This is a rush transcript from "Your World," November 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Dow 28000. On a day where we're told we're in the middle of a constitutional crisis, a melt-up at the corner of Wall and Broad, the Dow at the highest level it has ever been, crossing that crucial 28000 level just seconds ago, and continuing a winning week that has the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq the highest they have ever been.
In case you're counting, the Dow now up north of 20 percent on the year, the S&P 500 close to 25 percent, the NASDAQ close to 30 percent. If this is Wall Street's way of saying we're in the middle of a crisis, let's just say it has a funny way of showing it.
Then there's this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech, just as other people do. But they have taken away the Republicans' rights.
And I watched today as certain very talented people who wanted to ask questions, and they weren't even allowed to ask questions, Republicans. They weren't allowed to ask questions. It's a very sad thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: Well, the market spoke.
The president says he has a right to speak as well, as a presidential tweet turns up the heat at today's impeachment hearing.
What a day, my friends.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.
And it is very clear today the president is no fan of the former U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, the president tweeting everywhere she -- well, everywhere she went turned bad.
And in real time, the ambassador firing back, calling that tweet -- quote - - "very intimidating."
But, legally, how damaging is it?
We are all over it with John Roberts at the White House with more on the tweet that's creating this stir, and Ellison Barber on Capitol Hill if today's testimony is actually going anywhere.
We begin with John at the White House.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I don't know how much political damage that tweet is going to do, Neil, but certainly I think there was a lot of damage here at the White House to a collective group of foreheads, as people went like this as the president tweeted that out right in the middle of the hearing, because, if anything, what it did was, it really took the Republicans off of the message that they were trying to put out there and took this hearing an entirely different direction than it had been before.
Let's set put up the tweet for you, so you can follow along exactly what the president said -- quote -- "Everywhere Maria Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him.
"It is a U.S. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors."
It is absolutely a United States' presidents right to appoint ambassadors. He can make political appointments. He can pick people who are already in the Foreign Services and put them in there. It is the president's prerogative and discretion to do it.
But to send out that tweet in the middle of the hearing gave Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, a perfect opportunity to say, hmm, maybe we should consider an article of impeachment here on witness intimidation.
Listen to what Schiff said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: This is a part of a pattern to intimidate witnesses. And it's also part of a pattern to obstruct the investigation.
It was also a part, frankly, of the pattern to obstruct justice. And so we need to view the president's actions today as part of a broader and incriminating pattern of conduct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: The two key words there in what Schiff said, intimidation and obstruction, because, remember, it's not just the potential of a quid pro quo in that call with Ukraine, which doesn't seem to exist, according to the transcript of the call, but there may be some underlying evidence of something else going on.
But there could be other articles of impeachment as well, witness intimidation or tampering, obstruction. And don't forget Schiff has talked an awful lot about obstruction with the fact that the White House will not send certain people up to Capitol Hill to give depositions before the House committees.
Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary, though, with the president's back, saying -- quote -- "The tweet wasn't witness intimidation. It was simply the president's opinion, which he is entitled to. This is not a trial. It is a partisan political process, or, to put it more accurately, a totally legitimate charade stacked against the president."
In the last hour, you saw some of the Republican members of the committee point to the July 25 phone call in which the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, did talk about Marie Yovanovitch in not-too-flattering term, saying -- quote -- "It was great that you, the president, were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador, because I agree with you 100 percent. Her attitude towards me was far from the best, as she admired the previous president."
That was Poroshenko.
"And she was on his side. She wouldn't accept me as a new president well enough."
Next week, the marquee witness is going to be on Wednesday, will be Gordon Sondland. He's the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. He's the one who actually talked to the president about all of this.
The Ukrainian foreign minister last night, Vadym Prystaiko, had a statement in which he said that he never heard from Gordon Sondland that there was any connection between the investigations and U.S. aid to Ukraine.
So, Sondland may be asked about that. The president said, well, that exonerates him and there goes impeachment.
However, Sondland did talk to Ukrainian officials on September the 1st, Andriy Yermak in particular, to say he believed that that aid was being held up because of the investigation. So still a long way to go here, Neil, and a lot to clear up.
CAVUTO: But stocks hit a record.
ROBERTS: But stocks hit a record, yes. Go, 401(k).
CAVUTO: Well, that's what -- it's incredible that the markets' way of saying, we don't think this is going to be unnerving. Maybe they could be wrong, but it's interesting.
ROBERTS: Well, you know, the market can find a lot of reasons to go down as well, Neil, so...
CAVUTO: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Let me do the market stuff, young man.
CAVUTO: All right, great job, as always, John Roberts at the White House.
ROBERTS: Thank you.
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to paint the ambassador as obviously a disgruntled government official with no direct knowledge of the president's now controversial second call with the Ukrainian president.
Ellison Barber at Capitol Hill with more on that -- Ellison.
ELLISON BARBER, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil, yes.
And Democrats say that Yovanovitch is the beginning of the story, not the end of it. They say that the president and people like Rudy Giuliani wanted to get her out of the way not because she was bad at her job or did anything wrong, but because she was a block to their efforts to get the political investigations that President Trump wanted.
Yovanovitch talked a lot about her decades of service, her efforts to stop corruption in Ukraine. And then she talked about the efforts of people tied to the president, people like Rudy Giuliani, to hurt her reputation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: When I returned to the United States, Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan told me there had been a concerted campaign against me, that the president no longer wished me to serve as ambassador to Ukraine, and that, in fact, the president had been pushing for my removal since the prior summer.
As Mr. Sullivan recently recounted during his Senate confirmation hearing, neither he nor anyone else ever explained or sought to justify the president's concerns about me, nor did anyone in the department justify my early departure by suggesting I had done something wrong.
I appreciate that Mr. Sullivan publicly affirmed at his hearing that I had served capably and admirably.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARBER: Republicans say there is no there there, that presidents can appoint or let ambassadors go as they see fit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: You have a new administration in Ukraine that didn't have the same confidence in this ambassador.
And so isn't it appropriate, with all the Foreign Service diplomats we have, to put someone with a new regime in, in the Ukraine that can actually work on the president's behalf and on behalf of the American people?
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: I thought we were in the public stage of this so- called impeachment inquiry. But yet here in just a few minutes, we're going back to the bunker in the basement of the Capitol for another deposition that the American people won't get to see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARBER: And I'm two floors above that basement room they were referring to right now.
A man by the name of David Holmes is currently inside. He arrived here around 3:00 this afternoon. He is the embassy staffer in Kiev who, according to Ambassador Taylor, told him that he overheard the ambassador to the E.U. and President Trump on a phone and he heard President Trump asking the ambassador to the E.U. about the investigations.
That deposition, his closed-door testimony is happening right now. It was set to start at 3:00, but it started a little bit later -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Ellison, thank you very much. You're going to have another long day.
In the meantime, Democrats claim that the president's tweets amount to real intimidation and an abuse of power, but an article of impeachment?
Former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy.
Andrew, what do you think?
ANDREW MCCARTHY, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Neil, I have always been of a mind that this is really an impeachment inquiry or it's masquerading as an impeachment inquiry.
It's actually the 2020 campaign. And I view it more that way. The president is not going to be impeached and removed. So the issue to me is not, are they making much progress making their impeachment case? Because I think, if that's what you were looking at, today wasn't a good day for the advancement, say, of this bribery case, which I think has a lot of problems.
But if what you were trying to foment here is a kind of an ick factor, politically speaking, I think they probably did make progress as far as that's concerned.
The tweet is part of that. I think to say the tweet is an impeachable offense is overwrought. If it's to say the tweet was really an inappropriate thing to do and actually turned out to be damaging, in that it gave the Democrats their best moments of the day, I think that's a fair observation.
CAVUTO: It just seemed stupid.
I mean, why should he do it? Why would he do it? Why would he interfere? Let the whole process go on.
But, obviously the people around him are going to say, you have just sort of fed the beast here.
You know, the thing is, Neil, when you're trying to prepare for something that's either a trial or something like a trial, like this kind of an adversarial proceeding, you want to make sure that the people who are conducting it, especially in this public setting that so many people are watching, that they get -- that they have a plan and that they're able to implement a plan.
And if someone is dropping bombs from the sidelines that no one can anticipate, that kind of causes a big ruckus as far as the plan is concerned.
And it seems to me, the president did that twice today. So, at the beginning of the day, he released the transcript of the first conversation with Zelensky. And, to my mind, that really didn't do much. I mean, I guess you can look at it and say there was no intimidation there.
But on the other hand, it gave Adam Schiff the opportunity to talk about all of the things that they have asked for that the administration hasn't turned over.
So, to me, that was an unforced error, because he was able to marshal what he calls evidence of obstruction. And they are talking about having an obstruction article of impeachment.
And then to drop the tweet in, in the middle and give Schiff the chance to read it to the -- to this witness, who was very impressive, who was praised by both sides, and to have her react to it in a kind of a dignified outrage, I think it was a bad moment politically for the president.
It doesn't mean he will be impeached and removed. That's not going to happen.
MCCARTHY: But if you think like I think, that what this has always been about from day one is rendering Donald Trump unelectable when they get to the stretch run of the 2020 election, or the campaign, they advanced the ball today.
CAVUTO: And they can seize it in real time and make it an issue, where it needn't have been one, if he had just stayed quiet.
CAVUTO: Because he had a lot of other good things, like record-setting markets to talk about.
MCCARTHY: That's exactly right.
CAVUTO: But that's neither here nor there.
All right, thank you, my friend, Andy McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney, following all of that.
So, this tweet by the president, did it just make it harder for committee Republicans to defend him? We shall see.
CAVUTO: All right, it's the tweet that's been heard around the country thus far, the president tweeting about the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine while she was still testifying.
Did the president just make the Democrats' case against him?
The read from Ohio Republican House Intelligence Committee member Brad Wenstrup.
Brad, Congressman, more to the point, what do you think?
REP. BRAD WENSTRUP, R-OH: Well, I think it obviously, in some ways, stole the show.
But I got to say this. It has to be somewhat frustrating through this process, as it is for us, where we have the chairman, who shuts us down when we're asking questions, where we try to go through procedure.
We're in a situation where we can't use some of the previous testimonies in these open hearings because Adam Schiff still has them under lock and key.
And here's a president who's being impeached, if you will, and he has no way to defend himself. That has to be frustrating.
I'm not saying I would tweet, necessarily. But, at the same time, I would imagine that that's pretty frustrating.
I want to be there to talk about impeachable offenses. And one of the things that we came away with today is, here we have someone who was part of the interagency who supported lethal aid. And this is what this was all about, right? The aid, I thought, was what's in question in this impeachment.
She was for the lethal aid under the previous administration and this administration. Congress was for the lethal aid under the previous administration and this administration.
And guess what? The previous president completely denied Congress and the interagency, and yet we have another president who actually delivered the aid. And now he's being impeached. To me, that doesn't make sense.
There was another telling moment again today. Chris Stewart asks, is there a crime? Is there a crime? And she said no.
CAVUTO: So, let me ask you about, if you don't mind going back to the tweet...
CAVUTO: Because I think things are going fine until the president tweeted.
Leaving aside how it looks to comment on a witness on the stand, and whether that could be witness intimidation, as Democrats charge, that might be a bit of an overreach, but it was an unforced error, when things were going pretty much the president's way, at least thus far, reading from polls that seem to still be going his way, to markets that are certainly going his way.
He didn't need to do that.
WENSTRUP: Well, the markets are going his way.
And I guess maybe impeachment is a good thing for the country? Wouldn't that be strange? I don't know.
But at the same time, I don't think we got the full tweet. I haven't even seen the full tweet. But I understand he had a lot more to say in it.
And so I don't think it's fair, as we have seen throughout this whole process, for Adam Schiff...
CAVUTO: Well, would you tell him, Congressman, if other witnesses appear, that should he reserve commenting on them, certainly in real time, while they're still on the stand?
Because some interpret that as kind of witness pressure, witness tampering. I mean, that might be a bit of a stretch, but that's the perception. And it feeds his enemies, doesn't it?
WENSTRUP: No, I think -- I think he's -- people are going to say that.
They also brought up a point today where they called it witness intimidation. But the only reason that the witness knew anything about what the president may have said is because Adam Schiff told them.
They presented it as a way to intimidate her. So we could go back and forth on this.
WENSTRUP: Again, I want to go back to what's -- what's the -- what are you charging him with?
And if it's withholding the aid, let's talk about that. And all the...
WENSTRUP: ... seems to me to be...
CAVUTO: Well, what if it is withholding the aid? What if it is, Congressman, withholding the aid?
I mean, I think you and I have talked about this, that you thought, even it went to that level, that in itself wouldn't be an impeachable offense, right?
WENSTRUP: No, it would not.
And the president would make the case, if he was allowed, I believe, the president would make the case that we were vetting this new government. And I don't want to take American taxpayer dollars and just divvy them out around the world with no idea where it's going.
And I want to make sure it's going to the causes that we are supporting that help the United States of America and our national security.
You know, that's the argument the president would be able to make, if he was able to make it.
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman, thank you for taking the time. It's always good catching up.
WENSTRUP: You too. Thank you.
CAVUTO: All right, so how long does this process go? They're still getting witnesses ready. In fact, there's one being questioned behind closed doors as we speak right now.
Then they're sort of rolling out witnesses for next week. So it's going to go on a little while here. The longer it goes on, who do you think it hurts the most?
CAVUTO: All right, the Trump campaign has just put out a statement on today's Marie Yovanovitch testimony, saying: "As both Adam Schiff and Marie Yovanovitch acknowledge, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. We can dismiss them at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Yovanovitch has no personal knowledge of anything the Democrats are using in their bogus quest for impeachment."
He goes on -- that is, the Trump campaign goes on, but this sounds like it's coming from the president: "This has been a complete waste of everyone's time and a disservice to the taxpayers."
So, this is again coming from Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign national press secretary, but kind of echoes what the president was saying earlier himself today.
James Freeman with us, Joseph Pinion and Jeanne Zaino.
Jeanne, what do you think of the impact of that statement, their reflection on what happened today?
JEANNE ZAINO, IONA COLLEGE: I do think that Marie Yovanovitch, she comported herself very well today in the testimony. I don't think there's any question about that.
But I think the problem...
CAVUTO: You think she was intimidated, as she said.
ZAINO: I do think she was intimidated. I take her at her word on that.
I think the problem for the Democrats here is that this is an impeachment of the president. And she does serve at the pleasure of the president. She may not like the policies he was pursuing or why he was removing her or removed her. But that doesn't make it impeachable.
They would have to prove something beyond that. And they are still a few people away from doing that, which is the problem. It may be distasteful, but it's not impeachable at this point.
And it's got to be bipartisan. Unless you change hearts and minds and the American public on this, it's going to be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Joe, that's a good point because minds aren't being switched, as they were with Watergate, when Republicans came around to say, all right, Mr. President, this doesn't look good.
It didn't quite reach that point in the Clinton impeachment process. But what do you think now, where things stand after today?
JOSEPH PINION, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, look, I think that Democrats want to keep pointing at these polls that say that all Americans wanting impeachment.
And they ignore the fact that the data of those same polls say that the six states that Trump won by the smallest margin are all opposed to impeachment.
So, again, they don't seem to understand that they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the people they need to if they plan on winning the election.
I think I told you last week that, again, Democrats' voters gave Democratic lawmakers on the Hill the license to stick with Clinton. Republican lawmakers gave lawmakers the license to actually go away from Nixon.
And right now, Republicans are more aligned with President Trump simply because of the fact that Democrats have bungled this entire thing from beginning to end.
CAVUTO: I think that, a lot of times, James, they're proceeding just so smoothly.
And to Jeanne's point, Yovanovitch was just doing a very good job presenting herself as a woman who might have been intimidated, but, to Jeanne's point as well, them there's the breaks. The president, you serve at his pleasure. And if he doesn't want you there for whatever reason, it's tough. That's the life.
But -- but his intervening with the tweet, as he did today, did it just sort add fuel to the fire here and another line of questioning and another delay in a process that, oh, see, he's doing it now?
JAMES FREEMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I mean, it is worth remembering this is an Obama appointee.
It's really not -- shouldn't be shocking -- as disappointing as it may be for her, it shouldn't be shocking that when a new president comes in, that president may replace many of the previous administration's...
CAVUTO: Someone had told me what's surprising is that it took so long.
Usually, they clear -- clean house of former presidential appointees.
FREEMAN: Yes, that's right.
And I think, while I wouldn't tweet, necessarily, the way the president does, I think one thing I did find a little disturbing about her testimony was, she was essentially presenting herself as the key to an independent free Ukraine with the rule of law and kind of defining the United States' interests as her remaining in that position of power.
And I really disagree with that view. There are reasons we have elections.
CAVUTO: And, by the way, it was working out just swimmingly in that regard prior.
So you could make the argument, well, if that was what your goal was, it wasn't succeeding.
FREEMAN: Also, when she was appointed by President Obama, when we look back at her testimony in 2016 getting confirmed, we didn't see her making the case for that military aid that was so important that Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, ended up delivering.
So I also -- if she wanted to speak truth to power, maybe a comment about Hunter Biden in 2016 would have been useful too.
CAVUTO: No, no, you raise a very good point.
Now, in the meantime, we have this behind-closed-door testimony happening. And we have plans for testimony next week. But I have a feeling this is going to drag on a while.
I know there are some Democrats and want to wrap it up fast, others who say, no, no, no, we have got to go through this process. Talk separately that Republicans, when they take it up in the Senate, if it gets to a House impeachment vote, they're going to take their sweet time on this, because they think it helps them.
What do you think?
ZAINO: Yes, I mean, the Democrats may want to wrap this up. At one point, it was before the holidays.
But even look at today. The testimony was postponed for, what, an hour, or at least a few minutes, so they could go do the business of the House, which they need to do. That's going to keep happening.
They have a government to keep open. And they have to do their due diligence in this process.
CAVUTO: Well, due diligence means a lot of time, right? It means a lot of time.
ZAINO: It means a lot of time.
This thing is going to drag out into the spring, and that -- or early spring, and that will be just buttressing, if not during the Democratic primaries and caucuses, which is where bad news for the...
CAVUTO: Well, by the spring, we're through most of the biggies, right?
PINION: This is political malpractice by the Democrats.
I mean, you're really looking at a situation where you could have six of your potential nominees for president voting for an impeachment that the states you need to win don't want.
And if you include somebody like Congressman Castro, I mean, you could end up in a situation where the entire Democratic ticket is comprised of people who have voted to impeach a sitting president who is leading in the polls in the places where they are still struggling.
So, ultimately, again, Democrats proceed at their own peril, to ignore the people. They have ignored the will of the people before. Now they're ignoring the sentiments of the people.
ZAINO: We should just say that not only are they going -- they're going to vote for impeachment, the Democrats in the Senate, but they're going to be off the trail for six to eight weeks if there's a trial in the Senate.
CAVUTO: If it gets to that.
ZAINO: That's a problem.
FREEMAN: Well, just to add, talking about how polls, a lot of times it's 47 percent for impeachment, 46 against, something like this.
FREEMAN: When you ask people, do you think he should be removed from office or should it be left to the voters in 2020, that's where you get a majority saying, leave it to us.
CAVUTO: You're exactly right. These polls show a majority of interest in the process. That doesn't mean the finish, heave him out of office.
I mean, my grandfather told me at a very young age that you don't take the chicken out the freezer unless you plan on cooking dinner. And Democrats are really proceeding to their impeachment feast. It's going to be a political famine. And if they don't want to believe us, then we will just wait until 2020 and people are crying to the Jacob Javits Center again.
I don't know.
CAVUTO: I like the chicken analogy.
ZAINO: I'm trying to figure that out.
CAVUTO: Yes. Yes. It is chicken cacciatore?
FREEMAN: You got to leave enough time, because if you put in the fryer when it's not thawed, you got a problem.
CAVUTO: Yes. Yes. I bet you all to stop.
ZAINO: All these cooking analogies.
CAVUTO: Yes, exactly. I'm getting hungry just talking about it.
PINION: Thanksgiving is coming.
CAVUTO: All right, you're looking live at the Capitol, where, behind closed doors, three, three House committees are questioning another official.
This one claims he overheard the president say something juicy on another call. You see the trend here, though. It's what people are overhearing. So we're not hearing it from the people who heard it themselves.
I don't know. It just is crazy.
CAVUTO: Taylor Swift has a big beef with a record label that she says won't let her perform her own songs.
You might know that this has never happened to Adele. You might -- after this.
CAVUTO: All right, back behind closed doors, top diplomat David Holmes is testifying about a phone call between the president and the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, discussing the Ukraine investigations.
Attorney Sam Dewey is here.
Sam, help me out with this. It wasn't a phone call he himself was privy to. So he's getting this secondhand, or can you describe what's being debated here?
SAMUEL DEWEY, ATTORNEY: Yes, he -- Neil, thank you for having me on.
He is getting it secondhand. He's testifying about a call that he overheard some part of, which traditionally...
CAVUTO: That's weird, right? I mean...
DEWEY: Yes, that's traditionally not thought of as the most reliable evidence even in the political context, because you may have only heard part of the call. You may have missed a meaning.
It's an inherently untrustworthy way to gather and present evidence.
CAVUTO: So where are we going here, if this is some sort of a bombshell witness, and the best the witness can offer is something he gleaned or heard secondhand?
I mean, say what you will of even John Dean during the Watergate process, he was recounting his own conversations with the president of the United States warning about a cancer on the presidency. Now, there are a lot of people who loved John Dean, a lot of people thought he was just leading a cabal against President Nixon, but at least there was one-on-one with the president of the United States.
Here, it's clearly secondhand.
And that's been a trend. Every witness that has testified so far had no firsthand knowledge, no interaction. Their testimony was of highly limited relevance. And I think that's going to continue, because this seems to be the best that the Democrats have, to present this case that's built on hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay.
And this isn't a court, but it matters, because this is a process where the American people want fairness.
CAVUTO: All right, was it fair, then, because Democrats immediately pounced on it -- and I respect your opinion -- maybe you can help me out legally with this -- for the president to intervene, as he did today, maybe because he rightly was offended and took umbrage to a lot of the stuff that she was accusing -- I'm talking about Ms. Yovanovitch -- that he tweeted what he tweeted about her and gave a line of questioning that provided ammunition to the very folks he wants to shut up.
DEWEY: I think it was perfectly fair for him to comment on the witness during the hearing.
I have seen that all the times in hearings I have been involved with. People are live-tweeting. Some of them are very critical, coming from important people.
And the other point I would make is...
CAVUTO: Even the president of the United States in this case?
And the other point I'd make is, if this were following the procedures from the Nixon impeachment, from the Clinton impeachment, his counsel would have been there to cross-examine today.
CAVUTO: Oh, that's very interesting.
DEWEY: He didn't have that basic procedural protection.
So he had to resort to Twitter to weigh in. He was denied that right.
CAVUTO: I'm sorry.
That isn't witness tampering or intimidation, some of these other things that Democrats and their legal eagles have charged?
DEWEY: I don't think so at all. He commented on the credibility of the witness. And that's perfectly appropriate.
CAVUTO: So when you hear about -- and people forget, in diplomatic circles or in any circles or those which the president has purview, he can fire remove, someone from their duties if he doesn't like the color their hair.
I mean, there doesn't have to be a reason for it. They all know they serve at the pleasure of the president, regardless of who he is.
DEWEY: Absolutely. That is absolutely correct as a matter of law.
He doesn't have to give a reason. He can do it for any reason. This is an officer who in the Constitution is a principal officer who serves at the pleasure.
CAVUTO: Do you see anything that's gaining fervor here, Sam, anything that you think we should be paying attention to or that the president should be worried about?
DEWEY: I don't think so, the way the hearings have been going, because, generally speaking, we haven't really heard any direct evidence, as you pointed out.
I think the most interesting thing that I'm looking to going forward is, how will Adam Schiff continue to attempt to use the rules to create a biased process?
CAVUTO: And you think it's very much a biased process?
DEWEY: I do. He's restricting relevant evidence. He's not allowing Republican members to question on transcripts that he hasn't released yet.
And I think, when I ran investigations, the first thing we always did was make sure it's fair, because if the process is unfair, you lose all credibility. That's why Henry Hyde ran things the way he did in Clinton and why Peter Rodino ran things the way he did in Nixon.
And I just don't see that here.
CAVUTO: So when you hear Democrats counter that Republicans whining about this -- and that's how he described it -- is not consistent with what they used to say in the past themselves, particularly in other impeachment process, namely, the Clinton one, they're just ignoring history, they did the exact same thing, you're saying that's not the case?
I have been through the transcripts. I have reviewed the precedent. That is just not the case.
CAVUTO: All right.
Sam, I always learn a lot. And you will always politely take all my dumb questions. Sam Dewey, a pleasure having you.
DEWEY: Thank you very much. A pleasure being with you.
CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, if Wall Street is worried about this, well, we hit a record today, I mean, and not just a record.
This is getting ridiculous here. And is it Wall Street's way of saying, you know what, we're betting money that nothing comes of this?
CAVUTO: All right, we're only, what, less than 2,000 points, about 6 or 7 percent away from Dow 30000, crossing the 28000 milestone today, highest the Dow has ever been.
In fact, it finished at the highest has ever been by the end of the day. Ditto the S&P 500, the Nasdaq also hitting records today, also closing at all-time highs at their -- at the end of the day.
And last time that happened was back in January 2018.
Charlie Brady, our stocks editor on FOX Business, who knows way too much, and he just shared that with me, as a very interesting anomaly.
Market watcher Jonathan Corpina on all of that from the New York Stock Exchange.
Jonathan, it gained particular steam in the last roughly 20 minutes. We were up a lot already. The markets ignoring the impeachment stuff, hopeful about the trade stuff. What did it? What got us over this latest milestone?
JONATHAN CORPINA, MERIDIAN EQUITY PARTNERS: Neil, that's exactly it.
The market is ignoring any impeachment talk. Yes, we're watching and paying attention to it. But it's not market-moving. We don't think it's going to be for quite some time.
Trade talk clearly has an effect on our market. We have seen it this week, where there were a couple of negative headlines come out that the talks had broken down. We saw the market come down, pull back 100 points, immediately rebound back.
What we saw at the end of the day today is the mentality of, I don't want to miss out on this trade. As you get through a week like we have had and you get towards the end of the week, positions want to be appropriately priced going into the weekend, because anything can happen over the weekend.
So investors are trying to get those last trades in. They're holding back. And at the at the end of the day, when they see this market is not going to pull back, they throw their buy orders in. And that's why we see that spike towards the end of the day.
But taking a step back and looking at it from the macro sense, the market is doing what it should be doing, right? Fundamentals are good, the economy is good, sentiment is good, and all these other ancillary stuff that can have a negative effect on our markets, it just isn't impacting it just yet.
That doesn't mean it won't happen. But, clearly, investors, Main Street, Wall Street are clearly looking at all these headlines.
CAVUTO: You know, Jonathan, I'm sure you're approached by investors, including those who've been out of this market who are thinking about getting in. And then they say, well, I guess I missed the party here.
I know a lot of cash on the sidelines, a lot of people on the sidelines. So that's one of the bullish arguments, that that cash has got to be put to work. More of it is these days. But what do you say?
So we could have had this conversation 5,000 points ago in the Dow and said, you have missed this run. I think if you're looking at the market on a long-term basis on an overall performance basis, you haven't missed this.
CAVUTO: What is long term to you, Jonathan?
At my age, long term is lunch tomorrow. What are you -- what do you call it?
CORPINA: I think if your investment outlook is five to 10 years, this is a market that you have to be in.
Not knowing how 2020 elections are going to turn out, I think, if you just look at our economy overall, where we were and where we have come to at this point over the last 15 years has been very profitable.
CAVUTO: And you have been very right on about a lot of these swings here. Jonathan, thank you very much. Good chatting with you.
CORPINA: Thank you.
Have a nice weekend, Neil.
CAVUTO: You too, my friend.
All right, think there's bad blood in Washington? Why Taylor Swift says you ain't seen nothing yet.
CAVUTO: All right, lights, camera, impeachment. Round turn of public hearings today, it may be gripping Washington, but is it really grabbing the attention of young people?
It's time to talk to our Generation Hexed, who is hexed about something, "Your World" audio technician, bestselling author Dion Baia, Turning Point USA's Rob Smith, and last, but not least, my colleague on FOX Business superstar Kristina Partsinevelos.
So, Kristina, the ratings the first day, not bad, but disseminated among a lot more media players, so, in percentage terms, not nearly as high as the Watergate hearings or the Clinton hearings.
What are we to make of that?
KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Can we read too much into it, because the ratings don't count the streaming? So maybe everybody's watching it on their phone.
CAVUTO: That's true. That could be.
PARTSINEVELOS: But I don't really think so, to be honest, because how many people are paying attention during the day, when we're supposed to be working really hard and not watching these hearings?
And, yes, there was -- 13 million people did tune in on Wednesday, so the numbers are pretty decent.
CAVUTO: I always wonder if it's the same person just clicking...
CAVUTO: ... times.
PARTSINEVELOS: Yes, the whole Nielsen rating. But these witnesses, a lot of them aren't -- no offense -- not household names.
CAVUTO: Yes, no bombshell. We're waiting for bombshells, right?
ROB SMITH, TURNING POINT USA: It isn't necessarily like watching "Scandal" or the CW or anything like that.
I try to look at what the...
CAVUTO: Or anything on FBN.
CAVUTO: Don't get me started on the bond market.
SMITH: So I look at TikTok to see what the zoomers are looking at and see what young people are really into. I'm not seeing a whole lot of impeachment-related TikToks.
CAVUTO: Is that right?
SMITH: No impeachment-related TikToks.
CAVUTO: That's your whole generation. All right, whatever.
SMITH: I just don't think that people are into it.
I'm honestly bored by it. And I think most people are too.
DION BAIA, AUDIO TECHNICIAN: And also it's like Kristina said. It's in the time where they should be at work or playing video games or just laying on the couch.
From 9:00 to 5:00...
CAVUTO: That's your generation right there.
BAIA: But they're not going to be doing -- they're not going to be watching something like this. And it's not very riveting.
BAIA: I mean, I think you just get the CliffsNotes later on from like, the "Colbert" show or...
Well, this is riveting, Taylor Swift. I don't know if you have been following this story, accusing her former record label of blocking her from performing and using recordings of some of her own old hits, a claim the company I guess is denying.
This is not the first public dispute between the singer and the label. I will point out, Kristina, that Adele never had issues like this.
PARTSINEVELOS: Adele doesn't use her medium, her platform, her social media platform, as...
CAVUTO: The woman has the voice of a saint.
PARTSINEVELOS: Yes. I agree.
CAVUTO: But I digress.
CAVUTO: These are troubling issues.
CAVUTO: They worry my family.
CAVUTO: But, anyway, this other one, Taylor Swift, what do but think of this?
PARTSINEVELOS: Well, it shows the power of social media.
She has 85 million Twitter followers. Why not use that?
CAVUTO: Well, how did this happen? What is going on?
She sold her music or...
PARTSINEVELOS: She created the songs under this label back in the day, and now she's claiming that she can't use those songs for her Netflix documentary and if she wants to perform it.
BAIA: Because the people who own them, her first six albums, because she sold them.
PARTSINEVELOS: Yes, Big Machine.
CAVUTO: But she can still use them in a concert, can't she?
BAIA: No, there's a difference there, because with copyright laws, you can go perform a live song and it's fine.
But that's not necessarily going to compete with the song that was recorded. But in a televised event, this could lead to re-airing, streaming.
CAVUTO: She can't do that.
BAIA: ... compete against the master recordings.
SMITH: All I'm going to say, is look what they made her do.
This is not going to be good for Scooter Braun's reputation. And I don't think they can shake this one off.
CAVUTO: Oh, I see what you did there.
CAVUTO: See, that's bringing extra to the table.
BAIA: I know.
SMITH: I do have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of Taylor Swift songs.
CAVUTO: Someone told me that if she re-sang all of these songs...
BAIA: Which she's going to do in January. She has the option to do that.
CAVUTO: But, now, she was 15 or 16 when she first was singing.
PARTSINEVELOS: It'll be a different -- it will sound different.
Maybe she will have like Adele...
CAVUTO: Like the older Frank Sinatra didn't sound like the younger Frank Sinatra.
PARTSINEVELOS: So, maybe you will like her? Do you like her?
BAIA: But he recorded a lot of songs multiple times.
CAVUTO: She's no Adele.
SMITH: Not yet, not in a million lifetimes.
BAIA: Can you imagine if...
CAVUTO: Well, Adele would never get into this type...
BAIA: Can you imagine in the '80s when Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for the old Beatles catalog, and then -- around '85?
BAIA: And then if Michael Jackson had the gall to tell him or the surviving Beatles that they were not able to play their songs in concert?
CAVUTO: That's great. Fantastic.
CAVUTO: I have asked my staff to put out calls to Adele.
Any word yet, guys? No,
CAVUTO: As long as she would pick up the phone and say...
CAVUTO: ... hello? That never gets old.
CAVUTO: Instagram is testing hiding how many likes a post can get.
I have no idea what this means, but it's got some people up in arms.
What's the deal?
SMITH: I love it.
OK, here's the thing. When you're big on Instagram -- and I am @RobSmithOnline.
SMITH: You really do -- you get emotionally invested into your photos. And when they don't get a lot of likes, you feel emotional distress.
BAIA: Well, that's the problem. People are getting upset because they're not getting the likes of -- because that's a good barometer of who's looking and paying attention.
CAVUTO: So, hide them? Pro hiding them?
BAIA: Well, no, because then it's like you shouldn't -- you should have the option to be able to see who's looking at your stuff.
PARTSINEVELOS: It shows a generation of people that care that much that you just promoted your Instagram -- @KristinaParts -- on...
CAVUTO: You sound very needy, in other words.
PARTSINEVELOS: Actually, Neil, it hurts businesspeople and influencers, because then you don't know if their item is popular. Oh, maybe I won't buy their art because maybe nobody likes it.
SMITH: But here's the thing.
You can see how many people liked your stuff. Just everybody else can't.
BAIA: I have Instagram, DionBaia.
BAIA: And I got a book out.
PARTSINEVELOS: Do you have Instagram?
CAVUTO: I don't even know what it is.
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, I waiting on Adele to call me, update me on this. Just call me.
CAVUTO: More after this.
CAVUTO: All right, more public hearings are being planned next week on this whole impeachment thing.
Chad Pergram keeping track of it.
What are we looking at, buddy?
CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, there's going to be a closed-door deposition tomorrow morning with an OMB official, Mark Sandy.
In fact, there's another deposition that started right after the hearing this afternoon with David Holmes. He's somebody who worked in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.
And I'll tell you, to sum up today's hearing, usually, you have a big moment in one of these hearings that kind of crystallizes the entire scenario. This might be the first hearing that ever had something that happened outside the hearing room that is emblematic of the hearing itself.
And that was that ionized tweet from President Trump directed at Marie Yovanovitch here.
And after the hearing, Elise Stefanik, a Democratic congresswoman from New York who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, said this hearing was not about a tweet, but in many respects it was -- Neil, back to you.
CAVUTO: All right, an unforced error, I think a lot of people said, totally needless. I can understand it, but it maybe just added needlessly to the drama.
Chad, thank you very much.
PERGRAM: Thank you.
CAVUTO: We're all over this brawl on the Hill, as well as the brawl, the Cleveland Browns player Myles Garrett taking a swing at Steelers quarterback Martin (sic) Rudolph during last night's game with the quarterback's helmet.
NFL legend Joe Theismann on that, "Cavuto Live." We will see you then, tomorrow, live.
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.