:00. your world starts right now. martha, thank you. the dow up triple digits earlier finishing in the red. this after fed chief jerome powell made it pretty clear that the fed will start hiking interest rates in march. and little to no progress is being made on is up ply chain issues. what the pentagon spokesman just told me about where things are heading. that's coming up. first this. to the supreme court shakeup with justice steven breyer on his way out, who could be on the way i