Published April 03, 2019
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 3, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: Fox on top of former Vice President Joe Biden trying to get in front of a swirling controversy, after multiple women have accused him of inappropriate behavior.
He's issued a video response. Is it enough? And is it a sign that he's running?
We're going to have more details in this breaking story shortly, but first this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: We need these materials to fill our constitutional obligation.
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: What's the rush? Spring break, probably. We don't want to wait until May. We don't want to wait until the report comes out.
REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I.: The notion that we should just wait and sort of pray and hope that this Mr. Barr will suddenly find his way to the courthouse to seek authorization, I think, is foolish. Why
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Watergate, there was a break-in. With Clinton, there was perjury. With the chief charge of this special counsel investigation, there was no collusion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: Democrats clamoring for every single classified word of the Mueller report. Are they one step closer to getting it?
Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."
In a party-line vote, the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee authorizing a subpoena for the entire Russia report from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Attorney General William Barr is preparing a redacted version for Congress, but that's not good enough for most Democrats. Should it be?
We will get the read from former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray in a moment, but first Catherine Herridge on Capitol Hill with the latest - - Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thank you, Charles, and good afternoon.
The vote, 24-17, clears the way for the Democratic Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerry Nadler, to issue subpoenas for the entire Mueller report, as Republicans accused Nadler of forcing the issue.
What we heard a lot about today are these rules for criminal procedure, and they allow for the release of grand jury materials, but only in limited circumstances with a court order, which Democrats do not have, leaving the attorney general, Republicans said, to violate the laws that he swore to uphold.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, R-WIS.: Otherwise, the Justice Department puts itself in the same position as a grand jury witness who breaks the secrecy rule and releases his or her testimony before the grand jury. And that's a federal crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: And the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wants even more information, including evidence from a 2016 FBI counterintelligence case that predated the special counsel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We're going to fight to make sure that happens. And I think the Justice Department would be wise not to resist transparency. The American people want this overwhelmingly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we're going to issue subpoenas today, let's not issue a subpoena for the Mueller report. Let's issue one for Bob Mueller.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: Chairman Nadler now also has the power to cast a wider net, with the authority to issue subpoenas for five former senior White House aides, to include former strategist Steve Bannon, White House counsel Don McGahn, and Communications Director Hope Hicks.
And we understand the focus there is very much, Charles, on this issue of obstruction.
PAYNE: Catherine, thank you very, very much.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
PAYNE: New York Democrat and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler answering questions about his fight two decades ago over his resistance to releasing Ken Starr's Whitewater report on President Bill Clinton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NADLER: when we were opposing release of some of that material 20 years ago, it was release to the public we were opposing, because that material, some of it was very salacious and very private. It involved private individuals. It shouldn't have been released to the public.
It had already been released to the committee, which was proper.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: Let's get reaction from a man who was there 20 years ago, former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray.
Robert, thanks for joining us.
ROBERT RAY, FORMER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Good afternoon. How are you?
So we knew this moment was coming.
RAY: I guess we did.
PAYNE: It's here. Where do we go from here?
RAY: I think that -- I get the fact that the Democrats have sort of teed this up with the vote to authorize the issuance of a subpoena.
I would hope that they defer until such time as they actually see what the attorney general releases to them and to the public. And then I think, if there's a need for something more specifically that is based upon a legitimate inquiry and a legitimate request and that they can't get it anywhere else, if they follow that up with a targeted subpoena to obtain supposed missing information, it seems to me that would be more well- founded.
PAYNE: So, this, what we're seeing, is more of perhaps political theater more than anything else?
RAY: I think it's...
PAYNE: I mean, they can't wait a week, the urgency factor, so amazing?
RAY: I just don't get that, because they could just as well have left it alone and waited until the report and then decided whether to vote on the issuance of a subpoena.
I suspect that, yes, it's political theater. And I think they want, in the court of public opinion, to be seen as applying pressure to the attorney general. I think the attorney general is understandably resistant to that pressure, because his obligation is to follow the law, which is what he is attempting to do.
RAY: I think they should await the results.
PAYNE: Speaking of the law, there's some confusion over whether or not the Judiciary Committee even has the ability, the right to ask A.G. Barr for an unredacted version.
I know there's some historical precedent, but I have been told that that was -- those were different circumstances and that, under the circumstances now, Barr couldn't give them an unredacted version even if he wanted to, I mean, one that was completely...
RAY: I think that's right, I mean, because, one, we have all talked about what the various pools of information that might be subject to redaction would be, national security information.
Clearly, the attorney general can't release that information, unless there's a declassification by the president of that material. Second, with regard to grand jury material, if it's going to be released, it's in there, and it's in the report, it's either going to be redacted, in which case it's withheld, or the attorney general of the Department of Justice has to apply to a court in order to get an order to allow it to be disclosed to Congress.
And that is entirely within the discretion of the Justice Department. I mean, they can't be compelled to file an order with the district court authorizing the release of grand jury information. So that's really the second thing.
With regard to peripheral third players who were not charged, but where mentioned in the report...
RAY: ... it's Department of Justice policy not to comment on them. I suppose reasonable people can disagree about what right the Congress has to that -- to that information.
And then, beyond all of that, and really what the Democrats are after is not so much the report, but they're also teeing this up because they want access to the underlying investigative information. I think you're going to have to -- that's going to be a real battle, because lurking on that issue is the question of executive privilege, where the department is entirely within its province, and I don't think subject to a court overruling them, that, with regard to that information, that information is kept confidential by the department.
And also what about other matters, other investigations also?
RAY: And I -- that's the last and final bucket.
RAY: To the extent that any the disclosure of any information potentially would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, which apparently is what the Democrats want.
They can't have it both ways. They can on the one hand say, we'd like these investigations to continue in the various U.S. attorney's office, but also we'd like the information about an ongoing investigation, which they can have because it would jeopardize the ability to bring those investigations to an appropriate and final conclusion.
The plot thickens anyway.
RAY: So, we haven't heard the end of this.
PAYNE: We always appreciate you walking us through this, because there's a -- there's a lot of confusion out there. Thank you very much.
RAY: Thanks for being with you.
PAYNE: Well, two more allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden surfacing. Now the potential 2020 front-runner is talking.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: But I will always believe governing, quite frankly, life, for that matter, is about connecting, about connecting with people. That won't change, but I will be more mindful and respectful of people's personal space.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: Former Vice President Joe Biden taking to Twitter to address the controversy surrounding him, this as two more women launch allegations of inappropriate behavior against him.
And, of course, it's amidst massive speculation as to whether or not he's going to run for the White House.
FOX News correspondent Garrett Tenney is in Washington with the latest -- Garrett.
GARRETT TENNEY, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Charles, this is the first time Joe Biden is addressing these allegations on camera.
And in a video he tweeted out this past hour, Biden explained that he has always tried to make a human connection with people, and shaking hands, giving hugs and grabbing them by the shoulders is how he's tried to show people that he cares about them.
But after four women came out in the past week accusing the former vice president of making them feel uncomfortable by his physical interactions, this afternoon, Biden said he understands that society is changing and stressed that he can change too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: Social norms have begun to change. They have shifted. And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying. I understand it.
And I will be much more mindful. That's my responsibility, my responsibility. And I will meet it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TENNEY: Last night, two additional women came forward, according to The New York Times; 22-year-old Caitlyn Caruso claims that Biden put his hand on her thigh during an event about sexual assault three years ago on UNLV's campus.
And this came just after she had shared her own story of surviving assault; 59-year-old D.J. Hill told The Times that her encounter was at a fund- raising event in Minneapolis in 2012 and, during a picture, the vice president put his hand on her shoulder, but made her very uncomfortable when he started dropping his hand further down her back, until her husband notice and interrupted by making a joke.
This afternoon, Biden tried to ease concerns that those stories have raised about how strong of a candidate he can be in the MeToo era.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: I worked my whole life to empower women. I worked my whole life to prevent abuse. I have written.
And so the idea that I can't adjust to the fact that personal space is important, more important than it's ever been, it's just not thinkable. I will. I will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TENNEY: Folks close to Biden say that, despite these accusations, they are still certain that Biden will enter the race later this month and that he is the best candidate to take on President Trump in the general election -- Charles.
PAYNE: Garrett, thank you very much.
So, is this enough for the former vice president to put all of this behind him?
To FOX News contributor Deneen Borelli, Democratic strategist Scott Levenson, and The Wall Street Journal's Jillian Melchior.
All right, Deneen, was that -- he thought that video was enough to move this on?
DENEEN BORELLI, CONTRIBUTOR: No.
Listen, I think the progressive left has it in for Joe Biden. This is the same Joe Biden that has been doing the same thing for many, many years. There was no outrage, no backlash from anyone. Now, all of a sudden, it's a problem, because Joe Biden is not progressive enough.
And the Democrat Party has been hijacked by the progressives. So they want him out of the way. He hasn't even entered in the race. They're trying to make sure that he doesn't enter the race.
PAYNE: Scott, is this an attack by the woke part of the party?
SCOTT LEVENSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Listen, I think this is a true teachable moment, both the MeToo movement and the crisis that Joe Biden's facing right now.
It's an opportunity for us to deal with the nuances of what people mean by space invasion and whose responsibility it is.
PAYNE: So, having said that, Scott, do you think -- because I didn't hear him apologize in that.
PAYNE: So do you think he gets that?
TENNEY: I actually think that there were problems with the nuance of what he just said, which was the evolving nature of how people protect space, rather than the evolving nature of women who feel uncomfortable by men in power being willing to speak up.
JILLIAN MELCHIOR, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes.
I mean, I think a good rule of thumb is, let the woman reach out and hug your -- or touch your hand first. But, again, I think here we have got a bigger problem going on the left than just Biden.
I think you're getting a lot of candidates who the sensitivities have grown much, much more. And if you do anything, it's racist or it's sexist. There's kind of this obsession with isms. And I think that the candidates who apologize, who kind have gone with this are going to end up isolating a lot of the general public that thinks that some of these accusations are overplayed and overstated.
LEVENSON: But I don't know whether you can overstate when someone says they felt uncomfortable.
BORELLI: But they didn't think at the time...
MELCHIOR: For instance, when we were talking about Beto and his wife.
LEVENSON: I'm sorry.
But this is a teachable moment. When -- I was just asked, if I heard you correctly, they didn't say something at the time. The point of sexual harassment training, the point of educating each other is that the responsibility isn't on the person who's affected to speak up.
BORELLI: No one is saying it's sexual harassment.
PAYNE: So, then let me ask you this, Scott.
LEVENSON: The onus and responsibility is on the person in power to not put someone in a position where they feel uncomfortable.
And I think everyone agrees with that. I don't...
LEVENSON: Well, I don't know, Charles.
PAYNE: I think -- I think what Deneen was suggesting is that the timing of it is suspicious, considering how high he's polling. And a lot of these people have been associated with candidates like Biden.
But is this a disqualification for him to run for president?
LEVENSON: Obviously, that's for voters in each of the states to decide. And it's for the voters in perhaps the general election to decide whether any of these charges are worthy of disqualification.
But it is a worthy discussion for us to take out and talk about the nuances of.
PAYNE: I do find it interesting, Deneen, that Joe Biden didn't apologize, per se, when he went on an apology tour the two prior weeks.
PAYNE: He essentially apologized a lot for being an old white guy.
BORELLI: For being white, yes.
PAYNE: I mean, over and over again, in every kind of way he could have done it.
And that's why I find it -- why he didn't just fall on his sword and say, listen, I know I was wrong, maybe it was a different era.
BORELLI: No, it's all baffling.
And, listen, the timing is suspect. Listen, look at what Jim Brown did. He bowed out gracefully. How come Biden can't bow out gracefully? He's been in office for 100 years.
Plus, is he even up for this, considering his age and how the left is going to pummel him, especially the progressives?
PAYNE: And that's what you were saying, right? I mean, the -- after the identity politics, after promoting that for so many years, after pointing their fingers so many other people, candidates, political parties, all of a sudden, the finger is pointed inside -- inside their -- in their own tent. And it's tough.
PAYNE: I mean, it's tough living with the rules that they established.
MELCHIOR: Yes, there's a new puritanism that we're seeing on the left. I think it's not restricted to Biden. We're seeing this with Beto O'Rourke and his statements: "I was born for this."
That's a statement of privilege. You have got to apologize.
MELCHIOR: I just think, again and again, we're seeing these situations where candidates are accused of something, and they don't want to isolate that far left base. And so they're apologizing.
But it doesn't come across as strong.
BORELLI: Yes, we're looking at two sets of...
BORELLI: And two sets of rules.
LEVENSON: These are not new issues. These are issues that have been talked about in trainings and education programs for 20 years.
BORELLI: Joe's touching hasn't been an issue until now.
PAYNE: What Jillian is saying is that the Democratic Party has essentially run on a social justice platform for a long time.
And they have called a lot of people racist, that they're woke. And now all of a sudden they have to be introspective.
LEVENSON: We all need to be introspective.
LEVENSON: This isn't a new thing.
PAYNE: Are they doing it correctly?
LEVENSON: Wait, but this is not a new thing.
PAYNE: Are they overdoing it? Do you have to apologize every day for being an old white guy?
LEVENSON: I think...
BORELLI: Look at what Brett Kavanaugh went through. And then how do you compare that to this?
LEVENSON: I don't know what comparison you are making.
BORELLI: They went after Brett Kavanaugh on all ends.
LEVENSON: This isn't -- these are opportunities to have teachable moments. And we should teach them as such.
MELCHIOR: But, in some cases, they're overstated, and I don't think you should apologize.
PAYNE: All right. Let's leave it there.
Hey, coming up, imagine the response that this would cause, a Cat 5 hurricane. That's how Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says everyone needs to treat the border crisis as she arrives there today. Is she right?
El Paso, Texas, Mayor Dee Margo is coming up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON")
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON": Today, Trump told reporters that he's still might close the Mexican border. And experts say, if that happens, the U.S. could run out of avocados in three weeks.
FALLON: And that's when Trader Joe's will officially change its name to Fight Club.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: Late night poking fun, but just how serious is the Trump administration on closing the southern border?
FOX News' John Roberts has the latest from the White House -- John.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon to you.
Pretty serious is how I would put it. The Department of Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, is in El Paso as we speak, heading to Yuma, Arizona, tomorrow and then on to Calexico, California, on Friday to deal with, as she put last night, a crisis that approaches that of a Category 5 hurricane.
In fact, the interagency process the DHS is now using to address the situation on the border is the same as they would use to address a natural disaster. And the president putting pressure on Congress to do something about the problem, tweeting a short time ago -- quote -- "Congress must get together immediately eliminate the loopholes at the border. If no action, border or large sections of the border will close. This is a national emergency."
At an event last night for the National Republican Congressional Campaign, the president seemed to dial back on the possibility of an imminent border closure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: So, now Mexico, I'm closing it. And I really wanted to close it. But now Mexico is saying, no, no, no. First time in decades. We will not let anybody get through.
And they have apprehended over 1,000 people today at the -- at the southern border, their southern border. And they're bringing them back into their country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So, last night, and also yesterday afternoon, the president seemed to dial back a little bit on this idea closing of the border.
But Arizona Governor Doug Ducey just emerged from a meeting with the president in the Oval Office in which he told reporters that the option of closing the border was still on the table, Governor Ducey saying if the border is closed, he hopes it will be for as short a time period as possible.
Democrats today saying closing the border at all would be a bad idea. Listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. COLIN ALLRED, D-TX: I recognize that we have a crisis going on. And I think we need to talk about what real border security means.
I don't think that means shutting down the border. It would be an economic disaster for us in Texas. We have an enormous amount of trade with Mexico.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: And the White House formulating a number of different plans for possibly closing the border or parts of it, but they believe it is important to keep commerce flowing, even if they are closing the border to pedestrian and personal vehicle traffic.
Listen to what Larry Kudlow said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: One area we have explored is to try to keep the freight lines open and the truck lanes. And I have talked to various officials from DHS and others who are more knowledgeable than I. And that is possible.
If you ask me the mechanics of it, I -- I'm not the guy. That is possible. And that would help the supply chain issues.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: The president will be meeting with military leaders tonight here at the White House at 6:00.
We understand that part of that meeting will be to talk about committee more military resources to the problem on the southern border. This is getting bigger our by hour -- Charles.
PAYNE: John, it certainly is. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Now, earlier today, on my show, "Making Money" on the FOX Business Network, I spoke with Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott about the emergency situation at the border.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: DHS, Nielsen, she is now calling the situation at the border or equating it with a Cat 5 hurricane, something, unfortunately, you have a lot of experience with. Do you think that's an accurate description?
SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA: Absolutely, because I went -- I have gone down to the border. I have talked to Border Patrol.
The unbelievable number of people that are coming across our borders illegally, then the number of drugs. The president is in a horrible position. He wants to secure the border. The Democrats will not, will not, will not give him the money to do it.
I mean, it doesn't make any sense. We need more people. We need better technology. And we need some barriers to make sure we control who comes into our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: Now to Mayor Dee Margo of El Paso, Texas, where DHS Secretary Nielsen is visiting today.
Mayor, thanks for joining us.
DEE MARGO, R-MAYOR OF EL PASO, TEXAS: Sure, Charles. Happy to be here.
PAYNE: I have spoken with several folks who have been at the border. And they describe something that you just cannot -- the average person who has never been there cannot visualize the sort of humanitarian crisis.
What are you seeing?
MARGO: It is a crisis.
There's the migrants coming across. But to shut down the border would be a -- would be draconian and devastating. El Paso is the second largest land port to Mexico after Laredo. We have $101 billion of annualized trade. I have got 36,000 private passenger vehicles that come north every day across our six bridges.
We have six of the 28 bridges that cross from Texas to Mexico. We have got 20,000 legal pedestrians that come north every day.
MARGO: And, on truck traffic, we have got $212 billion -- million dollars -- excuse me -- of goods that come north every day out of Mexico.
PAYNE: So, Mayor...
MARGO: With about 20 -- 3,600.
And, yesterday, President Trump acknowledged that there will be an economic costs to this, but also said that security has to be our number one goal.
And there's no doubt that this is a difficult position. I think there's no doubt the White House doesn't want to take this position. What could be the alternatives at this particular point, when you consider that perhaps Mexico's not doing enough, perhaps that the Central American countries are not doing enough to stem this from happening?
MARGO: Well, Charles, this goes back 30 years.
We have not done anything on immigration reform for the last 30 years.
MARGO: To me, the lack of intestinal fortitude exhibited by both sides of the aisle and both houses of Congress is the reason we're sitting here dealing with a migrant problem. This goes back to that...
PAYNE: But how do we deal with it now, though, because it's mushroomed into a point where even Jeh Johnson, the last DHS -- he was in charge under President Obama. And he said 1,000 apprehensions under his watch was a bad day; 4,100 in one single day is beyond belief.
MARGO: Well, in '17, we had 13 -- in fiscal year '17, we had 13,000 come north through El Paso.
In fiscal year '18, we had 18,000. Year to date, from an October 1 fiscal year, we have had 50,000. We have had 32,000 come north since January. A lot of this has to do with a...
PAYNE: If you had President Trump's ear, what would you suggest to him as an alternative to perhaps this draconian move?
MARGO: Well, first of all, I would change the law on that -- the 2008 trafficking -- I think it was called the William Wilberforce Traffic -- the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which was done when unaccompanied minors were coming through from Central America, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
MARGO: And they were coming through at a time when we had all the drug cartel problems.
And, being the benevolent nation we are, we said, we want to make sure these -- these unaccompanied minors don't get caught up with the cartels and be used as drug mules or for human trafficking. So, we basically gave them unfettered -- what amounts to almost unfettered asylum.
So, they can come up and claim this asylum.
MARGO: That law needs to be addressed.
PAYNE: OK. Well, that's a start.
MARGO: To me, Homeland Security...
PAYNE: That's a start, sir.
MARGO: Homeland Security needs to define...
PAYNE: That's a start. But, unfortunately, we have run out of time.
We do appreciate you coming on. We understand the magnitude, particularly for a border town like yours. It's not an easy solution, and it is a difficult problem.
Thank you very much. We do appreciate it.
MARGO: Yes, good to be here.
PAYNE: Now, these young ladies, they are now the faces of the college admissions scandal -- you're looking right there -- that has shocked this nation. We're talking actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin.
They are facing a judge. What happened inside that courtroom today and what kind of punishment could they be facing now?
PAYNE: Facebook facing a new privacy scandal -- what the social media giant is asking some users to reveal that has some users reeling.
We're right back and just 60 seconds.
PAYNE: They're accused of scamming their kids' way into college.
Now actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin just made their way into and out of a federal court.
Molly Line is outside the Boston federal courthouse where it all went down -- Molly.
MOLLY LINE, CORRESPONDENT: Charles, what a day in federal court in Boston today was, one we do not very often see here.
Former TV stars Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman traveling here down this road, just like any other defendant, walking in the front door of the courthouse here in Boston, surrounded by cameras and the chaos that had awaited them here in the courthouse.
They went before the judge, like any of the other defendants in this case, all of them facing allegations that they bribed through the mastermind of this college admissions scheme to either pay coaches to help fake athletic profiles or to essentially pay someone to cheat on exams, all in an effort to get their kids into elite colleges or universities.
Now, for the majority of the parents, there was no plea entered today. But there were a couple of interesting things that also came out of the court hearing unrelated to the Hollywood aspect, Loughlin, Huffman, as well of Loughlin's husband, Mossimo Giannulli.
There was a set of parents in the afternoon, the first -- or among the first indicted by a grand jury in the case, Dr. Gregory Colburn and his wife, Amy. They're facing an additional charge in this case, but they essentially pled guilty, including that additional charge of money laundering.
And also the first parent in this case that has decided to say he's going to plead guilty, Peter Sartorio, that coming -- information coming out of some court documents this afternoon.
Reading now from those documents, that he is asking for a continuance to a court date later on this month and that he intends to plead guilty. He faces the same charge as the majority of parents in this case, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
Overall, a very busy day in federal court here in Boston -- Charles, back to you.
PAYNE: Molly, thank you very much.
So what kind of legal jeopardy do these celebrities face?
Former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky joins us now.
Katie, on one hand, think I read where Felicity Huffman, her -- paid $15,000, whereas Lori Loughlin half-a-million dollars. I mean, the big gap in the difference in numbers, although the same charges, will that impact it at all?
KATIE CHERKASKY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it absolutely can impact the ultimate sentence that they receive.
And it's going to come down to a question of how much benefit did they derive and, really, what are the aggravating facts in each of their cases? Because, right now, we know that there is some evidence we haven't seen. There's communications that these people had with the folks that were running the scheme.
And that's all going to play into their sentence, if they really take this all the way through to trial. And so, yes, the amount that is initially exchanged could be a factor that would benefit Felicity Huffman, for example.
PAYNE: Federal -- when you start to hear about mail being involved, the Postal Service and wire fraud, those sort of things, that really is what exacerbates these things, isn't it?
CHERKASKY: Well, that really is what pushes this into a federal offense.
So when you have people that are kind of just exchanging information with one other person, and they're exchanging money, it may seem like it's not that big of a deal, but you're crossing interstate lines with financial exchanges, and then that pushes this to federal jurisdiction, which obviously is -- is where they're heading to court.
PAYNE: Molly says we have one parent who's already agreed to plead Peter Sartorio.
Does -- how does that -- does that impact or sway this in any kind of way, if you're sitting in a defendant pool and saying, well, one of us has already said that they're guilty?
CHERKASKY: People have to make their individual decisions about when to take a plea deal and what the facts of their particular case look like.
And, as many lawyers say, if the facts are against you, sometimes, argue the law. And the law could be a way out for some of these folks, depending on the individual facts of their case. So, one person's situation is very fact-specific.
CHERKASKY: They could have different motivating factors leading to that decision, but it doesn't necessarily impact all the other cases.
PAYNE: Let's talk about the celebrity influence here or the potential celebrity here. Could that -- I need a quick answer from you, but could that actually hurt them, considering the overall political atmosphere we're in, in this country, where people feel like the justice system is more favorable to celebrities?
CHERKASKY: Sure. I think, depending on the judge, the judge could want to send a message, if they really take this all the way. And, absolutely, I think that could play into it, to send a message to a very wide audience, because a lot of people are paying attention because of their notoriety.
PAYNE: Yes, certainly.
Katie, thank you very much for helping us hash through all of that. Appreciate it. Thanks.
CHERKASKY: Thanks, Charles.
PAYNE: Joe Biden responding to allegations in a new video. Many say it's a sign that he is indeed running.
Find out what Charlie Gasparino, though, is hearing next.
PAYNE: It's not just Joe Biden's video on Twitter that makes it look like is running. Joe Biden's associates are also telling Wall Street donors he's running.
FBN's Charlie Gasparino joins us now with this breaking news.
CHARLIE GASPARINO, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: You know, Charles, I'm going to preface this by saying as of yesterday.
And the reason why I do this, it's up to the minute, but you never know what is going to happen in a week from now.
GASPARINO: But, as of yesterday, this is what we know from Joe Biden's associates. These are guys on Wall Street, people that he's spent a long time cultivating.
What they're saying, that he is telling them and his associates are telling them he is definitely running. The word is, as of yesterday, again, 100 percent in, he's committed to run.
And what's interesting about this is that they're telling me some of these attacks -- I mean, I know he put out the statement today where he basically showed some contrition, correct, but behind the scenes, he's seething, and he really believes that these are coordinated attacks, at least some of them, from the Sanders campaign, Bernie Sanders.
GASPARINO: He really believes it's coming from them.
And what they said, it's stiffened his resolve to run. Why is that? Well, he looks at the polls. He also thinks he's -- he's ahead of the pack. He also thinks that he's in the best position to run against Donald Trump among the entire crowded field.
But, again, I tell you this as of yesterday. And the reason why, again, is, suppose five more of these things came out. I mean, you could see how people might recalibrate, right?
PAYNE: Well, obviously.
PAYNE: He's encountered so many people over the course of...
GASPARINO: But they are saying he is telling them he's going in there, he's going to run.
PAYNE: If you listened to it, he says, I will be more mindful. That's my responsibility, and I will meet it, and respect people's personal space in the future.
PAYNE: It really does sound like he's like, hey, listen, you're going to be seeing a lot of me around.
PAYNE: You mentioned these Wall Street donors. And I was talking to someone yesterday saying that this could still be his Achilles' heel.
GASPARINO: The Wall Street?
PAYNE: Particularly after all of these numbers have started to poor in.
People are raising millions. His potential opponents are raising millions of dollars already. I mean, is he waiting too long either way?
GASPARINO: Again, from this donor class, which I have the connections with, what they are saying is, this...
PAYNE: He's their guy?
GASPARINO: Well, there -- a couple things. Yes, he is there guy. But, also, they are saying he waited this long precisely to get some of this out, that he knew it was coming.
I mean, there's been books written about how Hillary Clinton had some of this stuff and, if he was going to run last time, she was going to put it out. But they're saying that they gave it -- they wanted to give it some time to circulate, him come out his mea culpa or whatever you heard today.
Again, I preface this by saying you never know what he's -- if five more come out.
GASPARINO: And he gets -- he says, I don't want to go through with this.
But, as of like 10 minutes ago, in political time, he was telling people he's going, he still thinks he can win.
Whether he can or not is a whole other story.
PAYNE: The Sanders camp is out today saying that they had nothing to do it, they played no role in this at all.
GASPARINO: He does not believe that. And, again, he put out a statement of contrition, which is, I think, what he should do.
Most political players, when you talk to them, that's what he should do. A lot of people on the left are embracing that. But he really believes he was set up, particularly with the initial one.
I mean, he thinks that was clearly...
PAYNE: Who, by the way, was a Bernie Sanders operative/supporter or whatever. They're in the same political camp.
GASPARINO: Right. Right.
PAYNE: All right.
GASPARINO: And so that's where he is.
I think the timing is towards the end of the month, if he does it.
PAYNE: All right, cool. Thanks a lot of, Charlie. Appreciate it.
PAYNE: Hey, Facebook under fire for compromising user privacy again with a move security experts are calling beyond sketchy. What is it? And did you get wrapped up in it?
We will find out next.
PAYNE: Facebook's latest privacy scandal involves asking users for their passwords to their personal e-mail accounts.
Fox News' Gillian Turner has the latest.
Another crazy story.
GILLIAN TURNER, CORRESPONDENT: It is another one, Charles.
So, Facebook has been caught red-handed, asking users to share their personal e-mail passwords with the platform, a move cyber-analysts say is the company's most questionable privacy move yet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN WRIGHT, CEO, CROWD SOURCED INVESTIGATIONS: Why Facebook thought they needed the passwords is kind of secondary to the fact is that they shouldn't have asked for the passwords in the first place. That was an absolute red line.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TURNER: Users logging on were interrupted by a prompt asking for the e- mail password associated with their Facebook profile.
Facebook claims the password prompt was a simple security measure, part of a process they call two-step authentication. And they insist these passwords are not stored.
But, just last month, that company did admit to storing hundreds of millions of user passwords insecurely on logs that were easily accessible to its employees.
In an e-mail to Fox News, Facebook deflected blame, saying users have other options. They say: "People can always choose to confirm their account with a code sent to their phone or a link sent to their e-mail."
But cyber-experts aren't buying it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WRIGHT: You know, in this case, to figure out the other ways would have required the eyesight of a falcon and be able to discern what all the small print was down at the bottom, because it was not easily accessible for the average user.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TURNER: In the wake of sweeping pushback, Facebook is now recalibrating, writing: "We understand the password verification option isn't the best way to go about this. So we're going to stop offering it."
Experts remind people that legitimate companies usually steer well clear of asking users for their passwords, and for good reason -- Charles.
PAYNE: The eyesight of a falcon, I love that line. I'm going to borrow it.
Gillian, thank you very much.
TURNER: You can have at it.
PAYNE: All right.
Hey, back to the Mueller report, we know Democrats want every ounce of it. But are they right to subpoena it? We're going to debate it next.
PAYNE: Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have the subpoenas ready for the full version of the Mueller report, if they don't get what they want from Attorney General William Barr.
Right move or wrong move?
Let's ask Democratic strategist Cathy Areu, Axios reporter Alayna Treene, and FOX News political analyst Gianno Caldwell.
All right,, Cathy, Democrats, are they playing this right?
CATHY AREU, PUBLISHER, CATALINA: Yes, they're playing it right if they want to be able to interpret the report for themselves.
They want the entire report, so that they can interpret it and give the messaging that they want to give. So if they don't have all those pages and everything in the whole report, they cannot control the messaging of what's in there.
So it better be good, though. They're basing this on that that report is going to be good and reveal something that's going to work in their favor to control 2020, to get Trump out of the White House.
PAYNE: Gianno, it could backfire, though.
What they're asking for, many people believe to be unreasonable, and certainly unprecedented, when you're saying, hey, we want people's names who might have just crossed paths along the way, they're not guilty of anything, they are not being accused of anything. We want access to national security information. We want a lot of things that you would think a normal person would think should be redacted.
GIANNO CALDWELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, I was just talking about this on my Instagram account today.
I think politicians have forgotten that their main objective is serving the people, not their political party or their aligned interests. We the people continue to lose out when politicians grandstand, misrepresent facts or believe their role is to become famous.
And we see that with Adam Schiff. I like what the page on FOX News said today, Sheriff Schiff, who says that he has evidence that Trump actually colluded with the Russians. And if that be the case, wouldn't he have supplied this to Mueller?
And I know that he doesn't have it, but he wants to continue what the American people, 50 percent, half of Americans say was a witch-hunt. And this is very problematic, because now we get nothing done on Capitol Hill. There's no health care for anybody. And it's just a big mess. And the Democrats have created this pot and they continue to stir it.
PAYNE: Alayna, where do you see it going from here?
ALAYNA TREENE, AXIOS: Well, I think that this is tricky, because, as you said, there's no precedent for this.
And I think, like, the one thing that's clear from the report, or at least from the summary of the report that the attorney general put forth, there's nothing in the report that reveals the president committed an indictable offense.
And so I think that a lot of Democrats and people on the left were hoping that -- they kind of put all their eggs in the Mueller basket, whereas now they're putting a lot of the focus on their own investigations, House Oversight, House Judiciary Committee.
But this was always going to be a political fight. And I think that to the point that Democrats do want all the evidence, of course, it's in the public interest, because this is the president of the United States, to see the underlying evidence of this report.
This has been something that's been going on for the past two years. But at the same time, at the end of the day, I think it's -- you can't lose perspective that this isn't going to be the thing that brings down the Trump presidency.
PAYNE: Cathy, also...
CALDWELL: And they lost perspective a long time ago.
PAYNE: They also widened their net, their nets, right? They want Hope Hicks, Steve Bannon, Annie Donaldson, Don McGahn, Reince Priebus.
PAYNE: Again, I mean, this is -- to what in and for what reason?
AREU: Well, it's all about 2020.
So in my op-ed for Fox News.com, mentioned just this, that it's not exactly the Mueller investigation. This basket, I mean, Easter is coming up. So, yes, there's eggs in this basket, but it's about the other eggs. We're looking now at the South District of New York. We're looking at what this report is going to give the Democrats to change the messaging and maybe cause other investigations.
PAYNE: With all due respect, though, you know what that sounds like, right, Cathy?
PAYNE: It sounds like a witch-hunt.
PAYNE: I mean, honestly.
AREU: It sounds like a reality.
PAYNE: You're saying that, hey, we want to go after anything we can go after and find anything we can find.
AREU: But this is politics. This is politics. And politics is war. And it has been for a long time, before Watergate, before all these things.
I mean, this is politics. Republicans would do it the same way.
CALDWELL: And that's exactly -- and that's -- no, that's not true.
And that's exactly why the Democrats shouldn't be in power, because...
AREU: This exactly true. Ken Starr? I mean...
CALDWELL: Their interest is playing politics and not serving the people. To my original point...
AREU: Oh, the GOP would do the exact same thing.
CALDWELL: ... we are seeing too much grandstanding and misrepresenting the facts.
You get -- the Democrats are now embarrassed that they put too much stock into this investigation.
PAYNE: Right. All right.
CALDWELL: There was no -- the ramifications that they hoped for didn't exist. So now they're embarrassed. And they're going to pay a deep price in 2020 for this.
PAYNE: We do have to be honest. I mean, the headlines were no collusion.
Alayna, I'm sorry I couldn't bring you in, but you did a good job between both of them holding them back.
PAYNE: We will bring you all back real soon.
You have got to get an Instagram account or start doing some articles on FOXNews.com too.
PAYNE: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
And, folks, don't forget, of course, catch me tomorrow on the FOX Business Network, "Making Money," at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
The markets are on the cusp of major breakouts to all-time highs. So we will be there for you.
But for you right now, "The Five" starts now.
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.