Former FAA inspector offers insight on investigation into Boeing 737 Max 8

close

Video

Former FAA inspector offers insight on investigation into Boeing 737 Max 8

Bill McNease reacts to some countries grounding the plane after two deadly crashes.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 12, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Less than 24 hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says impeachment should be off the table, did a Democratic congressman named Al Green just put it back on?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AL GREEN, D-TX: I do not believe that an unfit president should be allowed to stay in office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Battle not over.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

First, I would like to thank my buddy Charles Payne for filling in so ably while I was out. Much appreciated.

Now to the Texas Democratic congressman, Al Green, who is pushing ahead with impeachment, despite the leader of his own party saying, not so fast. He is not alone, by the way.

We are going to talk to the congressman in just a moment.

Ahead of that to Mike Emanuel on the battle brewing within the Democratic Party -- Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Neil, good afternoon to you.

There are clearly a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives who would disagree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi taking impeachment off the table at this point.

A couple of liberals who have gotten a lot of attention, Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, are two of those who have been very outspoken about the concept of impeachment. Tlaib dodged our cameras today, but Ocasio-Cortez says she disagrees with the speaker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I think this is a conversation in the caucus. And I know a lot of members in the caucus have a different opinion. But that's why we caucus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has warned to reporters that impeachment would be very disruptive to House Democrats carrying out their agenda. He notes it is not popular in every district in the country, and so they need to wait on the Robert Mueller impeachment report -- or, rather, the special counsel report.

Some allies of Speaker Pelosi say they also agree on waiting for the facts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, D-FLA: I think there is no one in the Congress, certainly on our side, faced with clear evidence that any president had committed high crimes and misdemeanors, that we wouldn't pursue the appropriate action. But we are not at that point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: Impeachment plays well with the liberal base and a lot of liberal districts. There are many new members that gave the House majority to the Democrats that come from swing districts that could really go either way -- Neil.

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

Now to that guest who is urging, despite the speaker's warnings, that this is a moment that calls for everyone to follow their conscience and go ahead and start impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.

Texas Democratic Congressman Al Green with us right now.

Congressman, welcome.

GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Cavuto. It's an honor to be on your program.

CAVUTO: Neil, please, sir.

Let me get your sense about why you are doing this, when Nancy Pelosi all but says it would be a waste of time?

GREEN: Well, it's not about any one person.

It's really about the concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people, and the notion that we have a democracy. And within this democracy, our Constitution accords this right to bring impeachment to the floor to every member of our caucus.

So I'm not antithetical to what the speaker is saying or anyone else. I ask each person to vote your conscience, do what you may. But do understand that I will do as my conscience dictates.

CAVUTO: All right. Have you talked to her about it?

GREEN: No. We have not had a discussion about it. My belief is that this is something that I will contact every member of the House about at some point in a written communique, and they will then govern themselves accordingly.

CAVUTO: All right, you have done this a couple of times. In December of 2017, you garnered 58 votes for impeachment. And a month later, it was up to 66.

If you pursued this, Congressman, you need 218 to move forward, so you are a long way away from that. How many votes do you think you could get?

GREEN: I can guarantee one vote. And I say that candidly, Mr. Cavuto, because, very candidly speaking, this really is not about people who happen to hold positions of authority.

I just believe that we shouldn't allow political expediency, wait until the next election, to trump the moral imperative to act when there is harm being caused to society. So I won't be counting voting -- votes. What I will do is count on the opportunity to bring it to the floor and let people vote their consciences.

I think that's appropriate. I won't be whipping anybody. I will just simply bring it to the floor, and each person will have an opportunity to vote.

CAVUTO: Well, what do you know, sir, that some of your Democratic colleagues do not that are impeachable offenses or high crimes and misdemeanors of which you have no doubt?

Because some of them are waiting on this Mueller report or other aspects of proof before even entertaining such a thing.

GREEN: Well, here's what I know, that a good many of the people who say that they are not for impeachment indicate that the president has committed impeachable offenses.

They will talk about how the president is unfit for office. But they don't want to have impeachment because they are of the opinion that it would be disruptive.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What has he done that is an impeachable offense, high crime and misdemeanor? Calling someone unfit for office is one thing. Having the proof or something in a series of actions he has taken is quite another. Right?

GREEN: No, it is. And that's a very fair question.

Here's what's happened. The president has put his bigotry into policy. The president was discussing immigration at the time he called certain countries S-hole countries. And I might add these are countries where people of color were.

The president has separated people from their families down at the border. These happen to be people of color. The president wanted a Muslim ban. It was bungled, and they had to come back several times to try to correct it.

The president engages in bigotry, not only with his rhetoric in some of the things that he said, but in his policies.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: None of what you just mentioned, sir, is the collusion that is popularly featured supposedly in the Mueller investigation. And none of that would seem to draw in Republican votes.

The reason why I mention that is your Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, had gone on record saying -- he would obviously oversee an impeachment action. But he has said that you need broad bipartisan support to pursue impeachment. And, right now, it's not there.

GREEN: Well, I would assume that anyone who is of that opinion would probably not vote for impeachment.

But here's my point. I think that we have a responsibility to prevent an unfit president from staying in office. And that's what I plan to do.

And let me add you, Mr. Cavuto. I'm the guy who was reared in the segregated South. I know what bigotry looks like. I know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like. The president is imposing bigotry in policy on the country. And that's something...

CAVUTO: Well, that's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, Congressman.

GREEN: I am.

CAVUTO: The reason why I asking you is that, when Bill Clinton was pursued for impeachment, and a lot of Republicans regret at the time pursuing to the degree they did, some Democrats are being warned that they could produce the same outcome.

Did you think Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about an affair with an intern?

GREEN: I thought that impeachment was an appropriate action for the House to take up. The House casts its vote. It went to the Senate. The Senate didn't convict. And that was the way the process worked.

I don't think we should circumvent the process, Mr. Cavuto.

CAVUTO: But you supported that impeachment move back then?

GREEN: Yes, I supported the allowance of the House to do its will, absolutely. This is what the House is for, Mr. Cavuto.

Federalist 65. Let me just make this point. In Federalist 65, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, they are the author ares of The Federalist Papers. They made it clear to us that impeachment is not going to be a pleasant thing. It can cause turmoil. It can cause people to vote along party lines.

When Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, he was impeached for speaking ill of Congress. If you cause harm to society, that's the test. Then you can be impeached.

CAVUTO: All right, well, then let me get a sense where you see this going. If you are well shy of the 218 votes, and you want to make a statement because you believe the president is a racist or whatever his language and whatever he has done at the border, that -- you are redefining what is an impeachable offense.

GREEN: Not at all.

CAVUTO: Are you concerned -- just let me ask you, are you concerned, sir, then, that if a Democrat is in office and held to the same kind of looser standards, that this impeachment thing will be used under every administration by the opposition party?

GREEN: Well, if we adhere to what you just said, Andrew Johnson wouldn't have been impeached in article 10 of his articles of impeachment.

He was impeached for speaking ill of the House. That was the reason. So, Mr. Cavuto, you don't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Most of the constitutional authorities agree with me on this point. Misdeeds, high crimes and misdemeanors, misdeeds are misdemeanors.

That's what the misdemeanors are all about, misdeeds. If a president commits misdeeds, it doesn't matter what party he is in. He should be impeached.

CAVUTO: All right, again, you are entitled to that.

Now, let me ask you, though. The leadership will decide whether your action can proceed. And the leadership right now doesn't seem too keen on doing that. Am I right?

GREEN: Well, I will let the leadership speak for itself.

I am going to pursue what the Constitution and the rules allow me to do.

CAVUTO: I know you are. But they're not -- they might not let you. How would you feel if they don't?

GREEN: Well, if they do not, then there will be a vote that will take place to place that sentiment in the record. So, my position is, let people vote.

CAVUTO: Well, they control that vote. They can control whether it even comes to a vote, right?

GREEN: Well, if they do that, then history will judge us all and we will all have voted.

CAVUTO: So, if you had a move, where last time you garnered 66 votes to impeach the president of the United States, if Nancy Pelosi were to allow to you have a vote, and let's say you got 86 votes, I don't know, would you be satisfied that you tried, but you failed?

GREEN: Well, Mr. Cavuto, let's assume that...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You know, you make me feel like I'm a bigwig of something.

GREEN: Well, I have a lot of respect for you, Mr. Cavuto.

CAVUTO: Well, I appreciate it.

GREEN: But if I only get one vote -- let's not take it as high as 86. Let's subtract 85 from that. If I only get one vote, I will have done the right thing.

In this country...

CAVUTO: Well, you are going to get at least 66 votes. Don't you think that? Your staff has been saying that.

(CROSSTALK)

GREEN: No. No.

CAVUTO: Really? OK.

GREEN: I have to get one. I have to make my way to the chamber to make sure I vote.

Mr. Cavuto, we have lived through bigotry in this country since African- Americans arrived on these shores. There are people who suffered. Jewish people have suffered. LGBTQ community has suffered. Bigotry is impeachable.

Now, if there are people who don't think that bigotry is impeachable...

CAVUTO: Well, you have to prove bigotry, though, right?

GREEN: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You have to prove bigotry. You have to prove the kind of stuff that you outline there. And it's a loose standard, right?

GREEN: Well, let -- no, it's not a loose standard. If it's a loose standard, then Andrew Johnson...

CAVUTO: You don't like the way the president speaks. You don't like the terms he's used about Haiti and elsewhere, right?

(CROSSTALK)

GREEN: No, I don't like the way he puts that into policy, bigotry into policy.

Immediately after saying S-hole countries, he decided he was going to eliminate certain visas for African countries. He has babies being separated from their mothers.

We had 12 million people to come through Ellis Island from Scandinavian countries and Europe. They didn't separate babies from mothers when they did this. Those people were here. They were part of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Mr. Cavuto, we live to exercise liberty and justice for all.

CAVUTO: All right.

GREEN: That's what I stand for. I love my country. I do it because I love my country.

CAVUTO: Well, you were the earliest on this, Congressman Green.

GREEN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Thank you very, very much.

I tried my best for you to call me Neil, but I will call you Congressman. Thank you very, very much.

GREEN: You may call me Al. My mother gave me that, and I'm very proud of it.

(LAUGHTER)

GREEN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Sir, thank you very, very much.

GREEN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: The fallout from that a little bit later in the show here. We're still looking at the ramifications of that.

Also, this college admissions scam that is really shocking the nation. Lost in the sort of the rich and famous accused of bribing their way in, what about all of the hardworking kids this scam kept out?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, you are looking at Rick Singer. He is the man who apparently orchestrated this scam, that is, to get kids into some of the elite schools in the country, not legally. That's what the government says.

He obviously disagrees. Hollywood stars Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin among those who were charged in a bribery scheme to get their kids into some of these elite schools.

Molly Line in Boston, where all of this went down.

Hey, Molly.

MOLLY LINE, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.

Well, IRS officials, prosecutors, the FBI today announcing the culmination of Operation Varsity Blues, the bust-up of this international/national college admissions schemes bribery, faked tests, and faked athletic prowess as well.

Dozens of people, from college coaches, to, as you mentioned, Hollywood actresses, CEOs, parents, exam administrators, have been arrested facing various charges for their involvement in this widespread conspiracy. The scheme aimed to help students gain admission to these elite universities, Yale, Georgetown, Wake Forest, University of Southern California Stanford.

The institutions, by the way, didn't know about this scam. And some have already taken action against indicted coaches. There are 50 defendants named, as I mentioned, CEO, a fashion designer, a wine maker.

Perhaps most recognizable being those two actresses, Lori Loughlin, best known for role in the sitcom "Full House," and Felicity Huffman of "Desperate Housewives" fame.

At the center of the scam, William Rick Singer, 58, of Newport, California, who pled guilty today in federal court, charged with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, obstruction of justice. He ran a college counseling business, as well as a purported charity.

Uber-wealthy parents gave him in total combined $25 million to either aid them in faking their child's athletic prowess in the bribery of coaches or to aid them in a fake test or a corrected test or to pay off test administrators.

Now, this is far from over as well. It's worth noting that administrators say they are still -- investigators say they are still investigating, and there could potentially be more arrests, more indictments of parents and others -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Molly Line, thank you very much.

So, are these parents looking at some serious jail time?

Attorney Lisa Kuharksi joins me that now.

Lisa, good to see you.

LISA KUHARSKI, ATTORNEY: Good to see you, Neil.

CAVUTO: Are they going to jail?

KUHARSKI: Jail? That will be interesting.

The charges of mail fraud, that's a very delicate charge, right? We're talking about a lot of applications for college right now are electronic. This would really have to rest on the acceptance letters that would go through the mail. So, it's going to be case by case.

CAVUTO: But it's also paying to get your kid into a school.

KUHARSKI: Well, that's different, yes.

CAVUTO: Right. OK. Is that the part that they have to worry about?

KUHARSKI: Yes, they have to worry about that.

And probably have to worry about money laundering. They also donated to a not-for-profit. Did they take a deduction on their taxes? They could have a lot of problems going forward certainly on a case-by case basis when they look at the amount that's going to come into play about if they get jail time or not.

Also, it's going to come into play who was bribed, in fact, bribing a public official? Any teacher would have public official standing. It's more egregious for a teacher to accept a bribe.

All of the players in this, 50 players, administrators, parents...

CAVUTO: What about the schools themselves? I mean, most that I have seen today pleaded ignorance to this.

KUHARSKI: I think a lot of schools pleaded ignorance. Upon looking at some published reports, I know a lot of the coaches at Yale, for instance, and I believe at Georgetown have already been let go from -- they didn't really say. It would be interesting to see the reason.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

KUHARSKI: If they had any beforehand knowledge of this, that would allow them to be culpable, but not necessarily so, because these colleges, if they didn't know, then how could we hold them accountable?

CAVUTO: But some of these kids have since been accepted and graduated. They have moved on. So, what about them?

KUHARSKI: You know, the kids in particular -- and if you notice the DOJ didn't charge any of the children.

CAVUTO: That's right.

KUHARSKI: A lot of these kids, I think, could be innocent. I think he did indicate that some of the children did know, but a lot of them just had no idea that their parents perhaps had their college scores changed.

CAVUTO: But you are a great lawyer. So, I'm thinking, if I'm one of those kids who didn't get in because one of these schlubs did, then do I have a case?

KUHARSKI: Well, that's really interesting, right, because there is no absolute way to get into Harvard. Even a 1600, right, and a 4.0 doesn't grant you entry.

It would probably be difficult to establish a prima facie case against that. But it's not impossible.

CAVUTO: But you would have to believe this person got in, let's say someone else was wait-listed at Yale. I don't even know if they have such a thing at Yale.

But then what you do?

KUHARSKI: Right. They do.

CAVUTO: They do? You know that. All right.

KUHARSKI: But the thing is -- well, they have deferment.

CAVUTO: OK. Understood.

KUHARSKI: OK, so if there was a student -- and probably this is more pertinent when -- the children that got in on the athletic scholarships, right?

Because there was certainly a tremendous amount of fraud. If there were students that got in on tennis scholarships that didn't even play tennis, and you are a tennis, you know, ranked child that plays on a quasi- professional circuit, you might be able to establish a prima facie case, especially if your top school was Georgetown and you didn't make it into a certain year.

CAVUTO: But, real quickly, how is this different in the past when very, very wealthy people with a wink and a nod, promise a building campaign and they're going to donate to the school, and the next year or two, oh, look, my kid got into that school?

KUHARSKI: Well, there you go. The wink and nod isn't mail fraud. And there is no quid pro quo.

CAVUTO: Good point.

KUHARSKI: OK? You can donate, there is no quid pro quo that you get in.

This was pay to play, actual numbers associated with certain schools, certain bribes.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: All right, Lisa, thank you very, very much. Good seeing you again.

KUHARSKI: Yes. Thanks for having me.

CAVUTO: All right, more foreign countries now are banning this new Boeing MAX 8 jet plane. And now a lot of travelers are rebelling.

We have got a live report from Susan Li at La Guardia International Airport with more on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Well, from hot to definitely not. Boeing shares tumbling for a second straight day, as more countries drop the plane's once very popular MAX 8 jets.

So far, the U.S. is still not one of them. And that has some fliers in this country very nervous.

Susan Li at La Guardia International Airport, where a lot of those jets are still flying -- Susan.

SUSAN LI, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. Yes, that's right, Neil.

So, we are here at La Guardia taking really the temperature check of passengers set to get on one of these 737 MAXes. Southwest and American Air being some of the last few still flying the plane today, and as you can imagine some of these passengers are nervous.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LI: If you found out you were on a 737 MAX, how would you feel?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would feel a little bit insecure, a little bit -- yes. I probably wouldn't -- if I could get off, I would get off.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would change my flight.

LI: Because you...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would be scared for my safety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LI: So, there are around 370 of these 737 MAXes in operation. Most of those have been taken out of operation today.

This is after the European Union going against, by the way, FAA recommendations, which they rarely do, joined the likes of Singapore, China, Indonesia and Australia banning the plane from their airspace.

Meantime, individual airlines in Latin America, also in South Africa and in North America have also individually grounded the plane themselves. Now, the FAA continues to say that the 737 MAX is airworthy, in their view.

And Boeing reiterated their full confidence in this type of plane. But we do have senators, for instance, like Mitt Romney, Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal and also Feinstein, all lobbying the FAA to, hey, take some precautionary measures, maybe ground the plane until you know what's wrong with it and maybe there's some sort of software upgrade to make it safer to fly.

Boeing, meantime, they have a really taken bad hits on the stock market, the worst two-day slide for the plane maker in close to three years, Neil. And people are still concerned about what's happening with this plane and whether or not we will get those real answers soon -- back to you.

CAVUTO: Susan Li, thank you very, very much.

By the way, add Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican who chairs the Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, to those recommending for the time being, out an abundance of caution, to ground the planes while they look into what happened here.

Now, Boeing is said already to be making some key changes in the cockpit software involving a stall prevention feature, which was rumored to be at play in this latest Ethiopian Airlines crash.

Bill McNease is a pilot, former FAA safety inspector.

Bill, thank you for coming.

BILL MCNEASE, FORMER FAA INSPECTOR: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: So, what do you make of this?

It's hard to connect two accidents, save the one that we have seen featuring the same type of plane, the same eerie parallels with minutes after takeoff crashing. But obviously Boeing is taking some action to address this software issue. What do you think of that?

MCNEASE: Well, I think it's a good idea that Boeing is going to change its software. I don't know what they're going to change it to.

But the other thing that goes along with this is, both these airlines are Third World country airlines. We don't know about their training. The loss of a runaway trim situation is quite unusual.

So it would be interesting to see what kind of training the pilots got for that situation.

CAVUTO: Do you think all of these countries -- and we go to Norway, Belgium, Poland, Italy, France, Ireland, Australia, Singapore, United Kingdom, China, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Norwegian Air, have either stopped using this plane, stopped allowing it into airspace or stopped flying it period, is that an overreaction?

MCNEASE: Well, not really from those countries. If they want to do that, they certainly have the opportunity to do that.

I really think if the FAA thought there was a serious problem, or if they had any inkling that it wasn't airworthy, they would certainly ground all the airplanes. But the FAA hasn't done that yet.

We really are talking about something that happened recently. We don't know what the investigators have found. And we know that the investigators will be working as hard as they can to get to the bottom of what's going on. Sometimes, these investigations last for six or eight months before we get to a final determination.

CAVUTO: The fact that Boeing is trying to address this issue with this cockpit software fix or whatever it's going to involve, maybe there was an issue there. Maybe there is an issue there.

MCNEASE: Well, it could be.

However, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive in November after the Lion Air crash. That made some changes to the aircraft flight manual that had to do with the MCAS system. That's a maneuvering characteristics, augmentation system, that they seem to think might be the problem or part of it.

CAVUTO: Bill, if you were flying and they told you -- you would probably readily identify the aircraft you're in -- a Boeing 737 MAX 8, would you get off the jet or stay on the jet?

MCNEASE: No, I would stay on it, no doubt.

CAVUTO: And you are convinced that it's a safe plane?

MCNEASE: I am. Yes.

CAVUTO: What do you think of people who would seek out an alternative?

MCNEASE: Well, that's fine. If they know they are going to be on one of those aircraft, and want to get off, I don't see any problem with that. The airlines should accommodate them. And hopefully they will.

CAVUTO: All right. Thank you very much, sir, Bill McNease, the former FAA inspector.

As he indicated, so much to look into, and not a lot of time that has gone by to look into it. So we will see.

By the way, not just Mexico, the list you may want to see before you book your next spring break. By the way, Venezuela isn't the problem. Maybe that region is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Think the European Union is such a hot club? Well, for going on three years, the Brits have tried to leave, and they can't. They failed big time today. Not only is that in danger. So is the prime minister.

We are back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Only now is our State Department saying that Venezuela is a place Americans not want to go do. And if you are an American and you're there now, you might want to get to and out of that country.

But Venezuela is just the more prominent of examples in a region that has now grown to include better than a dozen countries that are questionable or just not safe to be in. And some might surprise you.

Former State Department official David Tafuri joins us right now.

David, good to have you.

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thanks for having me, Neil.  CAVUTO: How is it decided where the State Department or government sources say, all right, this is not a good place to be?

TAFURI: So, the State Department does a travel advisory for every country. It's the Diplomatic Security Office of the State Department and others who are on the ground in countries who make these decisions.

They try to base the decisions on real events that are happening in the country, looking at the threat level as it changes and then advising people on whether or not they should go.

CAVUTO: So, if you are a level two, and I'm -- what is level two, because it has -- can we put that list back up, Pam?

For those listening on the radio here, it includes names like Jamaica, Turks and Caicos, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Cuba. I mean, these are popular vacation places, maybe less so Cuba.

But how is -- what is a level two?

TAFURI: So, level two is, take care. You know, it's a scale of one to four, four being the worst, one being the best. So, two is, hey, take care. You can still go there. But think about the parts of the country that you are going to.

I think a lot of your audience is probably surprised to see all those countries in the Caribbean in level two. Those are places that many of us go for vacation or for work that we enjoy. They seem OK.

The crime in the Caribbean gets less attention than the crime in places like Venezuela, you just showed, or places like Mexico. But you would be surprised to know that there is actually a higher incidence of violent crime in the Caribbean than the rest of Latin America. It's even higher than in Africa as well. So, there is a reason.

CAVUTO: When you say take care, what are you looking for? What's been cited? Attacks on in this case Americans? What? Burglaries? What?

TAFURI: Well, in the Caribbean, it's violent crimes. It's crime with weapons, robberies with weapons, holdups.

And there is a -- you know, a high level of availability of guns in the Caribbean. So that's part of the reason. If you look at the travel advisories that the State Department has for some of those Caribbean countries, they differentiate between different parts. They say it's OK to go to this part of the island, but stay away from this part.

Some of the parts they tell you -- tell people to stay away from are some of the neighborhoods where people live, some of the poorer sections of cities in the Caribbean. So it gives travelers some indication of what parts they can go to and what not.

Of course, travelers have to use, you know, good reason in terms of where they are going to go. The travel advisory for the State Department should be the starting point in your research before did you go somewhere. But you need to do other research. Look at the travel advisories for some of the other countries, like the U.K., like Australia, and do even deeper research into the particular place that you are going.

I would hate for people not to go to places that are off the beaten path if they are safe. So, you just need to investigate and do your research.

CAVUTO: All right. David, thank you very much, David Tafuri, the former State Department official.

Some useful advice. Just look around. Be careful.

All right, meanwhile, from big tech to some of the big banks, the hearings are coming. And they are not off to a great start.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Given the unprecedented nature at the Federal Reserve growth restriction, which remains in place today, is Wells Fargo simply too big to manage?

TIMOTHY SLOAN, CEO, WELLS FARGO & COMPANY: No, we're not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, he is the CEO. Imagine if he said, yes, I have got to admit I'm just overwhelmed.

Anyway, that is the way it's going on Capitol Hill right now, technology CEOs getting the same treatment, other CEOs, at a time when we're looking at Congress looking more aggressively at industry titans.

You remember the drugmakers a couple of weeks ago? There is a pattern here.

Is it worrying former Reagan economic adviser Art Laffer?

What do you think, Art?

ART LAFFER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: I think it is very worrying, Neil. They shouldn't be involved in these things.

When you have an air safety problem like we have with the airplanes that have crashed, that's a different thing. That's something government should be involved in for the safety of travelers.

And even when you look at the universities, which was on there, these are all tax-exempt organizations and bribery and that type of stuff. Harvard University's endowment is $40 billion, I think. It's a hedge fund with a slight, small attachment of a university.

And they get all these tax breaks and everything. They should be taxed ordinarily for their profits they make on those funds. And I don't think Maxine Waters should be looking at Wells Fargo and saying, are you too large to be managed, when she herself is in the federal government, which is clearly too large to be managed? I mean, take care of your own ship.

CAVUTO: Well, and, also, it is a little rich of anyone, Republican or Democrat, asking tough questions of these guys and where money went, when they will go through trillions.

LAFFER: I mean, yes.

CAVUTO: Leaving that aside, though, it's something that is obviously in the water now, because there is an aggressive stance...

LAFFER: It is.

CAVUTO: ... breaking up big behemoths. Google is the latest of that. Rupert Murdoch had recommended that maybe it should be broken up. So, it's a bipartisan push to rein in these guys.

LAFFER: Oh, sure.

CAVUTO: What do you make of it?

LAFFER: Well, yes, it's a bipartisan push always when government tries to take over the private sector, which is exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to take over the means of production.

And they can't do it by earning their way up through the companies and becoming a CEO. They are not capable of doing that. So, they go into politics.

CAVUTO: But what do you think about their fear that these guys have gotten too big for their britches and they have to be reined in?

LAFFER: They don't need to be reined in. When they do break the law, they should be accountable for breaking the law.

But, frankly, they don't need the government to rein them in. The government has got more problems than they do, to be really serious. It's not that companies are always good and fine and decent in every -- they are not, Neil.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

LAFFER: But the problem is, is a government-run company better than that? No, it's not.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You know what I wonder about, though, Art? Do you get a sense, though, that they are rethinking? Maybe it's the wealth tax thing that a lot of candidates are pursuing, or the fact that corporatism is out of control, and these guys have gotten disproportionate amount of the tax benefits.

LAFFER: Yes.

CAVUTO: You have heard all of this, and that now it's just like pinata time every time we grab one of these guys there.

LAFFER: Every day. Every day and in every way.

The pharmacies. You have got the banks. You have got all these others there, the airlines, Tesla, for example. All of these other things are always just sitting there to be banged around by the government.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Art, I'm free marketeer, just like you.

Don't some of them get it coming with the way they are arrogant about how they go through things or they get a little bit overzealous?

LAFFER: Of course. A lot of them, do, Neil. You are completely right. And a lot of them do things that are wrong and they shouldn't do them and all of that.

The question is, is a government-run corporate sector than a private-run corporate sector? And beyond what we have done so far, we are way over the pale, I think, in having the oversight on companies.

Now, when it's safety and military and stuff like that, yes, I totally agree. But just having them in there to talk about this stuff is just not where we should be.

And, again, I'm not exonerating the companies. I think shareholders have a perfect right to sell their shares and dump them and get out of them and all of that.

But Maxine Waters doesn't -- has not earned the right to be the head of GM or GE or any other big company. Yet she is able to put herself into that position by way of politics. And that really isn't the way it should be done.

CAVUTO: All right.

LAFFER: And we all bear the price of slower growth, less innovation, because of these people interfering in the private market as much as they do.

CAVUTO: All right, I will put you down as a maybe on Maxine Waters.

LAFFER: How is that? You think I'm too soft on this, Neil?

CAVUTO: Art Laffer.

Yes, I don't know. I don't know where you are coming from.

LAFFER: I don't want to be too hard on it, no.

CAVUTO: Just checking. Fair and balanced.

LAFFER: But don't you agree with me?

CAVUTO: Look at the time.

Art, thank you very, very much.

LAFFER: Oh, sorry.

CAVUTO: Be good.

(LAUGHTER)

LAFFER: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, we got a lot more time to address this issue. The House Intel chairman, Adam Schiff, dodging some questions about Michael Cohen today. We will explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff was taking some questions today regarding his staff's contact with Michael Cohen prior to his testimony.

A lot of things are not very clear.

But FOX News correspondent Catherine Herridge has been digging into it -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Neil. And good afternoon.

At the Christian Science Monitor breakfast, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, was asked point blank to explain the meetings with Cohen before his February public testimony.

Fox News first reported and it was later confirmed by Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis that the president's former personal attorney met with Cohen's staff are over 10 hours during four meetings in New York.

Schiff said his contact was limited, but he didn't address what his staff did, and then took a shot at Republican critics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: So that was the extent of my communication with him, which was on the phone.

Now, several Republicans, Mr. Meadows, Jordan, the president and others, have pushed out this false narrative that I spent 10 hours with Mr. Keller. That's simply not true. And they know it's not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Those close to Cohen have called on Schiff to release the transcript from Cohen's closed-door testimony recently, saying it will vindicate him.

But the congressman wouldn't commit today to a timeline for releasing the Cohen testimony.

In a separate development, Neil, a source familiar with the investigation confirms to FOX News that the New York state attorney general has sent subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank, seeking financial records for several Trump Organizations that were mentioned during Cohen's testimony.

The subpoenas are the response to that testimony and the valuation for Trump properties. The Trump Organization had no on-the-record comment today.

And FOX News also confirmed that the special counsel budget is in place through September, but this reflects the government rules, rather than inside information about the investigation's duration -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Catherine Herridge, thank you very, very much.

HERRIDGE: You're very welcome.

CAVUTO: I'm wondering if Nancy Pelosi is seeing red over something just said on this show by one Congressman Green?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREEN: A good many of the people who say that they are not for impeachment indicate that the president has committed impeachable offenses.

They will talk about how the president is unfit for office. But they don't want to have impeachment because they are of the opinion that it would be disruptive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: That was Democratic Congressman Al Green telling me earlier on this show that he's going ahead with impeachment, despite the fact that leaders within his own party, including Nancy Pelosi, are all but saying it would be a waste of time, at least right now.

So, to make of this wedge between Democrats?

FOX News contributor Kat Timpf, Democratic strategist Robin Biro, and America Majority CEO Ned Ryun.

Robin, I was thinking of you and the conundrum Democrats are in, right, on this.

ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, to say the least.

CAVUTO: How far do they go with this?

BIRO: As far as they want.

But Nancy Pelosi is smarter than I ever gave her credit for. I was a huge critic of hers, but she's really been doing a fantastic job managing people's expectations within my party. And she needs to be doing that right now, because impeachment is a nonstarter. And we need to start getting that across to our base, so that we can focus on issues that actually have a chance.

CAVUTO: What do you think, Kat?

KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I think someone should go to hell and check and see if it's frozen over.

(LAUGHTER)

TIMPF: Because I think that Nancy Pelosi is doing the right thing here.

For one thing, it's not popular. Polling, most of it suggests that more than 60 percent of voters don't want to impeach the president. So, that's one thing. It would be unpopular.

And even the people who it might be popular with, it's not going to get enough votes in Congress for it to go through. So, this could backfire, the same way it did with Republicans and Bill Clinton in actually making him more popular.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I'm not comparing the two at all, but the initial impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon were not at all popular. They thought that they were haranguing him and going after him unfairly.

They drag on and drag on. Sometimes, you don't need an impeachment itself just to get the hearings going. And that's what their goal is.

NED RYUN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MAJORITY: Right.

No, I mean, the whole goal is to undermine. There's obviously people on the far left that want to nullify the 2016 elections. I think Pelosi is being a realist. I mean, first of all, like Kat was saying, I'm not even sure....

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Jerry Nadler too runs that committee.

(CROSSTALK)

RYUN: But I'm not even sure they have the votes.

(CROSSTALK)

RYUN: She is a realist. She is speaker because of the moderates and centrists who won in the swing districts.

What are they going to do going home in 2020 say, oh, yes, we are a part of this impeachment off spurious charges? That's the whole reason that she is speaker. So she's looking at this for her political life and being speaker, saying, let's not go down this path. I would like to be speaker post-2020. Impeachment process would completely annihilate those chances.

CAVUTO: It is interesting, in Green's case, what he's saying. It has nothing to do with collusion and Russia. He just doesn't like the guy. He doesn't like the president. And he thinks that he's a racist and all this.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: That's open season time, right?

BIRO: Well, the president's his own worst enemy so many times.

And we really...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But those aren't high crimes and misdemeanor.

Even if you go so far as to accuse someone of that, where are you going?

BIRO: Nonsense. So much of it is nonsense.

And I do quite a lot of damage control in my party just managing expectations. As you said, there are people in my party who legitimately think that if we have impeachment that, somehow, by the grace of God, Hillary Clinton is going to be made the rightful president.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: You are going to get Pence, who is far and away more conservative than Donald Trump is. I don't understand if they don't understand that this doesn't mean Hillary rises up and takes control. But that's not how it works.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But it would have to survive in a Republican Senate and the 60 votes. I don't even know where to go here.

But leaving that aside, the passion of the party -- and I'm not saying Green is the passion of the party -- but he represents the view of a lot of folks who find that they can't drop the ball on this. They won't drop the ball on this.

When I told him about whether he will get 66 votes, like he did the last time he did this in early '18, he said, all I need is one, my own vote.

He feels strongly about it.

RYUN: This is what the base has been wanting, the Democratic left base, not people like Robin.

But they have been begging for this, they have been driving for this, they have been wanting this. And it's almost like these -- some of these elected representatives like Al Green feel like there are certain expectations, they have to continue down this path again.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: He's been consistent.

(CROSSTALK)

RYUN: Not going to get the votes.

CAVUTO: But there's a difference. What I was trying to raise with him -- and I did like the fact he kept calling me Mr. Cavuto, which you guys should work at.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But he did say -- and this is where it could be a slippery slope - - I don't like his demeanor, I don't like his policies, I don't like the fact that it rings of racism, which is in the eye of the beholder here.

But you keep holding these kind of loosey-goosey standards to every president, we could be impeaching around the clock.

TIMPF: Everyone, yes, absolutely.

Just because you don't like the guy, that's not a reason to impeach him, especially when it would so divide the country. It's just not worth it. Just focus on winning the next election. That's what normal, level-headed people do.

CAVUTO: And that's what you have been saying, right? You want Democrats to focus on the prize.

BIRO: Yes.

CAVUTO: Does this get in the way that prize?

BIRO: Yes.

CAVUTO: That they look too zealous?

BIRO: Because how are our -- the guys across the aisle going to want to work with us, when we can't get out of our own heads about impeachment, when we have things that we actually can do together, like comprehensive immigration...

CAVUTO: Well, you hate each other, right?

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: They just really love Pence. They must want Pence.

(CROSSTALK)

RYUN: But if they go down this path, I think they lose the White House, and I think they lose the House, and I don't think they take the Senate back.

I think this makes Trump even more sympathetic to most of those people outside the Acela corridor, if they try to impeach him on spurious charges.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What if they nominate someone who is of that ilk, a hard left person?

You saw the column in The Wall Street Journal today that talked about the mistake the party made in 1972, when they went hard left for George McGovern over an Edmund Muskie type, who was a high-stature, middle-of-the- road guy.

BIRO: There's a lot to be said for -- it's a what if.

If we go hard left, it's going to energize the youth vote. I get it. We will get a whole bunch of people that are registered to vote, a whole bunch of -- new crop of -- but we're going to lose a substantial portion of our old Blue Dog vote.

(CROSSTALK)

BIRO: So, you lose some, gain some.

CAVUTO: You're worried. You sound worried.

BIRO: I am. I am concerned, because it's an unknown quantity right now, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, final word.

I want to thank you all very, very much.

By the way, we're going to pursue this here, because it is a sort of a, right beneath the surface, bubbling cauldron here. We're going to be talking to the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, what he thinks of this impeachment thing and whether there's anything there.

But, again, the Democrats and the leadership so far have been saying, let's focus on the issues that matter, not on an issue that, for the time being, doesn't.

We will see you tomorrow.

Here comes "The Five" right 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.