Peter Kiernan: Not wise to brag about the stock market

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," October 18, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, market maybe in pencil, a big milestone for the Dow, its fourth 1,000-point milestone this year, as it crosses easily 23000, now about 844 points away from 24000.

And at the rate we're going, don't be surprised if that too happens this year. The latest boost to the Dow and all of these milestones, of course, anticipation of continued low interest rates, or relatively low.

But, on this day we scored a 51st record close for the Dow and the year, more than any other full year in history, also optimism that those tax cuts go through and better-than-expected earnings, including, in the case of IBM, relief that it wasn't as bad as they thought it would be.

Their revenues declined, but they didn't declined nearly as much. That's a weird way of Wall Street rewarding you for not stinking as much as they feared you might.

Here to get into that and so much more, Fox Business Network's Lauren Simonetti outside the New York Stock Exchange.

Incredible run, huh?


It's official, economy Dow 23000. We have closed above that level for the first time in history. The question is why. There's so many reasons for you. Let's focus on two right now.

Number one, IBM. Shares rallying big time. It's a Dow stock. Best gain for IBM in about anybody years. You can bank gains in hard artificial intelligence and their hardware business. They put out a better-than- expected report card for the last quarter.

Number two, star it, highlight it, whatever you want to do it, it's tax reform. This is what the market is waiting for. The president says we're getting tax reform, he hopes, by Christmas, what a major boon that would be for the middle class and for corporate America.

In fact, it's one of the reasons that since Election Day, Neil, the market is up over 25 percent.

So we asked regular people here on the street, outside the New York Stock Exchange, if that uptick makes them nervous.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Things are turning around. People are -- more jobs out there, more revenues, more income for people. That's what we need, more raises.

SIMONETTI: And 23000, does that worry you, because the market has come up so much?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes and no. I worry because my 401(k) could fluctuate. I worry because my job may be on the line.

SIMONETTI: Would you buy stocks at these crazy high levels?



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because the person that advises me tells me not to.

SIMONETTI: You don't fear a crash or a sell-off or anything else happening?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There might be a correction soon.

SIMONETTI: You invested in the stock market?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know how to do it.



SIMONETTI: You know the saying on Wall Street. When your cab driver, Neil, tells you to buy stocks, that's when you get out. So, good news. That cabbie no advice for us today.

But I also want to remind you about what tomorrow represents, the 30th anniversary of Black Monday, that historic story crash back in 1987, when the Dow plunged over 22 percent, its most ever.

Well, let me also tell you this. If you invested then, the Dow is up 1,200 percent and the Nasdaq up 2,200 percent and the broader market is up 1,000 percent. So, translation, if you put $100 into the S&P or a fund that tracks the S&P then, it's $1,100 right now.

That's some good news for people who are saying, well, the market is so high. What do I do? You never know.

CAVUTO: That's a very good point.


CAVUTO: The trend is your friend, especially if you're young, like you, Lauren. You weren't even born back then. But I remember it quite well.


CAVUTO: Thank you.

SIMONETTI: Oh, Neil, I forgot to tell you, I got my Dow 23000 cap from inside the New York Stock Exchange. They don't make a lot of these anymore.

CAVUTO: Oh, wow.

SIMONETTI: And they're making me give it back.

CAVUTO: See, they didn't even try to give me one, because it wouldn't fit on my head.

SIMONETTI: I have to go back and return it.

CAVUTO: Yes, it wouldn't fit on my head. It fits easily on yours.


CAVUTO: All right, Lauren, thank you very, very much, Lauren Simonetti.

Well, a lot of this seems to be hinging on tax cuts, or so they say. But when they is the treasury secretary of the United States and he hints what could happen if we don't get the tax cuts, well, take a look.


STEVEN MNUCHIN, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: I think to the extent we get the tax deal done, the stock market will go up higher. But there's no question in my mind, if we don't get it done, you are going to see a reversal of a significant amount of these gains.


CAVUTO: So, this rally gives up a lot of ground if those tax cuts don't materialize and soon?

Let's ask market watchers Art Hogan, Gary Kaltbaum, and Jonas Max Ferris.

Art, what do you think of that?

ART HOGAN, CHIEF MARKET ANALYST, JEFFRIES AND COMPANY: Well, I think the way you want to think about it is, if the process stops for some reason -- we're in good shape right now. The process is moving.

The House passed their form of the budget bill. They went to Ways and Means. They're in committee right now. They're going to have something on taxes. We're in the Senate. That probably passes tomorrow on the budget side, goes to the House Finance Committee. The work that needs to be done is going.

I think the market would get very upset if for some reason that stopped or that process got halted. As long as the process keeps moving, even if this gets pushed into '18, I think the market is fine.

I don't think we have baked in a lot for tax cuts for tax reform right now. I think we're betting on the process and hoping it continues.

CAVUTO: Yes, there's something to what he says. And I know you have echoed it, Gary. This optimism about earnings and cleaner and better balance sheets, which is buoying a lot of this activity and earning numbers.

But you do have to think that if this somehow falls through or if it's dramatically watered down, that the markets wouldn't give up some ground. But what do you think?


But I disagree with Mnuchin's word significant. And I say that because something has happened over the last three months. You have had an economy here and around the globe accelerating, which helps earnings, which takes down valuations.

Combine that, though, with the easy money that is still sloshing around, and, typically, Neil, with where the unemployment rate is and where our GDP is now, we should be at 5 percent Fed Funds rates. And with acceleration in Asia and Europe right now, they're still printing money and have negative rates.

And that's what is fueling a lot of this at this point in time. I don't think the word significant is in the cards, but I think it do there will be a haircut.

CAVUTO: We talk about what the historical norm would be.

Of course, Jonas, as you know, Gary was referring to the overnight bank lending rate known as Federal Funds. It's about a quarter of what it normally historically would be. We have gotten so used to that. I think it is going to be jarring when we do get back up to that. But what do you think?

JONAS MAX FERRIS, MAXFUNDS.COM: If we get back up to that.

We would have to also go back to normal valuations in stocks, which I don't think might -- may never happen again for long periods of time just because of the amount of wealth that has been created.

CAVUTO: Oh, never say never, Jonas. Never say never.

FERRIS: I don't know. And everybody who has lived through the '70s is like, oh, yes, rates are going back to 10 percent someday.

Like, I don't know if it's ever going to be that day. It could be like Japan where you just have low rates for 20 years and that's the way it is.

As far as is the market going to tank, I just don't see this whole rally being built on the likelihood of taxes getting done. Like there's not a lot of optimism for major policies getting done. Is it a negative? Yes, it's a negative, that if we were in a weak economy right now, it would be a much bigger negative to not have some sort of stimulus going through.

But, right now, you don't really at the end of the day need it to keep this economy strong. It's a strong economy right now. We're not on the edge of recession. We're not in a slowing economy. There's no underlying bubble like real estate falling apart that requires stimulus.

It would be nice. It's a wasted opportunity. It would be great to have reform, if not a cut. But it's not going to collapse the stock market. Something else might, but it's not going to be a lack of tax cuts.

CAVUTO: Art, you are an institution, as is Gary. I know sometimes you feel like you want to be in an institution.


CAVUTO: But a lot of investors look up to you and just say all right. I'm hearing this fuss and frenetic activity, this melt-up, whatever they're calling it. I want in. But I have never been in.

What do you tell people?

HOGAN: That's a great question, Neil.

And I think when you look at that, you have to look at what your investment time horizon is and what your risk profile is. Right now, stocks are pretty fairly valued. I think that there's more upside if earnings continue to grow. And it appears as though that is happening if the economies of the world continue to grow. And that seems to be happening.

And there's not a recession in sight. It doesn't feel like we're in a recession territory. So, I think investors are probably safe to have an allocation to equities right now.

But you never want to jump in. If you have been out for the run of this market since March of 2009, you want to leg back into this market, because you are going to see some pullbacks and save some dry powder for when that happens. Believe me, it does. And we will see another one soon.

CAVUTO: Do you see one of the wild cards, Gary, in this interest rates as low as they are and that that in itself could be a bubble?

KALTBAUM: Look, Neil, the definition of a bubble is what central banks have done over the last eight years, taking money, interest rates down to these levels unforeseen or have even imagined.

So, I do believe there's bubbles in a lot of places. We could talk about these Bitcoins, biotech companies with $10 billion market caps with no sales. IBM, sales down, earnings down, goes up $14. I think a lot of that is bubblicious.

And I do believe down the road there is going to be heck to pay. But right now, it just feels like we're in a sweet spot here. And we even can't correct 2 or 3 percent before buyers show up again.

Until that dynamic changes, you really can't argue with it. Look, the dynamic can change next week, but all I know, as of this second, it's pretty darn strong.

CAVUTO: Gentlemen, even though none of you were around the time of the last crash, it's good to have your perspective now. So, thank you all very, very much.

In the meantime, the president liking to tout his record-breaking move here for stocks. Who can blame him? Take a look.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The stock market hit today 23000.

I think we're hitting another new high today, because there's tremendous optimism having to do with business in our country.

Just in the stock market alone, we have increased our economic worth by $5.2 trillion. That's right since Election Day, $5.2 trillion.



CAVUTO: Well, it has been the wind at his back.

But former Goldman Sachs partner and bestselling author Peter Kiernan, who was there for the 1929 stock market crash -- I'm kidding. I'm kidding.



CAVUTO: Good to see you, my friend. Thank you very much.

KIERNAN: Nice to see you.

CAVUTO: You worry about bragging about a market. Ronald Reagan was very leery of talking much about the markets because he thought it would jinx him or curse him. But what should a president do? Because he surely is going to get the blame if they're going south.

KIERNAN: Well, I think he's got every right to celebrate.

I think we all feel a lot smarter, don't we, than we did in 2008? And we're up 3200 in the Dow since the election. But what troubles me a little bit is this notion of where it spills over into bragging.

I love the notion of cheering on the market. The market deserves to be cheered on, because there are a lot of terrific things happening. But it's not a wise policy. History has shown those who brag about it tend to get bitten.

CAVUTO: So what is the posture a president should take?

Obviously, Ronald Reagan kind of shrugged through the '87 stock market crash because he didn't fixate on minute-by-minute, day-by-day movements. But he oversaw a big bull market rampage, 20-plus million jobs.

So where do you draw the line in what you take credit for and don't?

KIERNAN: Well, I think the key is, are you aspirational?

Are you willing to go out there and say, we together built this amazing turnaround? Somebody talked about, in March of 2009, the Dow was 6900.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

KIERNAN: And it's more than tripled since then.

I think there is still plenty of room to go. And something new has come to the party that I haven't seen in a very long time. Euphoria. Suddenly, we're seeing people thoroughly excited by investing in the market.

CAVUTO: But is it too much, Peter?

You never like to bash a good thing, but the fear is that are we getting a little ahead of ourselves? What do you recommend to people?

KIERNAN: Look, I think it's very fully valued.

But today is a market where instead of buy low, sell high, you are going to have to buy high and sell higher.

One of the exciting things is, if you look at the economies of the world, OECD, every one of those countries, 35-plus, has a growing economy and many of them are growing faster this year than last year.

That is great news, even though it's non-U.S. economy. It's great news because of the top 100 brands, most of those brands are U.S. brands. So what we're going to see is a billion new members of the middle class created by the economic growth outside of our borders.

That's all great for us. Those things make sense. But using the stock market as your key or only indicia of health I think is dangerous.

CAVUTO: All right, let's say this rally, if Donald Trump had not been elected about a year ago, where would we be?

KIERNAN: I don't think we would be anywhere close to where we are right now, because what happened was, that night, there were a whole lot of things that -- well, here's what a president can do.

A president can move a market by moving sentiment. A president can't sustain a market. A sustained market comes from economic growth, earnings growth, revenue growth of the type we're seeing.

But a president does have the ability to cheerlead a market higher to make those initial moves. And once the moves start, a virtuous circle is created. The wealth effect is created and all kinds of good things happen.

CAVUTO: All right, as the history of my knowing you, Peter, thank you very much for your expertise, a former Goldman Sachs partner and bestselling author and again there for the 1929 crash.


KIERNAN: Neil, thank you. It was a terrible day.


CAVUTO: Thank you, my friend.

All right. And, by the way, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of that famous crash, some historical parallels between now and now, which we will be exploring in greater detail. I was there to cover that.

I know what you're thinking. He can't be old enough. More old enough tomorrow.

In the meantime, NFL players, they should stand. The commissioner, the NFL, says they should stand for the national anthem. But -- but he's not demanding they stand.

Can you stand this?

After this.


CAVUTO: All right. You don't stand, well, we won't bench.

The NFL taking a quasi-kind of middle line here on players who do not stand for the national anthem.

I can't understand it for the life of me.

But I know my buddy Rick Leventhal can. He's there right now in New York on what came of this NFL decision on the national anthem, et al.

What did they decide here?

RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: They will not require players to stand for the national anthem.

There will be no rule change. There's a policy in the league that they should stand, but the league won't make them do it. And we also heard today from the commissioner, Roger Goodell who says he believes that players should stand for the national anthem, but he won't make them do it.

He also says he thinks most players or all players respect the flag and that only half-a-dozen of them are actually sitting or kneeling. He also says the league's goal is to get that number down to zero by working with the players on community programs and issues that are important to them.


ROGER GOODELL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE COMMISSIONER: I think listening to our players, understanding our players, trying to address those underlying issues, and making our communities better is where the real opportunity is. And that long term is going to benefit us.


LEVENTHAL: Owners did discuss the possibility of a rule change, in part because of the P.R. nightmare that these protests have created.

TV ratings are down. Fans seem to be upset. Attendance has reportedly suffered after these protests that were first started last season by San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

So while owners here, Neil, have admitted that the protests are hurting their bottom line, they say they're working with players and they don't want to force them to stand during the national anthem.

CAVUTO: All right, you can't force them into it, I guess.

Rick Leventhal, thank you very much.

I want to get the read on all this from Doug Eldridge, a DLE Agency managing partner.

I'm sure, Doug, they had to have that come-to-Jesus moment where the owners told the players, here's the revenue sharing that you're looking at this year vs. last year, which isn't as good as last year. Here's what we could be looking at, you could be looking at this next year.

But nothing changed, really, right?

DOUG ELDRIDGE, DLE AGENCY: Well, it was more of a discussion, as you noted, than a decision, per se.

And when you have a revenue-sharing model, you clearly, most literally and figuratively, a vested or shared interest. In this context, I think one of the most important things is what Rick teased in the intro. And that is sagging viewer ratings.

I think we all saw the Credit Suisse analyst who said roughly 7.5 percent down from this time last year. And networks like CBS are anticipating a third quarter 3 percent shortfall.

So, when you step back and look at what CBS is paying on a per annum basis, roughly $1 billion, for a total media rights package that runs through the end of the 2022 season, evaluated around $28 billion, with a B, when we talk about 3 percent corrections, that has a quantifiable, calculable impact.


CAVUTO: Well, certainly, the players notice that, right, and obviously the owners.

But they would -- I would imagine trying to impress that upon the players, regardless of their impassioned positions.

Now, do you see anything really changing with regard to this move today, if it was such a move?

ELDRIDGE: Well, I think this is a critically important first step.

And that is create a dialogue. Nothing can happen in the absence of that.

CAVUTO: Right.

ELDRIDGE: But in the last 24 hours -- I'm a regular viewer of your show, as you probably know -- you have had Nate Boyer, you have had Rob O'Neill, you have had a litany of military-oriented experts, all of whom would say excellence comes from a commitment to the process day in and day out.

Focus on the process, and the results will achieve themselves. When we step and back look at where the players and the owners are coming from, they took the first critical step in that process, which is to have a dialogue.

But then you have to define the issue, Neil. Having large, sweeping, amorphous topics are great for dialogue or sound bites, but difficult for charting progress. From there, third, establish a goal. Right?

From a goal, more narrow objectives. Right? Just as if you were on a marathon course. You have a start line and a finish line, but you have 26 mile markers along the way to, number one, assure you that you're still on the course, but, number two, to allow you to chart progress, your time relative to where you are on the course.

And then fifth and final, what I call the other side of the door, meaning, as owners and players, what do each of us expect from one another when we get to the other side of the door moving forward?

So, this is the first domino, but not the first and last chapter.

CAVUTO: I agree with you on all of the above, Doug. And you're the expert here. As you know, I read a prompter. So, I'm just as much the expert, if you think about it.


CAVUTO: But what I'm fearing, Doug, is there's not a lot of time to sort this out, because with every game this happens, more and more viewers get ticked off. And I imagine more and more click off, right?

ELDRIDGE: I'm so glad you said that, because here's why this is so relevant.

The calculus or the decision, rather, that the NFL owners and players have to make is, number one, is this simply a market correction? You referenced the crash of '87.

I was living in West Germany, what was then West Germany, with my mom and dad, my dad of the Italian command over there. I still remember where I was.

They have to determine whether or not this is a market correction of an organization that does $10 billion to $14 billion per year, year over year, or, more importantly, is this a ripple effect from 18 months of kneeling during the anthem and, quite frankly, mounting viewer fatigue?

And here's why it's relevant, to tie it all back, OK?

CAVUTO: Real quick. Real quick.

ELDRIDGE: Viewers determine ratings, ratings determine rankings, rankings establish what you can charge for ad rates, ad rates determine ad revenue.

All of this comes back to the collective pool that the owners and players share, not the least of which is underscored by that big media contract. So, all of this matters, Neil. All of it matters.


CAVUTO: You are right.

ELDRIDGE: But what we can hope and double down for is that it took the most critical step today with that dialogue.

CAVUTO: All right, buddy, thank you very, very much. Sorry to jump on you, Doug Eldridge.

We will have more after this. Stick around.

ELDRIDGE: Thank you.


CAVUTO: All right, Jeff feeling the pressure again.

The president a little bit on him right now, the attorney general, over former FBI Director James Comey.

The president tweeting -- and I quote here -- "Wow. FBI confirms report that James Comey drafted a letter exonerating crooked Hillary Clinton long before investigation was complete. Many people not interviewed, including Clinton herself. Comey stated under oath that he didn't do this. Obviously a fix. Where is the Justice Department?"

Where, indeed?

Let us ask former Justice Department official Robert Driscoll.

All right, he's not happy, Robert.


CAVUTO: This did come up once or twice today. But what do you make of this? How big of a deal is this?


I think that Attorney General Sessions is recused from the Russia investigation, broadly speaking. So it's not an issue for him. And I think that the professionals at the Department of Justice are probably going to ignore tweets like that.

The executive branch does control the -- and the president does control the Department of Justice, but really in a broader policy sense. And in the day-to-day, you know, decisions on a case like that, I don't think they will take the tweet into account.

CAVUTO: All right, but will they take into account the message underlying it, that this is, you know, an FBI that wasn't fair about how it was going to go about its business and did in fact and may still in fact be targeting the present occupant of the White House?

DRISCOLL: I mean, I tend to doubt it, that they would do it without evidence.

I think that, you know, certain parts of the Russian investigation are closed. If there's new evidence for other parts of the Russia investigation, they will open it.

But I think that, again, these are professionals. They're used to dealing with high-profile cases. And I don't think that the president -- the president is understandably reading the paper, like an average citizen, and is complaining because he thinks he's being treated unfairly.

CAVUTO: Right.

DRISCOLL: Obviously, on the legal side of it, there's a lot more that would go into whether or not former Director Comey did anything worthy of investigation or prosecution.

CAVUTO: Well, let me ask you just about that part, Robert, because is it unusual if in fact he was a long way from being done to essentially draft a conclusion?

DRISCOLL: It sounds a little bit unusual. But I don't think it's unprecedented.

It depends on what the context is. When I was at Justice, I sometimes had two competing memos drafted, one going one way and one going the other way, by different people to try to make a decision.

CAVUTO: Well, he had only one going one way, from what we understand.

DRISCOLL: And that's all we have seen.

But you might build that in advance. It's a little troubling to me. But, again, it depends on what his basis was. If his basis was a legal basis, and he thought he knew what Secretary Clinton was going to say through the other witnesses, and he just did that preliminarily, and waited to see if her testimony changed that, it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world.

But still the optics of it are not great. You don't like the idea of somebody having some evidence, that they have prejudged it.

CAVUTO: All right, do you think there's anything weird here?

DRISCOLL: There's a few things that are weird about the Russia investigation and about Secretary Comey.


DRISCOLL: And I think that there would be a justification to look into a whole lot of these things if public integrity or another section of Justice wanted to do it.

But I think there's really going to be a small-P political decision by people lower down within the department about whether they even want to pick up this hot rock.

CAVUTO: Real quickly, separating this and the investigation of the White House, this White House, this president.


CAVUTO: Do you think this will be concluded or at least we will have a finding by the end of this year, or could this drag many months more?

DRISCOLL: It could certainly drag more.

I think it would be in the interest of the country for it to go sooner. I think it would be appropriate for, you know, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein or somebody else to put the pressure on folks to reach a conclusion, so they can come out one way or the other, because I think having it hang isn't really a great benefit to anybody.


DRISCOLL: The least of all the president.

But for anyone else, for the country in general, I think it's better to clear all this up as quickly as they can, and to look at what they have and to really put the resources into it if they think there's something there and make a decision to fish or cut bait.

CAVUTO: Robert Driscoll, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.

DRISCOLL: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, the Las Vegas security guard breaking his silence with Ellen DeGeneres, the latest on how that could affect the entire Vegas investigation after this.


CAVUTO: A former NFL player reacts to what Roger Goodell had to say to player who opt out of standing for the national anthem.

He says, Goodell, I would prefer you stand, but they don't have to.


CAVUTO: All right. Well, he's alive, he's OK.

Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos resurfacing today and appearing on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show."

Trace Gallagher has the latest on, well, what we learned -- Trace.


We were told security guard Jesus Campos wanted his privacy. Instead, he gave Ellen his version of what happened. Campos said he was on the 31st floor of the Mandalay Bay when he got a call about a door left ajar on the 32nd floor.

He climbed the stairwell, but the door leading into the hallway was jammed. So, he took the elevator. As he made his way toward Stephen Paddock's room, he noticed the door to the stairwell had a bracket holding it shut. That's when he called for maintenance and the hotel sent Stephen Schuck.

That's also when Campos believes he got the attention of Stephen Paddock, because at first he heard drilling sounds, then the rapid fire of gunshots. Listen to him.


JESUS CAMPOS, MANDALAY BAY SECURITY GUARD: At first, I took cover. I felt a burning sensation. I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. That's when I called it in on my radio that shots have been fired.

And I was going to say that I was hit. But I got on over myself just to clear that radio traffic for -- they can coordinate the rest of the call.


GALLAGHER: About that time, maintenance worker Stephen Schuck was coming down the hall.

Campos says he told him to get down. And Schuck says he could feel the compression of the bullets flying by him. Schuck believes Campos saved his life.

But there were no questions by Ellen asked about the timeline or the clarity of the timeline, which has changed three times. Police first said Campos diverted the gunman's attention, causing him to stop firing on the crowd, then later said Campos was shot six minutes before the shooting on the crowd began, and then finally said Campos was shot within 40 seconds of the mass attack.

It remains unclear exactly why Ellen was chosen for Campos' one and only interview, but we can tell you, MGM, which owns Mandalay Bay, sponsors Ellen's show and has Ellen's slot machines in all of its casinos -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Wow. All right, thank you, Trace, very much.

Well, does this interview then change anything?

FOX News anchor, former defense attorney Gregg Jarrett.

What do you think, Gregg? GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: It helps the plaintiffs in their lawsuits against the hotel, because Campos says he called immediately.

And the shooting didn't happen, according to Las Vegas police, for another six minutes thereafter. And it took almost a full 20 minutes after Campos first reported it for Las Vegas police to arrive.

By then, it was all over. So, the plaintiffs who are suing for negligence are going to say better security that acted more quickly to respond to the shooting could have saved lives and diminished the casualty count.

And they will have expert witnesses on security who will say that. Plus, they will say there should have been unbreakable glass in the hotel, there should have been an inspection of the room after, let's say, 12 hours of a do-not-disturb sign on the doorknob.

And they should have had more bag checks, especially a guy who is bringing in enormous amounts of weaponry in 10 different bags and, yes, over several days. But they will argue that other hotels with better security would have caught him.

CAVUTO: All right, now, Steve Wynn of the Wynn Resorts, he has much tougher screenings and all, even for guests prior to this incident at Mandalay Bay.

But it's always easy to play the Monday-morning cop.


CAVUTO: But that's what lawyers are going to do. Right?


And they will call Steve Wynn as a plaintiff's witness because of what he has already said on television. And, look, he has credibility. This is a guy who for 40 years developed much of Las Vegas. He said...

CAVUTO: You're talking about Steve Wynn.

JARRETT: Yes, Steve Wynn.

He set the standard for security in Las Vegas at many of the hotels and casinos. He's the first guy who installed security cameras on every gaming table. So when Steve Wynn talks about security, he's got credibility, and probably in front of a jury.

CAVUTO: Do you think, Greg, we do have a clear timeline, we're not just getting it right now, that between cameras not only on that floor, but in the casino, outside the casino, the woman who was seen with Paddock the night before, that there's a clear video trail, at least as to what he was doing and when?

JARRETT: There is, in the fact that Las Vegas police didn't get the timeline right the first time.

And I understand why they didn't. My goodness, you know, it's frantic and frenetic in the days and hours afterwards. It's hard to get all your facts together right away. People make mistakes.

But the plaintiffs will try to exploit that, saying don't trust the Las Vegas police when they tell you how things occurred, because they just couldn't get it right from the very beginning.

CAVUTO: All right, Greg, thank you very, very much.

JARRETT: My pleasure.

CAVUTO: Good seeing you, my friend.

All right, well, here's a worrisome development, not so much the so-called surprise that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is calling the US a bully, but that a lot of U.S. so-called allies in Europe agree when it comes to what we did with that reversal on the Iran deal.

That should worry you -- after this.


CAVUTO: I like the way they do it in Iran. Right? They call themselves the supreme leader.

Ayatollah Khamenei calling the U.S. a bully over these new sanctions and trying to decertify that deal that they thought was ironclad.

What is worrisome, though, is that he's getting a sympathetic ear in Europe, by the way, not the president, the supreme leader.

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz on this.

Fred, that worries me. Obviously, they're concerned, that is, in Europe, that this president is going to walk away from a deal they say has problems, but shouldn't be decertified.

So, where is this going?

FRED FLEITZ, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Well, let's think about this, Neil.

We have these European elites who are trying to dictate solutions to Middle East security problems, including Iran. And they're basically condemning President Trump's approach to the Iran deal.

But Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are far more affected by the threat from Iran, they immediately endorsed the president's approach. And I think we have to consider one reason for this are all these trade deals that John Kerry aggressively promoted to lock this deal down and make it hard for the next president to pull out.

CAVUTO: So, the president wants to rework this. He isn't advocating the deal. He is just saying, we can toughen it up. We can add more teeth, I think, quoting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Can you?

FLEITZ: Well, I actually -- I think the prospects of fixing this deal are remote.

What I think the president did was, he gave Congress an opportunity to fix it. I think the president intends to leave the deal, unless Congress comes through. I don't think the president expects Congress to fix it.

I know we have been hearing some conflicting signs from other people. I take it from the comment that the president made based on a recommendation from my old boss John Bolton that he retains the right to pull out of the deal, and he will do so if Congress doesn't fix it.

CAVUTO: So, if I'm Iran, I'm looking at this, and I'm trying to play -- it almost seems like my kids playing off myself and my wife, right? Well, you said we couldn't go out, but dad says we can.

And I get a feeling that that's what Iran is going to try to do, to divide and conquer among the Western powers that signed off on this thing. Donald Trump is being the meanie. You guys signed off onto this. We're doing business with you now. We're ordering a bunch of planes from you, France, and Europe collectively, Airbus and the like. So come on here.

How is that going to go?

FLEITZ: Well, that's right.

And there's also a contract with Boeing. And these contracts were both announced...

CAVUTO: Exactly.

FLEITZ: ... after Iran met its commitments for the deal to go into place. It was ingenious.

John Kerry was so active in doing that, in mid-02016, he was accused of being a new lobbyist for Iran. The Iranians know what the game is here. They also know this was an incredibly generous deal for them. And they don't want to it go away.

CAVUTO: So, you know -- and I think you and have I talked about this -- that, if we walk away from this deal, even though it wasn't done and approved by Congress, so it's technically not a treaty, I guess, but walking away from it would send a very and set a very bad precedent.

Would it?

FLEITZ: I don't think it would set a bad precedent. This deal legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and has a very short duration.

We need permanent sanctions against Iran barring transfers of nuclear technology. And the power of the U.S. economy can force companies worldwide to do that.

It's a bad deal. It legitimizes Iran's nuclear program. It allows it to continue to enrich uranium with over 5,000 centrifuges. Unless that can be fixed, I think it's better to get out.

CAVUTO: All right, Fred, great seeing you again. Thank you very, very much.

FLEITZ: Good to be here.

CAVUTO: I'm just going to call you the supreme Fred Fleitz.


CAVUTO: I don't know. I just think it works.

All right, in the meantime, the NFL's decision on the national anthem controversy that a lot of people say is a no decision. Now a former NFL player says no decision actually could be the best decision. He will explain. He's next.



ROGER GOODELL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE COMMISSIONER: We believe everyone should stand for the national anthem. That's an important part of our policy. It's also an important part of our game.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think it's certainly a step in the right direction. As we said have many times before, the president supports standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag, and honoring those men and women in uniform that fight to protect it.


CAVUTO: All right, but my read from this from the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell today, stand, but if you don't want to stand, that's fine, too.

So I'm at a loss.

Jack Brewer, the Brewer Group CEO, former NFL player, just a really nice guy, just to step back and help us look at this.

What was concluded today, Jack? I can't understand it.

JACK BREWER, FORMER NFL PLAYER: Well, I think he definitely calmed the players, because there's a lot of tension, whenever you have Jerry Jones that comes out and say that he's not going to allow his players to play if they kneel.

CAVUTO: Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys.

BREWER: Dallas Cowboys, the owner.

CAVUTO: Exactly. Yes, he would sit them out.

BREWER: And he's very powerful in the league, as we all know.

And so I think what Roger Goodell did today was good and was needed.

CAVUTO: So, you think that Jerry Jones would then honor that, that if one of his players do that, that, hey, the commissioner said that they can do that?

BREWER: I'm hoping, after this last meeting, where the owners came together with a lot of influential players, and really talked about these issues.

We all live in our bubbles. So, sometimes, we can't see things through others' eyes. And I think, right now, that's what this country needs. I think those owners needed that, just to be able to hear from the players direct and hear what their voices are really saying and their real perspective.

CAVUTO: Well, how do you advise them?

Some of the players that, you know, were forced into a corner, and that if they were forced to stand, they wouldn't stand, and then they would be benched and who knows what else, now that seems to be taken off the table, but for fans watching, it means those fans are still going to be ticked off, right?

BREWER: Yes, they are. And, listen, kneeling for the flag offends a lot of people in this country. It offends people who...

CAVUTO: Does it offend you?

BREWER: I don't want to say it offends me.

I personally would stand. But I respect someone's free speech and their ability to express themselves. Let's not forget, this is a peaceful protest.

CAVUTO: Right.

BREWER: Nobody is out there hurting anyone.

The National Football League and its players work tirelessly in the communities across America. All right, they stand up for this country. And I think we need to take a step and realize that there were six players, maybe seven players kneeling before the president made those outlandish comments.

CAVUTO: Yes, this is what really got them going a couple weeks ago, when he was in Alabama, the president making these remarks.

Take a look.


TRUMP: Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say get that son of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off the field right now? Out. He's fired. He's fired!



CAVUTO: All right, now, strong words. A lot of Americans agree with that sentiment.

What do you think?

BREWER: You know, it's your tone, right?

We're talking about young men. We're not talking about men that are 60 or 70 years old. Talking about young men who are learning their profession and going through different experiences. And they're...

CAVUTO: Did that reignite this whole thing? It was dying away, and, then, all of a sudden, it got...

BREWER: Yes. Of course it did.

These players are representing their communities, communities that I work in personally, where I have got to go into these plays and see these kids dropping out at over 50 percent, going in and trying to mentor all these young black men who don't have fathers at home, have no guidance, and trying to give them guidance.

We have issues in this country that really need to be addressed. This is our time. I -- personally, I'm glad we're finally having a conversation. I wish it wasn't under such tense...

CAVUTO: But my worry about having the conversation -- and I agree with you it's good. And both sides here -- I always have a sense that time is a wasting here, because support, viewership for the NFL week after -- it's going down, down, down, down.

You have got to resolve this conversation one way or the other. Now, one idea that was kicked about is maybe do -- the NFL get involved in charitable efforts that speak to the needs and the issues that you address, but do it fast. Turn this thing around.


I'm the national spokesman for the Police Athletic Leagues across this country. And we try to bridge the gap bringing law enforcement officers with the community that they serve.

We have epidemics in this country. The areas that we're talking about right now are not represented in the police force. They can't hire folks from those same communities. That's a problem.

We need to better train our police officers. That's a problem.

But at the end of the day, our president has to take a stance, put his hand out and shake the hands of the NFL players, invite us to the White House. Let's have a conversation and really talk to each other and have a dialogue.

CAVUTO: How many would come to the White House?

BREWER: I don't know, but I will come. And I will bring others with me.


CAVUTO: But when this whole is issue came out, there was a lot of ranting at the president, but not a lot of ranting about some of the issues that supposedly a lot of these players would care about, like black-on-black crime, for example, in Chicago.

Why not?

BREWER: That's what we need to be talking about right now.

I talked to Hannity about the same thing. Those issues -- I was in Baltimore a few weeks ago. And over the course of that week, 19 men had gotten shot.

And when you start talking about numbers that high, there's deeper problems that we need to discuss. Police brutality is an issue in America. Black men are incarcerated at much too high of a rate in our country.

But let's talk about how we fix that problem. Let's not point fingers. Let's not draw lines in the sand.


BREWER: All this division, it doesn't make sense.

I'll tell you one more thing, Neil. Most of the people that agree that we do have issues, now they're being forced to take a side that they may not necessarily want to take, because you're putting the military in it. You're putting the flag in it.

And really, at the core of this, no NFL players wants to talk against our flag.

CAVUTO: But what do you think when Pop Warner players, kids are doing the same thing now? Does it worry you?

BREWER: I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like the rhetoric.

I don't like police officers being hated across the board. We have an epidemic with a small percentage of police officers that we need to take on. I don't like telling a kid that's 6, 7, 8 years old to kneel against the flag, and not really teaching them what the flag represents, and letting him know that even though things in our country don't work out our way, we still have the opportunity to fight against those things, to speak out and to change our laws, because we have our Constitution.

And that's the most powerful thing we have in this country.

CAVUTO: Well, you're -- I think you are going to be a crucial player in getting this to the next level.


BREWER: Well, I will give it all I got. Thank you.

CAVUTO: All right, Jack Brewer, very good guy, trying to bridge the gap here between sides that still do not appear to be budging.

Stick around. You're watching Fox. We will have more after this.


CAVUTO: Thirty years. Where has the time gone?

Thirty years after the '87 crash, we look at, well, could history ever repeat itself? It usually does, or comes close to rhyming in one way, shape, or form -- 12:00 p.m. on FBN, we're looking into this.

Plus, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise will be joining us, as well as active players, people who were there when everything was melting down.

One thing I can tell you from that coverage -- and, again, you will see some of the coverage that I had at the time 30 years ago -- I know, I don't look that old -- we always come back. I will give you -- I will give you a little hint. We always, always, always come back, always.

See you then.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.