Microsoft president: We were one of the companies that brought DACA case to Supreme Court

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" June 18, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Thank you, Bill, very, very much.

We are monitoring a lot of developments all at the same time right now. The president is meeting with the governors of Nebraska and Oklahoma and some minority and small business owners just in order to get a sense of where things are going in the great reopening in this economy.

But we are also watching the fallout right now from that John Bolton book that has reverberated throughout the nation's capital and the world.

The administration doing its best to make sure it never sees the light of day, but key allegations in that book have already seen the light of day.

And then, of course, there's that dreamers ruling that goes essentially against the president, and, of course, this book that just rips the president.

So much happening at the same time. It's a good thing we have got an hour to dig into it.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

John Roberts right now at the White House on how they're taking all of this incoming support and I guess fire as well -- John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You have got an hour of airtime, but we're here 12 hours a day at least following all of this, Neil.

The president spent much of today ripping his former National Security Adviser John Bolton who wrote that new memoir, "The Room Where It Happened." The president taking Bolton to task on Twitter and in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, saying -- quote -- "The only thing I liked about Bolton was that everybody thought he was crazy."

The president adding: "When you walk into the room with him, you're in a good negotiating position because they figure you're going to war if John Bolton was there."

Democrats, meantime, are furious that John Bolton did not come forward with information as he has in the book during the impeachment inquiry.

Nancy Pelosi earlier today, listen here.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Didn't seem to matter to John Bolton. He chose royalty over patriotism, and so is going to make money off of his book, I guess.

I don't want to pay any money for a book that was a substitute for testifying before Congress about the well-being of the American people.


ROBERTS: In his book, John Bolton says that the president's foreign policy was all geared toward his reelection, saying that, in one meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he -- quote -- "pleaded with Xi" to buy U.S. agricultural products, so he could curry favor with the Farm Belt vote here in the United States.

But the U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, who is in that same meeting, has a different recollection of that. Listen here.


ROBERT LIGHTHIZER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Absolutely untrue. Never happened. I was there. I have no recollection of that ever happening. I don't believe it's true. I don't believe it ever happened.


ROBERTS: In an interview with ABC, President -- John Bolton says that President Trump is unfit for office, that he doesn't have the competence to do the job, all of which brought this scathing reaction from the trade adviser, Peter Navarro. Listen to this.


PETER NAVARRO, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF TRADE AND MANUFACTURING POLICY: It's the deep swamp political equivalent of revenge porn, that the guy got fired because he didn't obey the chain of command, because he was out of touch with what President Donald J. Trump stands for in terms of foreign policy.

He created his own autonomous zone here at the White House. He disrespected everybody. He had nothing to do with the China policy.


ROBERTS: Well, a lot of people here at the White House are worried about the political fallout.

The Department of Justice and national security officials are worried about the intelligence impact of this. They say that there is still a lot of classified information in this book, that the scrub for classified information was never completed.

Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth has set a hearing for tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 to consider a temporary restraining order, Neil, blocking the release of John Bolton's book.

But Simon & Schuster, the publisher, saying, too late, it's gone out around the world and it's ready to hit the bookstores on Tuesday.

How about that description from Peter Navarro, the swamp political equivalent of revenge porn?

CAVUTO: You know what's so wild about it though, John? The genie is out of the bottle. Let's say you even succeed in, all right, we're slapping this down.


CAVUTO: You can't get your hands on it, but everyone has their hands on it now. So it is what it is. It's not as if all the allegations and quotes and statements and references just go away.

It's out in the public domain.

ROBERTS: Yes, and all of the bad stuff about President Trump is known. There's -- I read the book last night. There's nothing left in the book that could be politically damaging against President Trump, other than what Democrats make out of it.

But, still, national security officials say the -- what they call classified information still in the book could be damaging. But anybody who cares about that has probably already got the text of the book, if not a copy of it. And so I think the damage has already been done, Neil.

It's just a matter of assessing how much potential damage it might have done.

CAVUTO: This may be a legal question for my next guest, John, but the president was not making secret of the fact that he wanted the Chinese throughout the trade back and forth to buy more agricultural goods, that that was pivotal to the deals's conclusion and ultimate success.

So I guess it would be a difference to say that and then to take the next leap to say, it would help me out in the next election. But that seems so overt that we already knew his goal was to get the Chinese to -- and demand the Chinese to buy more products.

So where is the wrinkle here?

ROBERTS: It's unclear where the wrinkle is, because, if you get China to buy $200 billion worth of agricultural products, and at least a four-fold increase over where they are now, that would play well among voters in the Farm Belt.

So, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that there's a political aspect to that. It's just the way that John Bolton frames it.

CAVUTO: Right.

ROBERTS: And then he frames other things dealing with Ukraine, other things dealing with Turkey to say, look, that's -- this was a pattern of behavior on the part of the president.

And it was one that John Bolton says he and other people at the White House could not tolerate, which is why he says he brought it to the attention of the attorney general, who has denied that he brought it to his attention.

So, there is definitely a lot of he said, he said, she said, he said going on here, and like many of these books, Neil, it's difficult to straighten it all out.

CAVUTO: Yes, they do back up like planes at La Guardia, though.

All right, thank you very, very much on that, John Roberts, at the White House.

Here is the issue in the context of the book that is raising some hackles, where the president, supposedly -- again, this is from Bolton -- asked President Xi Jinping of China to help him win the 2020 U.S. election, and in which he told him at a summit dinner last year that increased agricultural purchases by Beijing from American farmers would aid his electoral prospects.

So, in other words, he said that, offered that, didn't think that, didn't imply that.

So what are we to make of that? And, again, almost anyone and everyone around the president right now denying that this was so blunt, even though the goal of more purchases of agricultural goods was the goal all along of everybody at the White House.

So are we sorting hairs here?

Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney, FOX News contributor, joining us on the phone.

Andy, it's one thing. Sometimes, politicians, in crafting trade deals, they can be helped or hurt politically, but they don't make it that overt. Let's take this to the extreme case here, where the president was overt: This could really help me in these agricultural states, helping the farmers. See if you can make this happen.

How is that different than simply stating what the administration's position was all along, we want you to purchase more farm goods?

ANDREW MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, Neil, I feel like we're having the same Ukraine conversation all over again...

CAVUTO: Right.

MCCARTHY: ... in the sense that what came up, I think, again and again in that situation was the reality that most of the checks on presidential behavior are not legal, they're political.

And I try never to get too caught up with whether somebody is being too blunt or not or too -- or not oblique enough. I, frankly, prefer if somebody tells me what they're thinking than tries to play poker face with me.

But in terms of like the propriety of it, presidents historically meld their own political interests with the national interests.

And whether we think they're prioritizing the wrong one, like, whether we think that, you know, the president thinks first of, here's what's in my electoral interest, and let me make my policy accordingly, or whether they go the other way, and say, what is -- what is the national interest here, and let me line up my political fortunes with that, because what is good for the country should be what's good for me, to me, that's a political determination.

It's not a legal one. If Congress thinks that there's a pattern of that, and Bolton seems to suggest this in his book, that there's enough instances where that happened, that, if the House had more broadly charged the president across the board with prioritizing his political interest over the national interest, rather than narrowly targeting Ukraine, they would have had a better case.

I don't know. But it's a political calculation. It's not really a legal one.

CAVUTO: Andy, one of the things that Bolton brings up is this idea that what the president did with Xi Jinping in China is far worse and far more direct and far clearer, black and white, if you will, than whatever was hinted at the Ukraine pressure.

The administration denying that aid to that country was held up because of the government's unwillingness to help out with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and that relationship. I get all that.

But, here, Bolton is arguing it was far more egregious and this is far bigger an issue. On the legal front, is it? It just seems like different shades of the same, you can kind of look at it as being maybe not the best thing to do, but strong-arm business tactics, and that's it?


I think, Neil, again, the check on the president is impeachment, right? And, ultimately, impeachment is political, not legal. It's got a legal process to it, but it's still a political calculation, as we saw.

And I can understand Bolton's case. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the things in his book happened and they're true. I know there's a counterargument. But Bolton is saying not only the trade issue, but he says that the president encouraged or endorsed Xi's idea of building what essentially were concentrates camps for the Uyghurs.

CAVUTO: Right.

MCCARTHY: So, he's saying if you look at everything he did in connection with China, this is much worse than Ukraine.

Well, maybe it is. You could say Ukraine was bad, and this is awful. And -- but the question is, is it enough, in terms of the ultimate force of it, that you would make a political calculation that the president needs to be removed from office, that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor, such that two-thirds of the Senate would be moved to remove the president from office?

And I just think that, given the fact that we have this history in our system of presidents kind of conflating their political interests with the national interests, and the fact that we have an election in four months, and people will be able to weigh what they think of the fairly transactional nature of what the president, how he conducts business, it's a political track.

We will see what happens on Election Day. I don't think it's a legal thing.

CAVUTO: All right, we will watch it very closely. Andy McCarthy, thank you very, very much.

Meantime, the book isn't the only thing getting some currency in Washington right now and slapping down the president, so too a Supreme Court decision that surprised a lot of folks, because, well, the conservatives on the court tipped it to the liberals.

So, dreamers in this country are very, very happy. And, by the way, so is the president of Microsoft.

He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)  CAVUTO: All right, dreamers in this country, better than 660,000 of them, relieved to hear that the Supreme Court essentially said, you can stay here right now, even though the administration was leading an effort to sort of get rid of their protections granted them.

They are, of course, the children of illegals who came here as babies, or not much older, and, through no fault of their own, are kind of in this legal limbo.

The Supreme Court effectively said that this is something that's going to have to be sorted out, and it's not necessarily the high court that's going to do that.

But Brad Smith welcomes this development, Brad Smith, of course, the president of Microsoft, for what it could mean in this country beyond just these individuals affected.

Brad, very good to have you.


CAVUTO: Why do you welcome this decision today?

SMITH: Well, Microsoft was one of the companies that brought this case to the Supreme Court, in part because we have 62 employees ourselves who are registered DACA individuals.

But, more than that, it really is based on what you said. These are people who came to this country as kids. They're law-abiding. They came forward and registered with the government. And more than that, they are really talented. They're important to our company. They're important to small and large businesses across the country.

They're especially important. Right now, there are 30,000 of them working as nurses, as respiratory therapists. They are treating people across the country if they come down with COVID-19. We need them.

CAVUTO: So, when you hear that -- the way this all started, as you know better than anyone, Brad, that this president criticized his predecessor for being arbitrary and capricious in setting up this DACA by essentially executive fiat, executive order.

The odd thing about the majority 5-4 ruling out of the Supreme Court was, the judges used the almost identical words to describe his actions to end it.

What did you make of that?

SMITH: Well, I think Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the court today, crafted a narrow and balanced path.

They didn't try to issue a sweeping decision that would tie the hands of this administration or another in the future. They did say that this needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully if DACA is going to be changed.

I think that's the right thing for us to remember. We need a thoughtful conversation as a country about the right path forward. I think it's even worth remembering that, when President Trump rescinded DACA in the fall of 2017, he did it with a six-month delay because he wanted Congress to act.

CAVUTO: Right.

SMITH: And that is again where we are. We need the Congress, and not the White House alone, to work on this.

CAVUTO: Yes. And I think the Supreme Court decision seemed to telegraph that as the only logical solution.

Having said that, though, this comes at a time, maybe with the cover of the virus or what have you, that a lot of people say the administration is moving to cut back on those who even want legal entry into the U.S. or back into the U.S., those who have green cards and the like.

I know that's a big base of potential workers for you and other technology companies, scores of companies, period. Is that still a worry for you? The administration is arguing, we want to make sure we know exactly who's coming in here and when and what they're up to.

But your thoughts?

SMITH: Well, I think as a company, we aim to do three things.

First of all, most of the people we hire in the United States are, as they should be, American citizens. Second, we're at a particular moment in time when I think we need to invest in more skilling for the American population. We're seeing digital technologies accelerate.

As a company, as a country, we need to help people acquire more digital skills. And then there is a role for immigrants who come in lawfully or who have registered properly, say, under DACA.

In many cases, they're bringing the skills that the country needs. And we need to put all these three things together, because we need to create a future for people who are born here and, in appropriate cases, for people who come here.

CAVUTO: You know, I'd be remiss if I didn't focus on a development that doesn't so much concern Microsoft, Brad, but obviously going after Google, YouTube and all of this about what is conservative speech.

And many have grappled with that and said that they -- this is part of an effort right now to shut down conservative thought, but all of this coming at the same time regulators here and abroad are going after a number of U.S. technology concerns.

Do you ever look around at these developments and see fires growing here?

SMITH: Well, every day, I get up and I see a world that's on fire in so many ways.

And I do think that many of these fires, these hot issues of the day, do affect technology, and they do raise important issues for the tech sector. And you're right to point out, these concerns about technology are not confined to the United States.

I do think we're at a moment in time when we in the tech sector need to step up. And, of course, part of the way we need to step up is to ensure that a variety of voices across the political spectrum always have the opportunity to be heard.

I think that's really the definition of what we expect in the United States. But, in addition, other countries have been calling on the tech sector to do more to fight terrorism online, to protect children online.

So, there are a number of issues that we need to work through. And, in part, that involves the tech sector doing more itself. In part, it requires a new generation of laws. And it's right that the Congress began to focus on these questions.

CAVUTO: Brad Smith, I want to thank you very much. I know you have got a crazy day. We appreciate your taking some time.

Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft.

In the meantime, no doubt Senator Tom Cotton might have picked up some of Mr. Smith's remarks. There is a focus right now in Washington as to whether big tech is a little bit too big-time biased -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)  CAVUTO: Many conservatives in Congress say there ought to be a law.

What they're talking about is the big tech companies that have a big tech bias against conservative thought and Republican thinking in general. They're leading an effort right now to target companies like Google and others who practice political censorship that usually goes after conservative thinking and views, not so much liberal thinking and views.

Senator Tom Cotton is working on a big crackdown. He joins us right now, the Arkansas senator with us right now.

Senator, good to have you.

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: What are we looking at doing here? What do you want to see done?

COTTON: Well, Neil, too often, big tech companies, especially social media companies, engage in unfair and biased moderation of comments or posts. Sometimes, they delete them. Sometimes, they lock down accounts entirely.

I revealed this week on the FOX News Web site my own story of that kind of censorship. Just a little over a couple weeks ago, Twitter contacted me about posts I made about the writing and the looting and the way to respond to them and said...

CAVUTO: Right.

COTTON: ... these were in violation of our policies, and you have 30 minutes to delete them. They gave us shifting explanations.

Sometimes, they were conflicting explanations. We called their bluff. We sent them my arguments for why those posts should remain up. We didn't hear back from them for almost two hours. And they said, you can keep your account.

Now, I'm a United States senator. I have other ways to make my voice heard on the Senate floor, for instance. But just imagine all the conservatives out there on social media or who run conservative Web sites who are at the whims of big tech.

You saw that this week, when NBC News and Google almost deplatformed The Federalist, a popular conservative news site, for the comments, not articles posted on The Federalist, but for the comments.

CAVUTO: Right.

COTTON: So, what we propose to do, Senators Hawley, Rubio, Braun and I, is to limit the immunity that these social media companies have from legal liability if they're engaged in that kind of censorship, that kind of curation of content.

They can either be neutral platforms, where everyone can speak, or they can be regulated platforms, and have to face the consequences for those actions. But they can't be both.

CAVUTO: Or you can have no fact-checkers, no one policing, and like the Wild West, right? I mean, there is a separate concern.

I think Facebook is trying to walk this line: We don't believe in fact- checkers. It can come back to bite us if we fact-check the president or if you fact-check a prominent liberal.

So, what do you think of that? Is that the solution? Because what's at stake, as you know, Senator, is a very successful, thriving technology industry. And these behemoths, say what you will of them, make Americans a lot of money. Obviously, they make a lot of money, and they are the standard for the world.

What do you do? How do you balance that?

COTTON: Well, Neil, at a minimum, these companies need to provide more transparency and consistency.

Again, take my example from a couple of weeks ago. We got an ultimatum that gave us less than 30 minutes to either censor my own posts or to allow Twitter to permanently lock down my account. They wouldn't put anything in writing. They very carefully avoided putting anything in writing.

And when we pointed out some of the policy inconsistencies that they cited to us, then they just came up with new explanations. And, again, if they will do that to a sitting United States senator, what will they do to a regular Web site or to conservative citizens who just want to make their voices heard?

That's why, at a minimum, they need to be more transparent and consistent. And if they're not going to offer that kind of transparency and consistency, if they are going to engage in carefully moderating the content they provide, and censoring opinions that they don't like, even when those opinions garner majority support repeatedly at the polls or in surveys, then they ought not to enjoy the extraordinary immunity from liability that the laws have given them.

CAVUTO: If I can switch gears a little here, because you're right, there's a back-and-forth here. A lot of liberals have typically gone after these guys who have gotten too big for their britches, so there's an effort to rein them in that way, the same abroad, Senator.

But I did want to get your quick thoughts on this Bolton book that is out on the president, more or less saying that he got a little too cozy with China and, through Xi Jinping, was even trying to all but plead that the Chinese buy agricultural goods, that it would help him out in the 2020 election.

A, do you believe that? And, B, if he did something like that, Bolton seemed to be intimating that's an impeachable offense. What do you think?

COTTON: Well, so, first, Neil, let me say, I haven't read the book. I have seen some of the media excerpts on it. But, no, I thought many of the claims to be simply implausible.

Let's take one about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Mr. Bolton claims that Mike Pompeo passed him a note during a summit with President Trump and Kim Jong-un, and that that handwritten note by Secretary Pompeo insulted the president.

I find that to be completely implausible, based on my personal relationship and years of history with Mike Pompeo. If it is the case, then Mr. Bolton could presumably produce that note in Mike Pompeo's handwriting, since he is, as everyone knows, a very careful and methodical notetaker and collector of information.

And I think that one episode reflects on many of the claims. To cite the one you gave, I'm sure that President Trump repeatedly, in his conversations with Xi Jinping, emphasized that America's farmers have not been getting a fair shake from the Chinese Communist Party for years, and that, in fact, that was one of the main objectives of the president in trying to get better trade terms with China, is to get their markets opened up to our farmers.

That's a completely appropriate posture for the president to take.

CAVUTO: All right, we will see.

The passing note thing, you're not buying. I think, at one of the summit events, they were sitting next to each other, Bolton and Pompeo, but it -- you don't think any nasty notes were exchanged. We will see, like you said.

Senator, Senator Cotton, very good having you, my friend.

CAVUTO: All right.

We have a lot more coming up, including in Atlanta right now, where protesters are gathering. Of course, this thing is not going away. In fact, some of the issues that are involved in multiple police incidents, they're not going away either -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, a different type of event in Atlanta, Georgia, today, police in a sick-out because, right now, they're bummed, and they think that everyone is targeting them.

The story you're not hearing -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, forget about shouting it out, in the case of law enforcement in Atlanta, today, just to a sick-out.

The fallout from that and what they say is an unfair targeting of all policemen.

Steve Harrigan in Atlanta with more on that.

Hey, Steve.

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, the very latest is the two officers involved in that Friday shooting of Rayshard Brooks have now turned themselves in.

The officer who did not fire a shot, Devin Brosnan, turned himself in earlier this morning. He faces the charge of aggravated assault. He was released on bond after about an hour, but no bond for Garrett Rolfe. He, of course, faces 11 charges, including the most serious charge of felony murder. He could be facing life in prison or even the death penalty. No bond for him.

And, of course, as this goes on, there has been a reaction from the police in Atlanta. An unspecified number of police did not show up for their shift on Wednesday night. The mayor of Atlanta saying, despite that, the city was still covered. She wasn't sure how many police did not show up.

Also, the Atlanta Police Department sending out an unusual tweet, saying they were still effectively responding to 911 calls. The police sick-out, which began Wednesday evening, it's not clear if that protest will continue into tonight -- Neil, back to you.

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

Republican Senator John Cornyn on all these developments, by the way, is, I think, among the first establishment Republicans to say Juneteenth should become a federal holiday, and that we should be paying more attention to these -- to these issues.

Gianno Caldwell, I want to get his take on that, helps out with a lot of these issues, the runaway bestseller "Taken For Granted," in which he sort of chronicles how African-Americans have kind of been following Democrats, and sometimes getting nothing for it.



CAVUTO: ... first of all, on this push to make Juneteenth a national holiday, Democrats are pushing it, now a prominent Republican.

What do you think of that?

CALDWELL: Well, I support it.

And, honestly, what people don't know, Juneteenth was established by Republicans. As we all know, Lincoln freed the slaves. So, I absolutely support that.

CAVUTO: So, this move to be more conscious of these issues, and then what you have, this sick-out in Atlanta, Gianno, I'm just wondering whether we're treating all sides fairly here.

CALDWELL: You know, I think what we have seen, especially when it comes to the police, we have seen people rightfully call for reform.

If you see a recent poll, 59 percent of Americans say that police departments across this country should be reformed. I'm one of those individuals who says that.

In addition, you see people who are really targeting the police. I'm reminded of an incident in a restaurant where somebody put bleach in some drinks that officers were drinking.

And it's very, very disappointing, because that's not where we really get true reform. I'm proud to see Senator Tim Scott and what he's doing. I wrote a piece on that came out today and one the other day where I talked about the Justice Act, and how it is so necessitous to reform the system of police.

So, there's some good things in here. We talk about body cameras, funding for body cameras, making lynching a hate crime, training for police. Those are all good things.

But there's something that I did point out which I believe should be on the table. And that's the fear of life standard that a lot of officers have invoked in some of these high-profile cases where, objectively, when we look at the video, we can't understand how an officer would fear for his life and use deadly force.

People don't understand this, but this came out of the Supreme Court decision Graham v. Connor in 1988, which allowed for officers who believe that it was objectively reasonable to use deadly force to do so, thereby creating an environment where so many officers get off, when they shouldn't get off.

Now, when we talk about the Atlanta situation, I think that's a different set of circumstances. It's certainly not George Floyd. I think, with that officer, he was in his rights to use force. I don't think that he handled the situation correctly to begin with. He should have been fired.

He should have de-escalated the situation. But there was an individual running away from him who was looking to aim his Taser at him. So I think that's a different set of circumstances.

However, in these many other cases, where officers have used this fear of life standard, we have to put that on the table and see what can happen there that we can appropriately use such a standard.

CAVUTO: What I always enjoy about you, Gianno, is, you don't carry anyone's water. You look at a balanced way of addressing this. You step back, and not speaking simply as an African-American or just someone who might be more of a conservative thinker, just a way to move forward.

CALDWELL: Thank you.

CAVUTO: That's a rare gem, my friend. Thank you very much, Gianno Caldwell.


CAVUTO: Makes you think here. There's enough on both sides to at least step back and calmly find a solution to all of this.

In the meantime, this rush right now to sort of get rid of you have heard about Civil War monuments and even renaming Army bases that might have been named originally after Confederate soldiers.

Chad Pergram following a new development here, where it extends to portraits of former speakers of the House -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Neil, in just the past few minutes, they have removed some of these portraits of former speakers at the House who had ties to the Confederacy.

Now, this is not the first time that they have removed a portrait of a former House speaker. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert had his portrait removed a few years ago, after it was found that he had molested teenagers when he was a high school wrestling coach.

As you know, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to remove some of the Confederate statues around the Capitol. She could not do that unilaterally. So she has started with these portraits. Listen.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): There's no room in the hallowed halls of this democracy, this temple of democracy, to memorialize people who embody violent bigotry and grotesque racism of the Confederacy.


PERGRAM: Now, here's the list of the former speakers, Robert Hunter of Virginia, Howell Cobb of Georgia, James Orr of South Carolina, and Charles Crisp of Georgia.

Those portraits hung until just a few minutes ago by the Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor.

Now, Pelosi notes that Orr once declared on the House floor that he wanted to -- quote -- "perpetuate slavery to enjoy our property in peace, quiet and security."

There was an effort in the Senate today to remove Confederate statues at the Capitol, but that was blocked. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell worries about a slippery slope.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Clearly a bridge too far is this nonsense that we need to airbrush the Capitol and scrub out everybody from years ago who had any connection to slavery.


PERGRAM: Now, the next thing to look for is the annual appropriations process. Will there be language in those spending bills, Neil, that deal with trying to remove some of these Confederate statues here at the Capitol, or maybe try to rename some of the military installations?

Back to you.

CAVUTO: Chad, where was this rage, though, to remove these portraits of these former speakers, some of whom's paintings have been hanging out for the better part of a century or more? When did that ever come up?

PERGRAM: Well, you know, what's funny is that nobody even knew much about these.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated, when they were researching the question of the Confederate statues at the Capitol, it came up about these four figures. I knew a little bit about Cobb, frankly. I know this place fairly well, but I didn't even know much about these speakers. They were pretty obscure speakers, in the vast design of speakers here at the Capitol.

And Roy Blunt, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, when he was asked by Cory Booker today, he noted -- he said, maybe this should have been looked at some time ago. There was no outrage from Democrats before.

But this is going to be an issue that's going to continue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can't just pull out these statues on her own. That's something that they have to have an agreement with the Senate. And what Congress can do, it's up to the states to send these statues. They decide who the statues are.

But Congress can decide where you put them, and some of them, they can stash in the basement, if they really want to, Neil.

CAVUTO: Chad, thank you very, very much.

Be careful what you wish for, I guess to Chad's point here, because what could be next, the White House removing portraits of who owned slaves, and George Washington, Thomas Jefferson? Be careful.

More after this.


CAVUTO: All right, we had a Republican Arkansas senator, Tom Cotton, on with us earlier who wants to go after Google and companies like that, Twitter, that have what he says is a double standard when it comes to policing content that's conservative vs. more liberal content.

Steve Moore is as conservative as you get at, but he says, be careful what you wish for, Senator. The FreedomWorks economist, the Trump Economic Recovery Task Force maestro, joins us right now.

Steve, one of the things that struck me about your position is, it flies in the face of this growing movement to rein in these guys. You're no fan, a biased opinion, of course, but you do see the value a lot of these companies bring in terms of jobs, the money they make, and the influence they have worldwide.

And they're all American.

STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, Neil, you're right. I am a conservative. I do not like the liberal bias of a lot of these big tech companies, whether it's Google or whether it's Amazon or Facebook or Twitter.

But, you know, what I really do like is how amazing these companies are at doing what they do, which is creating this incredible technological revolution.

And it's a good time to talk about this, Neil, because we -- I would submit -- and I made this point in my article on FOX News -- that, without the brilliance of our high-technology industries, we would not have been able to get through this pandemic. We would have seen millions of potential deaths.

People would have -- we wouldn't have been able to have the millions of people working at home. You wouldn't have had -- hospitals wouldn't have been able to function, probably Zoom and all these kinds of technologies that are so new.

So, my point is like, it's not broke. These are companies that are -- what, five of them are near trillion-dollar companies. Those are owned by Americans, for the most part. And I think it's a good thing that these are American companies, that Google and Apple and Amazon and Facebook are American companies, at a time when we're concerned about China trying to take over the technology industries.

CAVUTO: Does the president know you're saying this and writing all this stuff? Because that could be troublesome for you.


MOORE: Well, you know...

CAVUTO: I'm kidding.

MOORE: Yes, I know.

CAVUTO: But, Steve, let me ask you a little bit about where this goes, because they want to rein them in, whether it's the Europeans, who want to chop them up, some in Washington want to do that, or at least police how they police their content.

What do you think of that?

MOORE: Well, look, I'm not an expert on this content issue, so let me be very clear on that.

I don't like censorship. And I will just say, if the Congress wants to impose rules...

CAVUTO: Well, they're saying -- they're saying, conservatives bad, liberals good. That's what it comes down to.

MOORE: Right. And, look, I think. ..


CAVUTO: And Republicans don't like that.

MOORE: And you know what?


MOORE: I have told some of these executives in Silicon Valley, you guys are being very foolish here.

I mean, why would you want to alienate half of your consumers by being so liberal, by giving 90 percent of your money to Democratic liberal causes? And I think that's going to hopefully change over time.

My point is that these are great companies that have created great technology.

CAVUTO: All right.

MOORE: By the way, while you have got some people on the Republican side attacking these companies, let's not forget you have got Elizabeth Warren, who is about as liberal as you can get, who wants to break up these tech companies through antitrust violations.

CAVUTO: That's right. That's right.

MOORE: I don't like that idea at all.

CAVUTO: All right.

By the way, this is as close as you're ever going to get to the White House right now with what you're just saying.

(LAUGHTER)  CAVUTO: But, Steve Moore, thank you very, very much.

That was a very bad joke, and I will just move on.

We have much more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)  CAVUTO: All right, the president's Tulsa rally is still on, his first big campaign event after the whole coronavirus situation.

Casey Stegall in Tulsa with virus concerns that are still out there, some even being espoused by prominent Republicans who love the president -- Casey.

CASEY STEGALL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil, there's a lot of mixed reactions on the ground here in Oklahoma.

The mayor of this city says that they're very honored that the president chose this location to restart his campaign rallies. But you also have health officials that say they're worried because of the timing of this event and because it is at an indoor location, especially after a recent uptick in new coronavirus cases across the state of Oklahoma, especially in Tulsa, where the just this week the county has recorded its largest single- day increases of new cases since this pandemic began.

But it appears plans are moving forward. So they have issued this morning:


DR. BRUCE DART, DIRECTOR, TULSA HEALTH DEPARTMENT: I know so many people are over COVID. But COVID is not over.

COVID is here. It's transmitting very efficiently in our community. If you're in public, wear a mask, social distance, pay close attention to handwashing and hygiene, and keep yourself safe and healthy.


STEGALL: President Trump, anxious to get back on the campaign trail, quoted in The Wall Street Journal saying, "It's going to be a hell of a night."

The president and his administration largely downplaying the latest COVID numbers, attributing these spikes to increased testing and media hype.

But the scientific data does show that overall COVID hospitalizations in a state like Texas, for example, have increased 84 percent since Memorial Day. Leaders in Austin and in San Antonio have issued orders requiring face masks now to be worn inside of businesses, Houston and Dallas considering similar ordinances.

And just this afternoon, the California governor also requiring basically all Californians to wear a face mask or covering anywhere essentially outside the home, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very, very much, Casey Stegall in Tulsa, where the rally is still on Saturday night, one way or the other.

It will be vastly oversubscribed. They do not have enough tickets to go around -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, tomorrow we're going to be talking to the head of the flight attendants union.

And she has been insisting for a long, long time everybody's got to wear a mask right now, if you're going get to a plane, get to the airport, on the plane.

The back-and-forth on that, because even some in the industry are saying, maybe, when you're on the plane, you can take it off. She says, don't even think about it. At Atlanta, it's the law.

Here comes "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.