Kennedy: Kavanaugh is firm that allegation didn't happen

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," September 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA: I'm not worried about anything, except just getting set up to have the hearing.

SEN. PATTY MURRAY, D-WA.: These allegations need to be taken seriously, and the committee needs to deal with them seriously.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY., MAJORITY LEADER: Dr. Ford will be heard. And, of course, Judge Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to defend himself against this accusations.

SEN. BOB CORKER, R-TENN.: People on both sides are going to need to handle this respectfully.

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI, D-M.D.: And then people are going to have to look at all the information and make a final decision.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Judge Kavanaugh's anxious to do it. I don't know about the other party. We want to get to the bottom of everything.


NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Get ready for a supreme fight over the Supreme Court and the guy that president wants to put on it, but now could be in jeopardy.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

Six days to go. Can you believe that? And we still do not know if Judge Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. No one knows.

Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy says he is ready for that hearing on Monday. We're going to talk to him in a moment.

First to Peter Doocy on these fast-moving developments today on Capitol Hill.

Do we know yet, Peter, whether she has responded to this request to testify?

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: We know she's got emails and voicemails waiting, but she has not responded, Neil.

And we also know that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have started reaching out to new witnesses that they might want to hear from at next Monday's hearing.

They're getting leads from a Washington Post story that details allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And these Republican investigators are inviting their Democratic colleagues to be a part of the process.

But, so far, every single Democrat has turned them down. They're instead complaining that a hearing has to wait until after a fresh FBI investigation has been conducted.

But that's something President Trump says isn't going to happen.


TRUMP: I don't think the FBI really should be involved because they don't want to be involved.


DOOCY: The Justice Department says the FBI's job is essentially done, that they got a letter referred to them with accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, and that then the FBI forwarded this letter to the White House Counsel's Office. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision-makers.

One undecided Republican senator, Susan Collins, is now recommending that Mondays hearing kick off with the lawyers for Kavanaugh and his accuser, Dr. Ford, questioning each other's clients, because both those layers are women.

And, otherwise, all the Republican questions are going to be coming from the 11 men on the panel. And that's something that seems problematic for the Democratic committee members too.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HAWAII: I expect the men in this country and the men in this committee and many of them -- believe me, because we all signed on to this letter -- to demand an FBI investigation.

But, really, guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of action? It's the man in this country. And I just want to say to the men of this country, just shut up and step up.


DOOCY: So still no firm commitment from Dr. Ford or her attorney to be here next Monday.

But Republicans are making clear that if she wants to be heard, that's her one opportunity to do it -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, this is going well. Thank you very much, Peter Doocy.

My next guest says the hearing will be held Monday as planned, even though Democrats are already calling it a charade.

Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy sits on the Judiciary Committee. He joins us right now.

Senator, have you had a chance to talk to the judge today, yesterday, recently?


CAVUTO: And how's he doing?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm -- I -- it's -- he's -- he's firm, not angry, but he's just committed. That's -- I guess that's the best word.

I talked to him. I said, "Judge, I want to hear from you."

He said: "This didn't happen. And I'm ready for any hearing, any forum you want me to go in front of to tell my side of the story."

That hearing has been scheduled for Monday. Under normal committee protocol, we wouldn't have a hearing. The majority and minority staff would contact the witnesses, if you will, the accuser and the accused, take what in effect are sworn statements, and then provide a transcript to the members of the committee, because the FBI investigation is closed.

The confidential session with the judge is closed. The confirmation hearings are closed. All this came upon us after the time for written questions had been closed.

So to say this is 11th hour is not a -- is not pejorative. It's factual. I mean, that's what happened.

CAVUTO: Do you know whether there was any -- the FBI investigation to which you allude is closed. Did any of it involve these charges?

KENNEDY: It was a normal -- I say normal -- it was -- normal is thorough - - FBI investigation. And there have been six of them.

It's not an investigation. That's the wrong term, Neil.

CAVUTO: I understand.

KENNEDY: It's a background check.


CAVUTO: But do you know whether this issue -- do you know whether this issue came up, sir?

KENNEDY: There was -- I don't know.


KENNEDY: I don't know.

But -- but when you -- but if you have ever read an FBI background check, they contact -- it's a cross between an endoscopy and a colonoscopy.

CAVUTO: Understood. You don't have to explain. I know where you're coming on from.



CAVUTO: So, Senator, let me ask you this.

Have you gotten any commitment from Ms. Ford, the accuser here, Christine Ford, that she will show up on Monday?

KENNEDY: We had a meeting at 12:15 today, several of us on the committee. At that point, neither Mrs. Ford nor her counsel would answer any of the calls or the e-mails from our staff to try to, A, take the testimony, if you will, the written testimony, or, B, invite them to the hearing.

So, now, we met yesterday and said, you know, what's the -- what's the fairest way to handle this, to get the facts? And we all agreed. By we, I mean the members -- most of the members of the -- of the -- Republican members of the committee. We decided, OK, we need to have a hearing in front of God and country.

CAVUTO: Would that be with or without her, Senator?

KENNEDY: We decided we want it with her, and we wanted it to be a public hearing.

Now, since then, we have decided to offer her the option. If she would like to have a private hearing, we will have a private hearing. If she wants a public hearing, we will have a public hearing.

We -- we gave -- gave her, Ms. Ford, two choices. We could do it this Thursday, or we could do it Monday.

I understand -- and I don't know the basis for this -- that now -- I don't know whether Ms. Ford decided, someone decided we were going to do this Monday. I'm going to be there Monday. I'm not interested in the political and the cultural combat.

I'm interested in the facts.

CAVUTO: But you will still -- if she opts not to show up or her lawyer says to her don't go, you will still have Judge Kavanaugh there and question him about this with or without her Monday? Is that the...


KENNEDY: Oh, I have a -- yes, I'm going to be there.

And I have a feeling -- I know Judge Kavanaugh is going to be there. He's raring to go. Now, whether Ms. Ford will be there or not, I don't know. I don't have any control over that.

But all -- all I know about this, Neil, I'm a United States senator elected by my people to advise and consent on this important position. And I shouldn't have to get all my information from The Washington Post and The New Yorker.

I mean, they're great periodicals and all that, but this is not a political game. I'm interested in the facts. And I have to hear Ms. Ford's story.

And I want to -- then I want to hear Judge Kavanaugh's story. And let us ask questions, not to cross-examine anybody, but let's get the facts. And that's all I'm interested in doing.

CAVUTO: But if you never hear from her, she never comes, do you -- I know where you stand on this. You want to hear from Judge Kavanaugh. I understand that.

But do you know whether your colleagues would halt the process, particularly your Democratic colleagues, because no one's heard from her?

KENNEDY: Well, we're going to cross that bridge when we come to it.

I can't make her come.


KENNEDY: None of us can. If she doesn't want to come, if she -- we decided today to give Ms. Ford the option.

If she wants to do it -- if she's worried now about a public hearing, we're willing to do a private hearing. We will do it any way she wants to do it.

CAVUTO: All right.

KENNEDY: We just want to get the facts and let her be able to tell us what she -- what -- her side of the story. And then we will hear from the accused, and we will do our jobs, as United States senators.

CAVUTO: Very good.

Sir, thank you very, very much. Very interesting read on that.

KENNEDY: You bet.

CAVUTO: Senator John Kennedy.

Judge Andrew Napolitano joins us right now.

Judge, on that one feature -- and thank you, my friend, for joining us.


CAVUTO: With or without her, what do you make of that?

NAPOLITANO: Be very unusual if it's without her.

Then -- then Judge Kavanaugh is fighting a phantom. He's going to be denying something before anybody's heard the allegations. We don't even know if the senator has received a copy of the letter. And the letter is a summary of the allegations.

This is where the Democrats actually have a point. This would be a lot more efficient if the FBI were to resume its role of conducting a background investigation and interrogate the people that are involved in this, Dr. Ford, her husband, her therapist, anybody else that has knowledge about this, Judge Kavanaugh, the person that allegedly was in the room.

CAVUTO: Regardless of how long it takes, because that could take a while, right?


Well, I think they could do it in a couple of weeks. But the advantage of that is, you have a prior statement from the witness, so you know what the witness is likely to say when they testify.

I don't think judge Kavanaugh has the slightest idea, nor do we, what Dr. Ford would say if she were to commence her testimony on Monday morning, without having been interviewed by anybody already.

But it would be very dangerous and risky for him to deny something before he hears the precise who, what, when, where of the allegation.

CAVUTO: What would be the normal sequence of events, Judge? She gets to state her case and her charges.

NAPOLITANO: She gets to give a statement. She is then interrogated by every member of the committee, starting with the chair.

CAVUTO: Right.

NAPOLITANO: Senator Grassley, going to Senator Feinstein, the ranking Democrat, and back and forth and back and forth, so they all interrogate her.

Then they get to go a second time. Then they would do the same thing with Judge Kavanaugh. Then the committee rules provide that each side, if you will, can introduce one witness to corroborate the principal.

So, Dr. Ford could introduce a witness. It could be her husband who was there when she allegedly emoted this repressed memory. It could be the therapist in whose presence this allegedly happened. It could be anybody else that wants to vouch for her credibility.

And Judge Kavanaugh can do the same. In the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings...

CAVUTO: Now, Mark Judge, this close friend who would be the closest to him.

NAPOLITANO: correct.

That is the person that Dr. Ford says was in the room when this occurred.

CAVUTO: And who denies this.

NAPOLITANO: And who denies it with the same emphasis that the judge denies it.


CAVUTO: Right. I mean, so where does this go?

NAPOLITANO: That's a good question, Neil. If this is a draw at the end of the day, who wins? There's no rules here. Is the burden of proving this on Dr. Ford, or is the burden of disproving this on Judge Kavanaugh?

Will the very allegation itself, whether proven or not, be enough to dislodge Republican votes? Or will we all say at 5:00 on Monday what is the general impression of who was the better witness? Who presented the stronger case?

There are no rules here.

CAVUTO: But if she never shows up, and let's say Democrats urge, wait for an investigation, that's what we want, and we want a full investigation, then what?

NAPOLITANO: She's done a horrific harm to the reputation of a person by just getting this allegation out there, and then not backing it up with her testimony.

I suspect...

CAVUTO: Do you think that would happen?

NAPOLITANO: I hope not.

But let me tell you what I think's going on.


NAPOLITANO: I think her lawyer is negotiating with lawyers for the committee on the parameters of the interrogation.

I know the way lawyers think. Nobody wants their witness, their client to be there with 15 people getting to ask whatever they want. I think current lawyer wants to limit the nature and extent of the inquiry, probably to the alleged incident, not to all of her background and life experiences.

CAVUTO: Well, that would beg a private event, right, before the committee and not before a national audience.

NAPOLITANO: Well, the negotiation is going on in private, but the interrogation would be in public.

And you think that's where it will end up?



Judge, thank you very, very much.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

CAVUTO: Again, we have not heard anything, at least publicly, from Ms. Ford's lawyers here. Again, no response to e-mails and texts, we're told, for her to testify on Monday. Most seem to think it a given that she will. Again, we have gotten no indication that she will.

We will have more after this.


CAVUTO: Gone, but, well, they wish it could be forgotten, because the flooding is still a worry in the Carolinas after Florence.

Rising waters in the appropriately named Cape Fear River striking still more fear for the folks living around it and near it.

Steve Harrigan in Fayetteville, North Carolina, with the latest.

Hey, Steve.

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, it's been a sunny day here. But despite that, the water keeps rising.

And there is real fear that this Cape Fear River could peak tomorrow at over 60 feet. If that happens, the flooding is going to be catastrophic. At this strip mall here, we have been watching small business owners pull out what they can salvage.

Michael Toms (ph) is here with me.

What have you got there? Looks like you got your hands full.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, right now, I'm bringing out office supplies from the sister side of the lodge.

We're fortunate enough that we had a couple of larger desks in there. They stayed dry. And we have got about two-and-a-half, three feet of water inside right now. So I'm trying to raise everything up as high as I can in case the water comes up anymore.

HARRIGAN: About three feet of water inside. He's trying to put what he can up on tables.

They have been blocking off roads here. They just blocked off this one. Across North Carolina, more than 1,000 roads are blocked off, including about 250 very major roadways. Parts of I-95 blocked off as well.

They are still performing water rescues across the street, more than 2,000 water rescues. And a lot of people doing the helping are -- are from the U.S. services, Coast Guard and National Guard -- Neil, back to you.

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

So, the guy in charge the Defense Department's efforts to help those victims, on the phone with us now the commander of the U.S. Northern Command, General Terrence O'Shaughnessy. And he joins us on the phone.

General, thank you very much for joining us.

GEN. TERRENCE O'SHAUGHNESSY, NORAD COMMANDER: You bet, Neil. Thanks for the opportunity.

CAVUTO: How do things look down there?

O'SHAUGHNESSY: Well, I will tell you what.

I have been touring not only the affected area, but also the state operation centers, visiting with the National Guard, visiting with the Department of Defense rep.

And I will say that the devastation from the storm and the rising waters has us concerned. Just as mentioned, the Cape Fear in North Carolina, but also the Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee in South Carolina.

So, ultimately, the water rising is a concern right now. I think we're well-postured. We're coordinated from the Department of Defense standpoint with the state.

It's been great to see. I met the governor this morning, Governor McMaster, in South Carolina. His team is well-prepared. And we're backing them up.

CAVUTO: General, after Harvey, of course, and the flooding conditions there, you had a lot of folks who had to be rescued from their homes. They were out on their roofs and what have you.

Do you have a lot of cases like that to deal with?

O'SHAUGHNESSY: Well, I think, on a positive front, many of those citizens heeded the warnings of the local government and were evacuated and heeded that.

I would recommend anyone that, as these waters do rise, that they understand how dangerous they are, and they don't go back unless the local authorities say it's clear to do so.

CAVUTO: They're always resistors and those who opt not to do that, those who were told to clear and area, and they didn't clear an area.

Did that complicate efforts? We're told that surprisingly few holdouts had to be dealt with, that most did heed warnings to clear out.

O'SHAUGHNESSY: I think that, by and large, most did.

And, as always, as you mentioned, there's a few that don't have. Many of them had to be rescued. As we go into these rising waters, I think part of the concern is that people think the storm is over and it's clear to come back. And it's not.

And these rising waters are serious. We are prepared to respond, but we would ask everyone to respond to the local authorities.

CAVUTO: So, the greatest danger now, General, is what?

O'SHAUGHNESSY: It's, as the waters come down -- come down, and, as you mentioned, Cape Fear and the Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee, really, Wilmington and Myrtle Beach are two areas of concern.

There's concerns that they might be isolated. I think, as we're continuing to watch that, probably less likely, but still some concern. So, we pre- positioned supplies. We have worked to make sure that we have the ability to get into those areas if they are isolated, i.e., the roads are taken out, and we're able to accommodate if anyone is trapped or stranded there.

I think we're well prepared for it. But, again, we want to make sure that people don't come back unless their local community leaders tell them it's OK to come back.

CAVUTO: Now, we also know, General, that a lot of ships had to be repositioned ahead of the storm. What do you do now, afterwards?

O'SHAUGHNESSY: Well, the large majority of the ships that, for example, sortied out of the Norfolk area have already returned.

But we do have two ships literally 10 miles off the coast of Wilmington area, the Kearsarge and the Arlington, with about 2,400 Marines and sailors that are postured to respond at a moment's notice.

They're flying MV-22s, HH-53s HH-60s, as part of the response. And they are ready to -- if we end up with a bad situation, a catastrophic situation with regard to the rising floodwaters, they're right there ready to respond. And they were loaded out with exactly the equipment that we need to respond, thanks to the state being able to identify that ahead of time, before they actually left the Norfolk area.

CAVUTO: General, I know you have had very, very little sleep, if any. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us and update us.

O'SHAUGHNESSY: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: General Terrence O'Shaughnessy, in charge of these operations and making sure the military is on top of helping, helping us out, and helping the folks affected out.

All right, well, you would think, with the prospects of a worsening trade war, and an open-ended Supreme Court judge pick, that the markets would be freefalling. Today, they were soaring. Why?

After this.


CAVUTO: You see the markets today?

Despite president making good on his promise to slap more tariffs on a lot more Chinese goods, and the Chinese responding in kind by slapping, well, tariffs on our stuff as well, we were up today, and a lot of it on the notion that, well, it could have been worse.

I don't know if that's the case, but Blake Burman at the White House with the details on what still looks pretty iffy -- Blake.

BLAKE BURMAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and remember, Neil, the Trump administration has said this $200 billion batch would be at 25 percent. Instead, it's going to be at 10 percent starting Monday and then go to 25 percent in 2019.

The Chinese had said that their tariff rate could be significantly higher than it actually is. They instead brought it down to 5 or 10 percent. So there's some thinking that maybe the market saw that and thought, yes, exactly. Wasn't as bad, at least not right off the bat, as it could have been.

In any event, the Chinese said they were going to retaliate if President Trump went forward with this $200 billion worth of tariffs. And the Chinese did just that, imposing $60 billion worth of tariffs, additional tariffs going forward on American goods.

When you look at the whole picture here, last year in the U.S., we bought about just a shade north of $500 billion worth of goods from the Chinese. So far, the Trump administration has slapped tariffs on $250 billion worth, or just about half.

And the president warned today that if the Chinese do not back off their threats, do not back off additional tariffs that would affect American workers, then the other half could be coming as well.

Watch here.


TRUMP: And if there's a retaliation against our farmers and our industrial workers, our ranchers, if any of that goes on, we're going to kick in another $257 billion.


BURMAN: Neil, the president said there $257 billion.

In the past, he has said $267 billion. We have asked the White House to clarify on that -- $10 billion is a lot of money, though, in the grand scheme, when you're talking about a couple hundred billion, it is just a fraction.

I think the bigger point on that is the president saying, hey, we're basically halfway there at $250 billion. And he's threatening to go the other half down the line as well.

But, as you mentioned, this could have been much worse as it related to the -- to the tariff levels, Neil.

CAVUTO: You explained that brilliantly. You know that?

BURMAN: I tried. I tried.

CAVUTO: In English, in English.


CAVUTO: Which can be a foreign concept to a lot of people. Good job, my friend.

BURMAN: Thanks.

CAVUTO: All right.

That's what we stand right now. So, in English, shoppers are going to be running into some surprises during the holiday season.

Retail watch extraordinary Hitha Herzog on that.

What's the effect for us? Because people forget, governments don't pay these tariffs. We do, right?


What we end up paying are the higher prices. So the real problem is if these tariffs come, the companies impose -- they have to pay the tariffs.

CAVUTO: Right.

HERZOG: And then what they do is they pass along the price hike that they are paying to the consumer.

So if those prices go up, and there's not a wage increase to follow, so that we can mitigate the higher hike in price, that's what's going to be problematic. So as we go into the retail season, and you look at the list of the things that are being -- that are on the list of tariffs that are going to have tariffs on them, they are purposely trying to stay away from the consumer-friendly product.

CAVUTO: So what is a target?

HERZOG: So they -- what they're getting -- what is being tariffed right now?

CAVUTO: Right.

HERZOG: These are some foodstuffs, some, like seafood, not a lot of consumer -- not a lot of consumer stuff. So, soybeans, for example, that being -- that's being charged.

CAVUTO: We don't whether processed meats and cheeses are included in this?

HERZOG: Processed meats, some of them. Oh, I know, you have the...

CAVUTO: That's the problem right there.


CAVUTO: But you have to find a way to get off this stuff.

But will it -- it starts small, right?

HERZOG: It starts small.

CAVUTO: Then what does it potentially extend to?

HERZOG: Exactly.

So what the government is doing right now, what the president is doing is using this as a negotiation tactic. So, while they're not putting the consumer-friendly stuff on just yet...

CAVUTO: Right.

HERZOG: ... if the -- if China doesn't back down, the consumer stuff is going to go back on that list.

That's when the consumer should start getting very -- a little concerned. To the reporter's point, like we shouldn't -- this is very small tariffs that are happening right now. But if this increases, if China doesn't back down, then we could have a major problem.

CAVUTO: Now, the reason why I mentioned the markets, and, of course, they're not worried about the Judge Kavanaugh thing, fine. They're not worried about the trade thing, because it could have been worse, the Chinese could have responded with still bigger tariffs.

We could have initiated still bigger tariffs. Is that it, the relief that maybe this ends nicely?

HERZOG: Well, we're talking about a $19 trillion economy, right?


HERZOG: So you're talking about what is being tariffed right now, it's a very small amount.

So the idea is that between the products that are getting tariffed and what people are actually going to have to pay for, it's a small amount. And the country at this point can probably eat the cost.

However, if that increases, that is going to be -- and like I said, with the wages, if we can't somehow mitigate the hike in price with the hike in wages to pay for that, then the consumer is going to not want to pay for anything.

CAVUTO: All right. Well put. Hitha, thank you very, very much.

HERZOG: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Hitha Herzog.

All right, the back and forth over what we're in store for, or at least judge Kavanaugh is in store for with an ad campaign that is out of control on both sides. Get ready. This is already getting nasty.


CAVUTO: Elon Musk, you might want to wake up. It's not just the Securities and Exchange Commission looking into what you're doing, but now no less than the Justice Department.

Put that doobie down. You could be going down.



QUESTION: Does she think Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination? Is that what she hopes comes out of this?

DEBRA KATZ, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: She's not -- she's not taking a position on that. She believes that these allegations obviously bear on his character and his fitness.

MAURA FITZGERALD, FRIEND OF BRETT KAVANAUGH: I have known him since high school. I dated him briefly in college. And we have remained close friends ever since. I cherish his friendship. He has just been such a stand-up guy full of integrity. I admire him.


CAVUTO: So, the Kavanaugh controversy front and center, as both conservative and liberal groups prepare to pour a lot of money to continue this nomination battle ahead of what should be what some are calling an almost pay-per-view event, when his accuser and the judge himself get to respond and test each other's nerves and wills.

Attorney Jenna Ellis, Democratic strategist Christy Setzer, and The Wall Street Journal -- The Wall Street Journal's Shelby Holliday.

Shelby, this is going to be a gargantuan media bonanza for those who want to push their case. The judge is either a hero or he is going to be painted as a villain. There's no middle ground.


I mean, we even saw some of that last night at the Emmys, when celebrities had messages about Kavanaugh written on their arms. So the whole world is watching this. They're still a lot of unknowns. Will the hearing even happen on Monday? Who will testify? Who gets to ask the questions?

There are so many things that I think could change over the course of the next few days. And even though sexual assault and alleged sexual assault shouldn't be a political issue, it does have some major political ramifications.

Number one, what impact will it have on the upcoming elections? And, number two, what impact could it have on the Supreme Court? Democrats are for now calling for the FBI to investigate. They want to delay the hearing.

Republicans are accusing Democrats of delaying, but that -- there's a big reason why. If the midterms come around, if Democrats win control of the House and possibly even the Senate, this could be a very different Supreme Court.

CAVUTO: But this is where the ad campaign comes in both sides.

A $1.5 million ad campaign in support of the judge is going to say that he's being unfairly maligned here, Jenna, and that this is not right to do. Is that the gist of it?

JENNA ELLIS, ATTORNEY: That is the gist.

But, really, what's happening is that we're still basking in the glow of the 2016 election. But for the evangelical vote, and specifically American families, the GOP base turning out the vote and voting for President Trump, we wouldn't have an impeccable credentialed conservative originalist even nominated.

And that's really what the left is attacking. And we have seen those attacks throughout the confirmation process, and now with this latest attack that really isn't a truth-based question, which it should be. It is a political question.

And so in terms of the midterms, the American families and specifically the conservative and evangelical base should recognize that having a conservative majority on the Supreme Court is really what the midterms are all about and should get out and vote.

CAVUTO: All right, well, Christy, one of the ads I saw -- I don't know the group -- portrayed this and the latest layer of this as Republicans are tone-deaf when it comes to women and that the ad will -- will show that the Democrats have tried to get them to be less so, and they're not.

Is that fair, though, here? I mean, this is about a woman whose charges came to light very, very late. And they're trying to go through a process to give her a chance to speak and the judge a chance to respond. What do you think?

CHRISTY SETZER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first of all, the charges came to light very late through no fault of this woman, Christine Ford's own -- she did go first when he was named to the short list.

And for sort of various reasons, it's only come to light fairly recently. But, yes, I do believe that Republicans are tone-deaf when it comes to women.

It's an extremely potent attack. When you look at all the enthusiasm in the Democratic Party right now, it is all coming from women who will walk over fire and broken glass to vote against Republicans in November right now.


CAVUTO: But leaving -- no, no, no, my question wasn't about that. I know the whole argument about that.


CAVUTO: But the notion whether they, Republicans are being fair, because they are granting a hearing. They are granting an audience to let her explain her charge, and then to let the judge respond. What more can they do?

SETZER: It really depends the way in which it's going to be run.

And I think that's still somewhat remains to be seen. But I think what's being proposed is more about putting Christine Ford on trial. They are going to -- and she's not on trial, really. This isn't about her character. This is about Judge Kavanaugh's.

He's asking -- he's not asking to stay a federal judge. He's asking for an enormous promotion.


CAVUTO: I know it's a he said/she said thing.


CAVUTO: But, Shelby, he is being asked to respond to something he said never, ever happened. We know how that goes.

But I'm wondering, Shelby, how that plays out, these expensive, pricey ads notwithstanding.

HOLLIDAY: I think we will see -- if the hearing happens on Monday, I think we will see on Monday. I think it's way too early to say Republicans are tone-deaf or if Democrats are playing politics.

I think once this woman came forward, put her name behind the allegations, and the story was made more clear, that she came forward before Kavanaugh was picked, and that she had talked to therapists about this in the past, once that happened, Republican did slow down and eventually come to say, yes, this woman deserves to be heard, and we need to figure out an appropriate way for that to happen.

How they react and how they question her remains to be seen. But I think it's far too early to make any of those assumptions.

CAVUTO: All right, ladies, we will watch very closely. Thank you all very, very much. I do appreciate it.

Well, if Donald Trump could do it, why not another billionaire businessman, or at the very least a very successful one?

Something tells me this was being brewed by one Jamie Dimon for quite a while.


CAVUTO: Do you mind a nasty personal question? Not nasty.


CAVUTO: Politics. Interested?

DIMON: Not really, no. I just don't see it in the cards for me.




CAVUTO: Do you mind a nasty personal question? Not nasty.

DIMON: Shoot. Go ahead.

CAVUTO: Politics. Interested?

DIMON: Not really, no.

CAVUTO: It hasn't hurt a fellow named Bob Rubin.

DIMON: Yes, Bob has done a fabulous job. And -- but I just don't see it in the cards for me.

CAVUTO: Your college pals say I guess you would be the guy. Perfect.

DIMON: Yes, but didn't we all sit around in college and talk about what we wanted to do when we grow up? And it doesn't seem as appealing as it used to.


CAVUTO: That was Jamie Dimon 22 years ago.

Who is that guy interviewing him?


CAVUTO: Where does the time go? You ever wonder about that?

No comments on my hair or that suit and tie combination. I'm vulnerable today, people. I don't need it.


CAVUTO: Anyway, all this comes as we go back in time and remember over the course of history and financial history here people who popped up on the show and said the darndest things, like maybe a political career or not.

Former White House economic adviser Gary Cohn saying that Jamie Dimon would indeed like a phenomenal president, this as reports that Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a run for the White House as a Democrat in 2020.

So, did President Trump actually open the gates for guys with a lot of money to consider running themselves.

Let's ask a guy who has a lot of money who could run for president, but I think he is quite satisfied with life in retirement, the former Heinz CEO Bill Johnson.

Bill, good to have you.

BILL JOHNSON, FORMER CHAIRMAN & CEO, H.J. HEINZ COMPANY: Good afternoon, Neil. How are you?

CAVUTO: I'm fine.

What do you make of this, the back and forth. Jamie Dimon says no. He got himself in a little bit of controversy when he said he was smarter than the president and all that other stuff. He said he went too far. The president criticized him.

But, bottom, line we are seeing a lot more business titans at least considering it, and all because, you could argue, Donald Trump.

JOHNSON: Well, I think that may be true. I think it's a double-edged sword.

I mean, the exemplar to me is Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, who I think has done a spectacular job and also managed to do it in a very graceful way.

I think, Neil, for me...

CAVUTO: He's a former executive HCA, health care executive. But go ahead. Made a fortune at that.



But, for me, I -- personally, I wouldn't want to go through the diatribe and the pomposity and the pandering and the things associated with it, but I think -- I think Mr. Trump has in fact opened a pathway to the middle of the country at least to accept somebody who comes from a business background.

I think the establishment will push against it. Certainly, the media will push against it, because businesspeople see things in more black and white. They see things in terms of results or failure. They see things just differently than I think politicians do.

But the other interesting thing to me, particularly coming from Mr. Bloomberg and others, is given the age constraints placed on directors in public corporations, we're going to have a number of potential candidates running for president who are going to be in their mid-70s.

It's just -- it's really interesting to me and a bit idiosyncratic, relative to what business requires.

CAVUTO: I'm all for that the closer I get to those ages.

JOHNSON: Me too.

CAVUTO: I used to say, no, no, no, but I'm open to that.

But, Bill, I am curious about this. I mean, it is a great country. Now, because of Donald Trump, any billionaire can run for president. So that is something to aspire to.

But I think that a lot of these business guys think it's easy. The fact the matter is, Donald Trump had real political smarts and shrewdness, a brilliant marketer. And he took out the best of the best in the Republican field, before laying waste to a dynasty in both the Bush family and the Clintons.

I think he -- they think it's much easier than it appears. It's actually far, far tougher.

JOHNSON: I agree with that, Neil.

I think -- I think Mr. Trump is a very unusual and unique character, one, because not only of his business background, but he's been associated with politics most of his life. And he also has a unique personality and traits that endeared him to parts of the country that I'm not sure normal business CEOs or normal businesspeople would be endeared to.

So, no, I think that's one. I think the second thing is Mr. Trump, really, despite his use of Twitter, which is sometimes unfortunate, really does, I think, have the best interest of the country at heart, without the ideological constraints that I think many would feel even as a CEO coming from -- from business.

And, most importantly, I think most CEOs are trained to be somewhat politically correct in terms of how they interpret data and react to things in a public manner. And that certainly is not true of Donald Trump, who I think really has done an incredible job of sort of exposing the fraud that so many things are. But most CEOs will stay away from that.

CAVUTO: Yes, I mean, it's a balance of I.Q. and E.Q. You have to have both. And a lot of these CEOs, with impeccable educational skills and backgrounds, but there is a lot more to it than that.

JOHNSON: There's a lot more to it.

And I think the other thing, Neil, most business decisions are going to catch up with you and haunt you in one of these campaigns, which, as we have seen in the last couple of days.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

JOHNSON: Just -- the diatribe is just so unfair and one-sided.

And I think -- the other thing I do think, business leaders are prepared to answer questions factually and objectively. I think, when you get into the political arena, as you watch during the campaigns and so forth, this stuff takes sideways turns and goes in different directions.

CAVUTO: Oh, you're not kidding. You're not kidding.

All right, we will watch it very closely.

Bill, always good catching up. Thank you very, very much.

JOHNSON: Thank you, Neil. Appreciate it.

CAVUTO: All right, now we have got some texts that are out that the president wants to declassify, along with a whole bunch of other stuff. The impact -- after this.



TRUMP: The things that have been found over the last couple of weeks about text messages back and forth are a disgrace to our nation.

And I want transparency, and so does everybody else. As you know, congressional committees came to me, and they wanted this. And I did it based on their request. But I think it's a good thing, because we should open it up.


CAVUTO: The president defending his decision to declassify documents regarding the Russian probe. And it's a treasure trove of stuff as well, because it includes text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Remember all that.

Republican Congressman Andy Biggs, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, what he makes of his.

Some have argued, Congressman -- and very good to have you, sir -- that he could be opening up a Pandora's box, revealing identities of folks that could compromise our security. You know all of that.

What do you think of that?

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Well, I think that that's a red herring.

I mean, they have been saying that about every document that's been revealed to us and that's come out drip by drip by drip over the last year- and-a-half, two years. And they always say, it's national security, we can't get this.

And every time we look at, it's like, there was no -- nobody compromised, there was no position compromised. It's not national security.

But what it is, is, it's -- it's embarrassing and cast aspersions that they have drawn on themselves because of how they conducted themselves.


BIGGS: That's what happened.

CAVUTO: And the way it rolls out, I don't believe it's immediately released to the public, right? It would go to the responsible committees, let's say you and your colleagues in the House and the Senate. They would comb through this material, then release what they think proper. I think that's the process.

But educate me.

BIGGS: Well, that's really the way the process is going to play out is my understanding as well. I hear we're going to hear about it next Monday.

But I suspect that we will get the leaks out before then, because the place leaks like a sieve. And then, even after we look at them, I would imagine that there's going to be some stuff leaked out to the public, just because that's just the way it goes.

But I anticipate seeing a lot of information in there that we have been trying to get at, everything from misuse of information to try to get FISA warrants to spy on Americans, to I want to know what Bruce Ohr actually put in his notes about his meetings with Christopher Steele.

We have got more e-mails, another tranche of e-mails coming out. I mean, this just -- this just seems to go on and on. It's like the black abyss, almost. You can't get to the bottom of it.

CAVUTO: But I wonder what more we could possibly find out about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Maybe there is something there that -- what prompted the president to do what he did.

BIGGS: Well, I think you're going to find more and more information that perhaps that they didn't really think there was much to this initial investigation, but they went ahead with it.

You might see some more prejudicial information, I mean, but like you say, we know all this already. But if you're in for a dime, you're in for dollar. And I think we're going to find more about it.

CAVUTO: Where is this all going? When we get the information and the pattern and the timeline about who knew what and what -- was thinking something about Donald Trump when he was a candidate.

I have yet to find anyone who liked the guy. Maybe that would come in this trove of information. But that is one thing that's been very, very clear. Whether you like the president or not, it was -- virtually every single e- mail and text showed an overwhelming disdain for him as a candidate.

BIGGS: Yes, I mean, it's biased, clearly.

And where it should go is, you should clean some house out, some additional things. Don't forget, we -- a lot of folks have left or been fired or demoted. But we get back to this thing that I -- Jeff Sessions said that he would reopen if there were anomalies in the HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, investigation.

There are. There are anomalies there. This tranche is going to show again that there's anomalies. He should open up -- reopen that investigation. We should -- he should appoint a second special prosecutor or special counsel, because...


CAVUTO: I'm sorry, sir.

You don't find that anything here would reveal a confidential source or something like that could boomerang on Republicans?

BIGGS: I don't fear that.

I mean, I'm -- I'm -- look, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, whoever was doing this information -- doing this, they -- they -- they forgot their professional, their moral and their ethical compass.

CAVUTO: All right.

BIGGS: And so I don't care -- you know, it has to be straightened up and cleaned up. That's the key.

CAVUTO: Congressman, thanks for taking the time. We will know soon enough, won't we?

BIGGS: Thanks.

CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.

In the meantime, we have been looking back the week that was 10 years ago, where the Dow is now, where it was and thought to be torpedoing 10 years ago this very day -- after this.



CAVUTO: What a wild day, a 550-point swing for stocks, and a huge comeback in the final hour.

As you can see, the Dow up 375.33 points on the potential of revisiting history here, folks.


CAVUTO: All right, that was 10 years ago today.

You knew what kind of crazy week it was 10 years ago this week. We were melting, and then we were clawing our way back. When all was said and done, we would fall another 4,000 points just a few months later. By the time we got there, everyone had given up hope.

Look at what has happened since, a reminder how much we can do if we just have faith that we can do it.

"The Five" is now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.