This is a rush transcript from "Your World," September 27, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We're going to move as expeditiously as possible.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: Go through this as quickly as we can.

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, D-WASH.: This is expeditious. So we're not going to drag this out for a long time.

REP. DEAN PHILLIPS, D-WASH.: I still want to see the committee to explore investigation. It's done expeditiously.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: We won't have the calendar be the arbiter, but we do -- there's -- it doesn't have to drag on.


NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: No need to worry about dragging on, right?

What is the need for speed? Democrats pushing for a very quick impeachment probe, reportedly looking to wrap up any hearings before the holidays. But why the big rush, big show?

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill, where it looks like Democrats are putting impeachment on the very fast track.

Hey, Mike. What's going on?


Speaker Nancy Pelosi critical of those who helped inform the whistle- blower.


PELOSI: For the president to say what he said about those who may have supplied information to the whistle-blower seriously undermines integrity in government. But the president does that almost every day.


EMANUEL: Republicans continue questioning the information in that whistle- blower complaint.


REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y.: Well, there's no way of knowing what's -- what's real and what's not. I mean, you're talking about second and third information from people who are actually vipers in the White House, who obviously have it in for President Trump.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: He is in the indicia of arguable political bias, which is fancy Washington talk for this guy was out to get the president. So he's -- his motivation, there's -- there's questions there.

His -- and he certainly didn't have any firsthand knowledge. And yet we're going to -- the Democrats are going to move ahead with impeachment after reading that transcript?


EMANUEL: With lawmakers gone for two weeks, they should have plenty of opportunities to hear from their constituents.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fifty percent of the people in my district don't identify as Democrats. And many of them did not vote for me, but I'm still their representative. So I want to hear from them as well.


EMANUEL: Some were expected to continue over the recess, with the possibility of a hearing in the House Intelligence Committee next Friday -- Neil.

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

Well, did the State Department, in the meantime, just poke a hole in, well, at least to keep portion of that whistle-blower complaint?

Rich Edson at the State Department with more on that.

Hey, Rich.

RICH EDSON, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good afternoon, Neil.

And there are more questions of the State Department as this develops. One of them has to do with the State Department rejecting at least one part of the whistle-blower complaint. And that has to do with the whistle-blower saying he or she was told that State Department official T. Ulrich Brechbuhl also listened in on the call between President Trump and Ukraine's president.

That's the one where the president urged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. A State Department official says Brechbuhl was not on the call.

Brechbuhl is a State Department counselor, a former business partner and a longtime friend of the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. The whistle-blower cites White House officials as the basis for their complaint.

Democrats are also asking the State Department for information on any role the department may have played in this, as the president's attorney Rudy Giuliani says that State asked and helped him to get in touch with Ukrainian officials.

Senator Bob Menendez has sent Secretary Pompeo a letter requesting information about State's knowledge of Giuliani's outreach. State officials say an ambassador put Giuliani in touch with a Ukrainian presidential adviser because the adviser requested it, and stressed that Giuliani is a private citizen, and does not speak for the U.S. government - - Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Rich, thank you very much, Rich Edson at the State Department.

So why the big rush on this, when it looks like, well, there's obviously quite a bit to sort out?

We have got Republican strategist John Thomas, The New York Post's Brooke Rogers, and Democratic strategist Nathan Rubin.

Nathan, many in the Democratic Party, rush, rush, rush. What do you think?

NATHAN RUBIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think we are limited, in the sense that there's a lot coming up on the legislative calendar, and they do want to move forward very quickly on this.

But I think Nancy Pelosi has been painted into a corner here. Not only has the caucus been calling for impeachment, but this is a very real impeachable scandal. Donald Trump has really left Nancy Pelosi and Democrats no other choice.

If you go back to the whistle-blower complaint, it has been deemed urgent and credible. And they have already tried to cover it up extensively.

So I think Nancy Pelosi wants to move quickly because it's the right thing to do.

CAVUTO: Well, there are a lot of people debating some of the particulars you just had there.

But, John, the Republicans have argued, you're stringing this along. If you really mean to do something, then do something. So, now, well, they're taking you up on your offer.

JOHN THOMAS, GOP STRATEGIST: Yes, but this is a standard Democratic tactic. This is what the Democrats used to pass Obamacare, right?

They passed it so quickly, before anybody actually knew what was in the bill. It's the same thing here. They have to jam it.

CAVUTO: Well, didn't Republicans do that too with Bill Clinton, going after him?

THOMAS: And they made a mistake, quite frankly, doing that.

CAVUTO: Yes. So, you think they're rushing this?

THOMAS: Well, they're rushing it because they know, if this thing gets stretched out, they're going to realize that this is Russia collusion 2.0.

The American public is already not in favor of it. So, and the worst is, they're not going to have member votes. When it gets closer to Election Day, those purple district Democrats are all of a sudden not going to have as strong of knees as they have right now.

CAVUTO: Well, some of those are the ones who are skeptical about this. They don't want to rush, particularly Democrats who won in moderate districts or districts that the president carried last go-round.

But there are few of them, precious few. There's a bigger and bigger number right now, Brooke, that at least for pursuing this very strategy. What do you hear?


Well, I think that they are reflecting the majority of Democrats in general. About a little over two-thirds of Democrats favor impeachment at this point.

CAVUTO: You need 218, right? I have heard they're just on the cusp of 200 right now.

ROGERS: And the direction is moving in that way.

CAVUTO: Right.

ROGERS: More and more Democrats think -- are seeing this as a viable option, are seeing impeachment as almost inevitable at this point.

And I think that that's why we're seeing the favor move over it. And in America in general, more Americans support impeachment now than they did right after the Mueller investigation. So the country is swinging that way. It's still not a majority. It's 40 percent. But it's eight points more than it was after the Mueller...


CAVUTO: But could I ask you, do any of you worry that you jump the gun too soon, or it looks like you're too zealous, that the party is just salivating at this, hates the president, doesn't get anything else done but go after the president, and people then get mad at you guys?

RUBIN: I think there needs to separate the political motivation behind this and actually the facts of what actually happened.

We know for a fact that Donald Trump made a decision to unilaterally withhold $400 million to Ukraine in military aid. We know for a fact...


CAVUTO: You're trying it to this, though.

THOMAS: Yes, you're making an assumption.

CAVUTO: You're trying it to this.

RUBIN: This is chronological order.

Shortly after that happened...


CAVUTO: No, careful, careful, careful, because that has not been proven. The aid ultimately went through.

What I'm saying is, you're tying it to this incident, he didn't get the help. Now, that might come in hearings and everything else. But we don't know that. So, don't jump the gun.

RUBIN: But the next step of the process was in this phone call with the president of Ukraine, he asked him to do him a favor, not to benefit the government, but to benefit himself personally, by looking into his political...


CAVUTO: All right, so that's a quid pro quo that's come up, that...

RUBIN: Right.

CAVUTO: ... you look into this whole stuff with the Bidens. It would be a good idea. And presumably the government Ukraine did look into this thing with the Bidens. And that is your quid pro quo, end of story.

You say?

THOMAS: Well, look, this is not going to be good for Joe Biden, if this thing starts -- stretches on, because he and his family are going to get dragged...

CAVUTO: Well, maybe for Donald Trump, right, either.


THOMAS: Well, it's not going to be good for anybody. I don't think impeachment is good for the politicians. I don't think it's good for the country.

But you're wrong on the polling numbers. I polled in many of these purple districts. Impeachment is at 30 percent -- 33 percent approve. It hasn't budged. It just got out of the field. So this is political suicide.

CAVUTO: Well, it depends on the poll, I grant you.


CAVUTO: But, by the way, guys, I don't want to jump the gun with you here, but we're just learning the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has been subpoenaed for these Ukraine documents. The House committees are obviously accelerating this.

So where does this go? It could be also very fast-moving getting their hands on a lot of people and documents, right?

ROGERS: Yes, the Democrats were talking about possibly ending by the end of October, which I think would be a mistake.

I don't think they should rush this at all. I think that this is a very serious issue. There -- you don't just dip your toe into impeachment.

CAVUTO: We're talking about the end of this October, like the end of next month.

ROGERS: This October.

That's an incredibly quick timeline.

CAVUTO: That's not going to happen.


CAVUTO: They can't even agree on what paper to print budget matters.


ROGERS: It's too easy to make a misstep. It's too easy to overlook something. This is a serious issue. They should take it seriously and do a thorough job.

CAVUTO: But a thorough job takes you to the election.

THOMAS: Right.

And they're damned if they -- the Democrats are damned if they do, damned if they don't here. If they rush it through, Republicans are going to be enthusiastic to turn out for the president thinking he was wronged unfairly.

If they stretch it out, it's -- the narrative becomes that the Democrats are willing to shut down the business of government all the way until the election.

RUBIN: Well, there are two things that I would say to that.

First of all, Republicans are fired up to vote regardless of what's going on in politics, number one. And, number two, where are we as patriotic Americans to take a step back and say, hey, wait a second, these are abuses of power by the president of the United States?

THOMAS: OK. It's called an election.

RUBIN: Let's set politics aside.

THOMAS: And you understand that it will not get confirmed in the Senate.

So you are willing to shut down the government, not come up with a health care solution, not get a Mexico trade agreement, because you want to impeach this president, who will never be removed from office?

RUBIN: But you're not -- you again still cannot separate this idea that , when we get to the border of our country, that we set political differences aside, and we say, in the interest of national security, we agree on free and fair elections here in the United States.

We used to be pro-democracy in this country.

ROGERS: And the job of oversight does fall to Congress.

So taking -- like you said, taking the political side of this out, this is -- this is what they're supposed to...


CAVUTO: But should it be seen, the likelihood of passing in the Senate, where you have got a two-thirds vote, when you probably could get it passed in the House, but the Senate would be...


CAVUTO: Do you even consider it?

ROGERS: I think you should consider it.

But I think that, at this point, I don't think Nancy Pelosi was actually eager to...

THOMAS: I don't think -- I think her hand was forced.

CAVUTO: I do remember, when the Watergate hearings started with Richard Nixon, seven out of 10 Americans in the summer of '73 thought it was a waste of time.

You never know. You never know. We shall see, guys.

In the meantime, we are trying to get more information on this subpoena of Ukraine documents concerning the secretary of state. That's all we know right now. They want to get their hot hands on those documents. No response yet from the secretary of state.

In the meantime, I want you to meet one of the few Democratic congressmen coming out and telling his fellow Democrats, let's cool it on this. Jeff Van Drew will be my special guest tomorrow on "Cavuto Live." That begins at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

We will also -- fair and balanced -- be talking with South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, get his take on this.

In the meantime, the White House is saying that its latest move against China has nothing to do with trade talks -- or talks.

Try telling that to the corner of Wall and Broad, where they were hot and heavy selling -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, let the subpoenas begin.

The secretary of state getting one. Others could follow in this fast- moving impeachment development.

Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill, what are you hearing?

CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, in just the past couple of moments, three committee chairs, Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, and Eliot Engel, have all subpoenaed the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to come to a hearing on October 4.

Now, technically, the House and Senate are out for the next two weeks. But we were told that there would be hearings probably over this recess. There's a lot of other witnesses that they want to hear from.

Now, there's a whole laundry list of various ambassadors -- and I'm reading this right off my phone because this just came down the pike here -- who they want to hear from who might have a part of this dealing with Ukraine.

We're also being told that, at some point, they want to hear again from the inspector general for the intelligence community. That would be Mike Atkinson. They also want to hear from Rudolph Giuliani, the president's personal attorney.

And also at some point the big fish here is the whistle-blower.

I spoke again today with some senior sources about the time -- timing of that. We're told, Neil, that that's probably a couple of weeks away.

But, again, just because Congress is in recess, you're going to have a two- track approach right now over the next two-week period. You're going to have members of Congress, the Democrats, going back to their districts and explaining the process to their constituents, and also trying to get some of them on board in defending them.

There are 31 Democrats who represent Trump districts. And then here on Capitol Hill, you're going to have more appeals for witnesses and hearings and subpoenas.

And behind the scenes, what they're going to be doing is trying to craft these articles of impeachment. There's a quote from Winston Churchill. He was given a bowl of pudding at one point, and he said, well, there's no theme to this putting, and he sent it back.

What they have to do is try to figure out the theme to this pudding, what these articles of impeachment would actually look like.

CAVUTO: All right, my friend, thank you very much.

I am so going to twist your arm to work tomorrow and join us to talk about this, because you're an encyclopedia, my friend.


CAVUTO: All right, Chad Pergram.

All it took to send stocks into a temporary freefall today was a report that the White House is considering putting limits on investment in China, and Chinese companies getting delisted here in the U.S. of A.

The White House says none of this has anything to do with trade, but let's say investors were selling first, sort of assessing things later.

Jonas Max Ferris, what do you think?

JONAS MAX FERRIS, CONTRIBUTOR: It's a very interesting kind of surprise development.

It didn't just -- I mean, it hurts Chinese stocks the most, obviously, but it actually hurt all stocks, because investors really don't want the government telling them where they can and can't invest. I mean, we have to win a trade war, so we want to have all things on the table.

But it's not something investors want to hear.

It's also hard to implement. I mean, in theory, I guess you would go through the SEC to have it delisted. There's money already in these -- these ADRs, is what they actually are typically, with the larger ones, like Alibaba.

What do you do if you already own it? You have to sell it, or it's going to now sell trade abroad? Because you can also invest in these in foreign markets. We would have very little control over that.

Ironically, Chinese, they don't really want foreign money in all their stocks. They have always restricted that into some level from foreign investment. And, in some ways, it pushes their currency down to not have flows of money go into their stock market.

And they like to keep their currency cheap. And they're trying to lower it now too as their way they battle the trade war. So, in other words, how this is going to play out is going to be very interesting and what the mechanisms of doing it.

CAVUTO: I just wonder, though, Jonas, to your point, maybe this was a bargaining chip to sort of get the Chinese to make concessions that, hey, look, I mean, I know the administration is saying this has nothing to do with the trade thing, but the clear implication is, this is what's coming down the pike.

Maybe you can avoid that.

FERRIS: It's a little bit like having a military parade where you're showing off what you can -- what's on -- what you have open to you. It's not just soybeans.

I mean, there are other -- this is the biggest country with money. And this money goes all over the world. And our investor capital -- and also investment here from foreigners. This is -- to block that with any one country would really limit that country's ability to grow and keep their economy going, even if they don't blatantly access maybe our IPO markets for a while because of this.

It's just not -- it's not a good -- it sends a message that we have got other plans, and it's not just because you don't buy that much actual stuff from us. It's from our powerful position in the global financial markets.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend very, very much, Jonas Max Ferris.

Again, we will have more developments on this and how the Chinese are responding to this tomorrow on our live show at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

In the meantime, let's get the read from Andy McCarthy after the break here, the former U.S. attorney, a FOX News contributor, on all of a sudden the request, the demand, the subpoenaing for documents, beginning with the secretary of state, and potentially others, as this rush to begin impeachment proceedings, they really mean it -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, well, if you have got any documents relating to Ukraine, and you are the secretary of state right now, Democratic committees on Capitol Hill, they want them, and they want a lot more. This could be just a preview of coming attractions.

Andy McCarthy with us right now, the former U.S. attorney.

Andy, what do you make of this request? I'm sure others will follow.

ANDREW MCCARTHY, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, they're pursuing this, Neil.

I think that somebody smarter than me, when this all started to get rolling about a week ago or a year ago, I should say, said that the thing about impeachment is, nobody's really in charge of it. And once the wheels start to turn in the direction of moving toward it, there's nobody who really is in charge who can stop it.

And you can see all along that -- I doubted that was true when I first heard it, but I'm starting to see the wisdom in it, because I -- there's a lot of senior Democrats who know this is a bad idea electorally, but the base really wants it. It's not like they don't have anything to play with.

I don't think they have anything impeachable, but they have some things that can cause some embarrassment for the administration. We have to remember -- I know it seems like a long time ago that we knew this, but there are actually things that presidents do which are bad, but aren't impeachable.

So those things are going to get explored. There's a lot of heavy rhetoric about it. But I think, ultimately, it's really a two-edged sword for them. And most of the smarter ones know it.

CAVUTO: You know, the president was citing this early on.

Guys, if we have the tweet he sent a little earlier today that sort of echoed this concern that he has: "That perfect phone call with the president of Ukraine hasn't considered -- wasn't considered appropriate, then no future president can ever again speak to another foreign leader."

It would help that if I could see things that they did provide that there.


CAVUTO: But one other thing, the issue isn't that a leader can't talk to another leader.

In this particular case -- and Democrats are pounding on this -- it's what you said to that leader.

The reason why I raise it is the quid pro quo thing. Is it a quid pro quo thing if you have something tangible that might have been delayed, like aid, which the president disputes and others say isn't the case, because, well, the aid was given, but that...


CAVUTO: ... the information that he wanted on Joe Biden and his son Hunter and his connection to this gas concern in Ukraine, he got that, presumably, and that was his quid pro quo, and that is what is a crime and credit misdemeanor?

What do you think?

MCCARTHY: Yes, I think Neil, one of the bad things about these debates is, there's a lot of these dual-use terms around, like quid pro quo, which have one big general meaning and one specialized legal meaning.

CAVUTO: What is that meaning, by the way?

For the case of impeachment, if it ever gets that far, what is that meaning?

MCCARTHY: Yes. Well, it's a great question.

Quid pro quo, literally -- it's Latin. It literally just means this for that. And what separates bribery from other exchanges is that it's a corrupt this for that.

But the reason it's important to make the distinction is, contrary to what you might think from what happened or what we heard during the Clinton e- mail scandals, when foreign leaders talk to each other, or world leaders talk to each other, it's not about yoga routines.

There's generally always a quid pro quo in the middle of it. The question always is, when you're talking about bribery or corruption, whether it's an inappropriate quid pro quo.

So, here, I think the interesting thing is, a lot of this comes down to, what do you think of the Barr investigation? Because in the Zelensky phone call, the Ukrainian president, when the president first says, but I want you do me a favor, he doesn't go to Biden. He goes to the Barr investigation.

He basically says, I want you to give the attorney general assistance in this investigation that we're doing in the United States.

I don't have the transcript in front of me. And I'm not trying to characterize it.

CAVUTO: Right. No, I know what you're talking about.

MCCARTHY: I'm just -- so the point is, the Barr investigation is something that Democrats don't like, and that they're trying to discredit, and they're trying to discredit Bill Barr along with it.

But it happens to be a legitimate, authorized investigation of the United States Justice Department that has prosecutors and investigators assigned, that has grand jury authority, et cetera.

The reason that's important is, there is nothing inappropriate about the president of the United States or the United States government asking a foreign government for help in a criminal investigation. That kind of thing goes on all the time.

Now, when you get to Biden, the question is, does that have any relevance to the Barr investigation? I think Ukraine actually does have relevance to the Barr investigation.

But even if I'm wrong about that, if there are Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's -- Act -- behavior that or implications in the idea that Barr (sic) the younger was cashing in on the influence of Barr (sic) the elder, that would be an appropriate thing for the Justice Department to investigate.

And I think, if the Democrats want to continue to playing...

CAVUTO: But even now, when you -- in the environment -- but that's what I'm confused at.

Even now, in an environment where we're looking to another foreign power to have potential influence in yet another U.S. election, maybe for all the Barr and other reasons that you mentioned, but at the very least -- I'm no lawyer, and you're very good one -- but it doesn't pass the smell test or even the icky test.

That just seems unseemly.


CAVUTO: That's a legal term, icky.

MCCARTHY: Yes, except it's all unseemly, Neil.

CAVUTO: Right.

MCCARTHY: Yes. Well, icky, it's good. It's from the Latin ick or something.

CAVUTO: Exactly. Right.

MCCARTHY: But all of -- all of -- look, if I had my druthers, I would stop all of this.

But I'm -- neither am I in for unilateral surrender or unilateral disarmament.

CAVUTO: Right.

MCCARTHY: The Democrats leaned on the Ukrainians in 2016 in connection with the Manafort investigation.

Marc Thiessen wrote this week in The Washington Post about Democrats leaning on the Ukrainian authorities to assist the Mueller investigation. Nobody was upset in connection with those about our democracy being under assault. We were told it was all that was good and pure and right and just.

So my only point about this is that, if you want to go down this road, two can play this game. And I think it's a disruptive game, but...

CAVUTO: And it can take out both sides, right? It can boomerang on both sides, right?




And I would -- I would really prefer not to see further investigations on the president and his administration or Biden. I'd rather just have, like, an election, like we used to have.


CAVUTO: There is that.

MCCARTHY: If you're going to play this game, then...

CAVUTO: It can sometimes get icky.

All right.


CAVUTO: Andy, it's always good seeing you, my friend. Have a wonderful weekend.

All right, well, from the Oval Office to just the corner office. It is rare for Congress to try to ditch a president. It isn't at all rare for corporate boardrooms to try and ditch a CEO. And it's rarely pleasant.


CAVUTO: You're looking live in Durham, New Hampshire.

2020 Democratic hopeful Andrew Yang backtracking a little bit, after saying a recession would be good for his campaign. He says he would never wish for one.

We're back in 60 seconds.


CAVUTO: It can happen so easily, and doesn't corporate America know it?

All it can take really is one disgruntled employee, and the boss could end up on the outs. Now, I'm not talking about what's happening in the White House. I am talking about what happens far, far, far more frequently in corporate America.

And once let loose, let's say it can get out of control. Boardroom coups have seen a host of top CEOs removed for a whole host of reasons.

John Coffee is the director of Colombia University's Center on Corporate Governance.

Very good to have you, John. It's been a while. How you doing?


CAVUTO: Excellent.

Let me get your sense, then. How does corporate America handle a board that suddenly turns on the boss or has issues with the boss? It could be anything from malfeasance to the numbers not measuring up. But there is a procedure, right?

COFFEE: There definitely is. And we have seen it twice in the last week or two.

Usually, there's a public failure, where something that was contemplated and was important just flopped. WeWork, or We, was planning to have a public offering. And they had valuations valuing them as high as $90 billion.

CAVUTO: That's right.

COFFEE: But they couldn't get investors to be willing to price it even at $15 billion.

And the problem was, the CEO had been just a little too flamboyant, just a little too involved in self-dealing. And the board quietly threw him out and got him to consent as well. Now, that's We.

Also in the last week, we have seen Juul replace its CEO.

CAVUTO: Right.

COFFEE: And it got involved in a little too much public controversy about their aggressive marketing to high school and other youths. That also required a change in management.

And if you want to go back a year further, you all remember Uber.

CAVUTO: Oh, sure.

COFFEE: It was the darling of the stock market, and until its IPO didn't go very well. And in the preparation for that IPO, the board decided they had to dump the their old CEO, Travis Kalanick, for a new one.

So when you get into something that's critical, a merger, an IPO, a major new venture, the failure to carry that through is often going to result in a quiet boardroom coup.

CAVUTO: And it happens all the time.

I'm paraphrasing the old JFK, not exclusive to him, when he says success has 1,000 authors and failure is an orphan.

So all it takes is a turnaround or -- in perception or duress, that your own people begin to turn on you, or you worry about a coup. We are nowhere near that in this administration. I want to stress that.

But, clearly, there was, in the case of the whistle-blower, some concern about what was going on. And does that feed on itself? In other words, in corporate America, when you see this, where someone is dissatisfied with even the ethical performance of the CEO, that more and more start turning on them?

COFFEE: Well, Neil, we have seen whistle-blowers in the corporate world as well.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

COFFEE: There's a very famous Supreme Court decision called Dirks v. SEC, which stems from the fact that a company called Equity Funding, once the favored of the stock market among new high-flying insurance companies, it started to fail.

And junior management realized that senior management was hiding their failure, and they were going to be in trouble for running a corrupt and insolvent insurance company.

They called up the leading securities analyst in the country, Ray Dirks, because they couldn't get the SEC and the insurance regulators to move. He came out, heard their stories, and was able to verify that management was actually forging insurance policies in order to convince the auditor that they were still doing business.

When he reported all that, what happened was that all senior management went to prison. But the SEC turned around and sued Ray Dirks because they didn't like being embarrassed, among other reasons.

And we have had whistle-blowers from honest corporate officials, and it's had devastating consequences.

CAVUTO: And usually it starts with the whistle-blower, who communicates that to other people, who get still other people to start thinking, all right, maybe we have got to worry here, and on we go.

Professor, always good. Thank you very, very...

COFFEE: Well, that's the problem.

CAVUTO: Go ahead.

COFFEE: When you really have these charges, it's hard to get someone to listen. You sound like you're someone with a grievance.

So he eventually went to the best known securities analyst, who could stake his reputation on it.

CAVUTO: Yes, that's how it starts. That's it proceeds. We will see here.

John Coffee, thank you very, very much.


CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, you think it's only Liz going after biz? Guess who is following up?

After this.


CAVUTO: All right, add Joe Biden to the list of prominent candidates bashing business now and finding a way to get money from them.

We have got Jackie DeAngelis here to explain.

Hey, Jackie.


Well, The Washington Post reporting that Joe Biden's advisers are mulling a new tax on Wall Street, one that would tax the sale of stocks and bonds. Remember, Biden, seen as the more moderate when compared to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, isn't backing the more extreme wealth tax.

Let's review that for a second. Warren's wealth tax calls for a 2 percent charge on households that have a net worth of more than $50 million, and 3 percent over a billion.

Sanders is calling for 1 percent on couples with $32 million to $50 million. Then it rises gradually to 8 percent on sums over $10 billion. And the wealth tax is about taxing accumulated wealth. It's money that people have already paid tax on.

And Sanders was very clear when he told The New York Times: "I don't think that billionaires should exist."

Now, if the Biden camp goes through with its proposal, it could seem a little bit more left, a little more reasonable. However, it's not just going to hit select groups. Taxing stock and bond sales could hit anyone with a pension, a 401(k), or any equity-related investments.

So that's not just the super-rich. A lot of people on Main Street could be impacted by this as well, Neil.

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

So with Joe Biden clearly moving even further left on this issue, all the other candidates might fear being left behind.

We have got Charlie Gasparino, one of those the candidates are targeting. We have got Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, and Republican pollster Lee Carty -- Carter. I apologize.


CAVUTO: Lee, this is just following what rates and commands the attention of the base of the party.

LEE CARTER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Yes, you know what? I'm disappointed in Joe Biden, because I thought he was going to hold the middle. I thought he was going to be the progressive candidate.

And I think that's what he should be, because, when he does that, when he's authentic and true, people respond more to him. I think he's trying to chase the polling numbers. And that's a mistake, because that's not who he is.

Elizabeth Warren is progressive. It's who she has. Her message is all about.

CAVUTO: But she's also the leader of the pack for the time being.

CARTER: But it's not because of her progressive policies. I think it's because she's the best at messaging.


What do you think, Doug?

DOUG SCHOEN, FORMER BILL CLINTON POLLSTER: I think, sadly, your proposition is right.

Joe Biden is chasing the progressive wing of the party, because he doesn't have a message, he doesn't have a rationale for his candidacy, and the party has moved so far left, he's doing something now that I don't think will have broad support, especially when people understand that it could tank the economy if you put a tax on stocks and bonds.


CAVUTO: We had Ken Fisher, the big billionaire investor, right? He says, we have ways, we have lawyers. Essentially, that was the argument.

SCHOEN: To get away. To get away.

CAVUTO: To dodge it.


I mean, there's ways of setting up shell companies.

CAVUTO: But most people support this on the right or left, as long as it's not them.


And it will be them, because it's going to hurt -- and there's two stories.

CAVUTO: Right.

GASPARINO: There is the market story. I think this is very bad. And Joe Biden is being told -- my guess -- by Jim Chanos right now, this is really bad, Jim Chanos, the big hedge fund manager.

But why is he doing it? And it's what we reported today on FOX Business. Joe Biden's campaign is fighting for its life.

CARTER: Right.

GASPARINO: They have given up they have given up on Iowa and New Hampshire, I am told. They are banking on winning Super Tuesday.

This is...

CAVUTO: That's a risky strategy.

SCHOEN: Very risky.

CARTER: Very risky.

SCHOEN: Look, in my experience, if you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, you lose, period.

I don't think it's a viable strategy.

GASPARINO: I'm just telling you what they're telling me. I don't....


GASPARINO: ... a viable strategy.


CAVUTO: Is it affecting the money he's getting? Because if you're a big Wall Street Democrat, are you going to give money to a guy who is going to...

GASPARINO: That's the other story. And, again, we were reported this earlier, that...

CAVUTO: On FOX Business.


CAVUTO: Which, if you don't get, you should...

GASPARINO: Demand it.


GASPARINO: Put a gun to someone's head.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

GASPARINO: No, don't go that far.

CAVUTO: Well...


GASPARINO: But, anyway, I would say this.

The big money guys are holding back as Warren surges. And the smell coming out of the Biden campaign right now, just from what I'm hearing, is toast.


CARTER: Well, he just doesn't what he's about.

He's trying -- his whole message is about fighting for the soul of America. He's trying to come back after Trump. It's just a whole reactive strategy. Everything he's doing is reactive.

CAVUTO: Well, they all want to raise taxes, though, Lee, right?

If you think about it, no matter where you are in that group, you want to raise taxes from where they are now. That may be -- make them go after the wealthy.

CARTER: Right.

CAVUTO: I think he wanted to raise the top rate to what it was, 39.6 percent.

But now, when you throw in a wealth tax, you throw in raising corporate taxes...

CARTER: It's popular.

CAVUTO: ... that's how you're going to be...

CARTER: It's popular.

SCHOEN: But all we're hearing about Biden this week is how he was fighting for the soul of Ukraine by trying to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

The reason I say that...

GASPARINO: Well, no, that is a much more complicated story.


CAVUTO: There's a point to what he's saying.

SCHOEN: It's a very simple point.

That's all voters are hearing. They don't spend all day parsing stories like we do. They get one message. And that message is Hunter Biden, Joe Biden. My reaction is bad.

CAVUTO: Well, that's why I was raising earlier the possibility that this begins to be a pox on both parties.

SCHOEN: It could be.


CAVUTO: I do want to get back to this issue, if you don't mind, guys.

And one is that class warfare can work in getting you the nomination in the Democratic Party.


CAVUTO: But it can hurt you in a general election...

CARTER: Absolutely.

CAVUTO: ... if the other side comes out and says, hey, they're very creative at raising money, not good at saving.

CARTER: But here's the thing, right? Six in 10 Americans are pro-wealth tax.

This is a very popular strategy, because people don't like the wealthy right now. That is the sentiment.

CAVUTO: And the other four in 10 are leaving country.


CARTER: The whole problem is -- the whole problem is -- and that's what Elizabeth Warren's message is about. It's against the wealthy and the well-connected.

And it's a very popular message.

GASPARINO: Trump ran on a variation of this.

CARTER: Exactly right.

GASPARINO: Remember, he got up there and said, some of these hedge fund managers don't like me because I'm raising your taxes?

CAVUTO: Stop it.


GASPARINO: He never quite did that.


CAVUTO: It's not a bad impression.

CARTER: Totally.


CARTER: Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have a lot in common in their messaging. They absolutely...

SCHOEN: And there is a huge middle of the American electorate that feels totally unrepresented by Warren and Sanders and Trump on the other side.

GASPARINO: So then there's a lane for Biden, you're saying.

CARTER: Absolutely.

SCHOEN: No, not Biden, 78 years old, gaffe after gaffe, politics of Ukraine predominating.

CAVUTO: All right.


GASPARINO: I think he's got a shot. Let's give him a chance.

CAVUTO: OK, well, there we go. You can put money on it.


CAVUTO: All right, no joking around when it comes to this new "Joker" movie. Controversy swirling even before the film's release over worries that it could incite violence.

Gen Hexed over that after this.



JOAQUIN PHOENIX, ACTOR: For my whole life, I didn't even know if I really even existed.


CAVUTO: All right, scary stuff.

And some people are worrying that it could lead to violent stuff, a backlash building ahead of the release of the new film "Joker" next weekend, amid worries that it could inspire copycats.

Can movies be too violent? There are a number who are advocating this one never see the light of air.

"Your World" audio technician author Dion Baia. We have got the host of "Park'd" on FOX Nation, Abby Hornacek, and also FOX contributor and "Sincerely Kat" of FOX Nation Kat Timpf.

What do you think, Kat, that don't show it, avoid it? People are getting worried about it. I mean, they're losing it.

KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: Movies need villains for conflict.

I learned about that little story structure when I was like 8. I think that's still a thing. If these people get what they want, the woke police, what movie -- what are movies going to be? Just like two guys like sitting next to each other and then complimenting each other, and then maybe someone comes in, the only conflict is a woman comes in -- got to be a woman -- and says that compliment wasn't politically correct?

Is that a movie?

CAVUTO: But this is about inciting something we saw like in Aurora years ago, right? And they're worried that this could repeat that.

So even military personnel warning soldiers who see this movie, be near an exit. What is going on? It seems to be out of control.

ABBY HORNACEK, "PARK'D" HOST: Yes, it's really tough.

It's a tough line to walk, because, one, we don't want to be afraid. We were afraid after 9/11 for terrorism. Now we're worried about domestic terrorism.

But it is true a lot of the families are outraged at this situation. I will say, from Warner Bros., they did donate over a million dollars back in 2012 after that shooting happen to charities that benefited the Aurora victims.

So they're really putting in the work to make it happen. But the reality is, mental health exists. And there's no way to stop mental health right now. It's just a matter of, should we show this, should we not?

I don't know the answer to that. But I will say Warner Bros. is trying to do their best to...


CAVUTO: Yes. So far, the movie still is planned for release. Others are arguing that the attention it's getting is generating the kind of buzz that a theater likes or a movie company likes. But it cuts both ways. Right?

DION BAIA, AUDIO TECHNICIAN: Yes, but it's nothing new.

I mean, if you go back to the 1979 movie "The Warriors," they actually pulled that from the theaters because there was gang fighting going on, and they thought it was the movie causing. It was just because the gangs were coming to the theater to see this movie and they were seeing each other.

But there's -- it's hard when you start bringing politics into the movie and start saying, why are you making movies that sympathize or empathize with the underdog that ends up being the murderer? Because you look at "Taxi Driver." You look at...


CAVUTO: Well, this is a progressively more violent, disturbed character, so, the same dark kind of presence of the original "Batman."

BAIA: But this is a movie that seems to be somewhat drawing on Scorsese's cult classic "The King of Comedy," which is even -- has De Niro playing Rupert Pupkin that...


CAVUTO: But you wouldn't pull the movie?

BAIA: No, because, at the end of the day, if you start then -- I don't the torture porn movies, those very violent, graphic horror movies.

But if you start nitpicking on what you or you don't like, then it's almost telling you what you can -- what kind of art you can produce and what you can't produce. It's up to the viewer or the consumer to censor what you're going to see for children and that kind of thing.


CAVUTO: Yes. But, obviously -- and I think Abby touched on this -- you have now have people judging whether it's safe to go to a movie because of all these warnings.

People get afraid because some nut is going to act on it, right?

HORNACEK: I will say that Cinemark decided not -- well, right now, it's reported that they will not be playing the movie in that Aurora theater, which I think is very smart, because you do have the copycats who want to recreate something that happened.


HORNACEK: So that's a very good move by them, in my view.

BAIA: And then also, the other side of this is, if you do start making this all obvious, it's the people who then get the idea from hearing this publicity.

Oh, maybe the sick individual out there who will want to go do something like this gets the idea to go do some horrible, catastrophic tragedy there because of that.

CAVUTO: I would like to stick with this issue, Pam, if you're listening here.

And the reason why, because -- and, Kat, this has come up again and again and again. When we have violent incidents, a lot of people say, it's the guns, the guns, the guns. And I don't doubt that there are a great deal of guns out there and all that.

I get that. But they never really think violent movies or anything that. And that will start, if God forbid something happens as a result of this. Hope not, pray not.

TIMPF: Of course.

CAVUTO: But it always happens, right?

TIMPF: Of course.

But the reality is -- and I think this is something that deep down everyone has to understand. If somebody goes out and commits a horrific act of violence, like what did happen in Colorado, you can't say it was a movie.

There was -- clearly, someone that does that has underlying issues. That's a sick individual. No normal person is going to see a violent movie and become a mass murderer.

CAVUTO: And there have been a lot of violent movies since where no such incident occurred.

TIMPF: Of course. Of course.

CAVUTO: But it is going to plant that seed. Right?


And I will say a lot of the parents touched on the fact that this is really bothering the PTSD of these victims, because something like this will get them going.

CAVUTO: Yes, gets people, gets them thinking and fearing.

BAIA: And I'm sure war movies do that for veterans that go and see...


CAVUTO: Not telling you what to do or not to do. Just be aware of what people are saying this could do.

We will have more after this.


CAVUTO: All right, Joe Biden set to hold his first campaign event in Las Vegas since the release of the Ukraine phone call transcript.

Our Claudia Cowan is there with the latest.

Hey, Claudia.


That's right, his first public campaign event. In just a few minutes, Joe Biden will address a crowd of about 200 or so supporters and the media. And if his statements yesterday are any indication, he will continue to blast President Trump and brush aside any concerns that he and his son did anything wrong.

At a pair of fund-raisers yesterday in Southern California, Joe Biden accused President Trump of playing dirty politics to win reelection and referred to that phone call with the Ukrainian president, saying -- quote - - It's a tactic that's used by this president to try to hijack an election, so that we do not focus on the issues that matter in our lives, in your lives," he said.

He also read an excerpt from the whistle-blower report and made do so again here today, claiming that the president abused his power.

Now, this is Biden's third trip to the Silver State in as many months. Nevada is an important early voting state, third in the lineup behind Iowa in New Hampshire, its caucus just five months away.

And we expect this campaign event to begin any minute -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Man, oh, man, you're amazing. You got that in under a minute, Claudia in Las Vegas.

We will be exploring this tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time as well.

Here's "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.