This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 2, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: The southern border melting down, the White House doubling down, and Congress just watching it all go down.
Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."
And FOX on top of border officials on alert. Homeland Security saying, our immigration system is -- quote -- "on fire."
Now DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is sending an additional 750 agents to the border, as officials say we are trending toward 100,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants every month.
To FOX's John Roberts at the White House on what the president is demanding of Congress right now -- John.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon to you.
In a conference call this morning, DHS officials said that the system is melting down across the board. And the fact that they have now had to reallocate a lot of Customs and Border Protection officials to areas that are usually patrolled by the Border Patrol is having an economic impact already.
But the president today seeming to dial back just a little bit the imminence of a potential border closing, saying that, in recent days, Mexico has really sort of stepped up to the plate and is apprehending people who are coming in from the Northern Triangle countries to try to get up to the United States, but insisting that Mexico and Congress need to do more, or he will shut down the border.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Mexico is now stopping people coming. Very easy for them to do stopping people coming in through Mexico. Let's see if they keep it done, if -- if they keep doing that. Now, if they don't, or if we don't make a deal with Congress, the border is going to be closed, 100 percent.
Or we're going to close large sections of the border, maybe not all of it. But it's the only way we're getting a response. And I'm totally ready to do it. And I will say this. Many people want me to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: The president is trying to put pressure on Mexico and Congress to do something about the situation by threatening to close the border.
The president also putting pressure on those Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras by cutting off foreign aid to them, which Democrats say is just a horrible idea.
Here's House Speaker Pelosi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This is not a good idea. In other words, if the fact is, is we want to keep people at home, the point is, is to have the resources that make that more feasible. So, no, I don't know who's advising him there.
And advising is even a word. I don't know who's poisoning his mind on some of these subjects.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: The president does acknowledge, Charles, that there would be a pretty significant economic impact if he were to close the border. The White House is coming up with some plans to mitigate that impact.
One idea being kicked around is that they would close off pedestrian and personal travel across the border, but they would leave open the truck lane, so the commerce could still get across. I mentioned at the top there's already an impact here, because of the fact Customs and Border Protection officials have been moved from ports of entry to areas in land.
At Brownsville, Texas, the average wait to get across the board and yesterday was three hours. And in Otay Mesa, which is east of San Diego, the border crossing there, there were 150 trucks lined up on the Mexican side waiting to get in.
So, already, we're seeing cross-border commerce being affected, but Charles, nothing compared to how it would be if the president shut down the border.
PAYNE: Absolutely, John. Thank you very much.
So, with DHS and the White House stepping up efforts to deal with this crisis, should Congress be doing the same?
Let's ask Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy, Democratic strategist Zach Friend, and The Washington Examiner's Siraj Hashmi.
Rachel, let me start with you.
Ultimately, this is Congress' responsibility. They either punt, look the other way, have just fumbled this time after time.
RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, there was no lack of effort on the Republican side. If you recall, in the summer, they tried to pass an immigration bill that included changes to the asylum law, because, again, it's the enticing of people to come using our asylum laws, abusing our asylum laws that is causing this crisis at the border.
I will say, Charles, that, up until now, Democrats and the media outside of Fox have been able to say this is not a crisis. I think you're seeing a little crack in that. Last week, my husband, Representative Sean Duffy, was on CNN on Chris Cuomo's show and he said there was no crisis.
This week, he did a -- he did a series or a show on the border. And now he even admits that the word crisis doesn't even begin to explain what's happening and how bad it is. So, my guess is, if the president keeps drawing attention to the problem and, more importantly, if Border Patrol keeps educating the American public, there's a chance, a chance that maybe the American people will actually demand even of their Democrat Congress men and women that they do something about this problem.
PAYNE: Yes, there's no doubt, particularly since Jeh Johnson sort of just said, hey, forget politics, 1,000 apprehensions a day was bad, 4,000 is a nightmare. It's a crisis.
PAYNE: Zach, President Trump also saying today, though, the Democrats don't want this to change that. If they were to fix, it would be seen as a GOP victory.
Are politics that divided in this nation that we won't resolve these issues because of that?
ZACH FRIEND, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I sure as heck hope not, Charles, but I will say that it is also true that the president had both houses of Congress for the last couple of years, and so it would have been good to work with them during that time.
But now that it's a divided Congress, I think that, realistically, if he wants a deal, he's going to have to come to the table on a lot of issues, including something like DACA.
I will also say, though, I think that, politically, it would be an absolute disaster for him to close down the border. Some of the seats that actually flipped Congress include Southern California, some of the border states. We have got a 2020 election in Arizona that could help decide the balance of the Senate.
They would have catastrophic economic impacts if he shut down the border. So, I think, politically, it actually doesn't make a lot of sense for him move forward on that.
But I couldn't agree with you more. And I also agree with Rachel on this, that, realistically, we need to cut through the partisanship here, because we do have a significant issue. I would argue it's a humanitarian crisis, more than it's an illegal immigrant crisis.
But, either way, it's still some sort of crisis that needs to be addressed by both parties.
PAYNE: Yes. And now that everyone acknowledges, maybe, Siraj, it will happen.
But I also do want to say, we heard President Trump earlier today saying he understands the economic risk in doing this. Nevertheless, he feels like he may be pushed toward that, while acknowledging that Mexico is now apprehending people at their southern border.
SIRAJ HASHMI, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes, I mean, he also made the case when he was implementing tariffs against countries like China, that he was willing to do it to offset the imbalance, the trade imbalance against the United States.
And certainly that hurt a lot of farmers in Middle America. But if you're looking at, obviously, the immigration issue right now, there's very little incentive to actually get things done in Congress and at the White House, given the fact that we have got an election coming up in about a year-and- a-half.
And Democrats and Republicans find it in their interest to push and demagogue the issue and blame the other side in particular, so that they can really resonate with their base.
PAYNE: You know, though, Rachel, when President Trump spoke earlier, and he called the idea of going to court as an asylum seeker, he mentioned Perry Mason and saying maybe 1 or 2 percent go to court, and no one knows why they even show up.
It does underscore the fact that the system is so broken, that, if you are desperate, even if you're not a legal asylum seeker, but even if you're looking for economic opportunity, you're going to take that risk.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, I don't blame anybody who wants to come to America. I mean, who wouldn't? But there are laws and we're a country of laws.
And so there's one party that says, let's make legal pathways for people to come. And there's another party that's saying, no, we think it's in our electoral interest to do this.
Frankly, I -- as a Hispanic person myself, I think it's a cheap way of winning Hispanic votes. I think President Trump is actually winning Hispanics the proper way, which is by enhancing their -- their economic opportunity in this country, which is the data is undeniable that Hispanics are doing better under this presidency.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: But the border crisis, this is an American issue. And I think the Democrats think it's a way to win the Hispanic vote, that maybe these illegal immigrants today might be future voters for them tomorrow.
I think it's a cheap way to win votes. I think it's a bad way to win votes. And I think that, in the end, again, if the American people are properly educated on what's happening at the border by the people on the ground, the Border Patrol, who, by the way, a 52 percent Hispanic force, so no calls of racism there.
If the American people know what's happening, I think they will demand change from the Democrats. And they may have to move, but it's difficult in a presidential year.
PAYNE: Everyone who's been down there is saying the same thing. It is a crisis. Everyone acknowledges the problem. Maybe that's a big hurdle. We have cleared a big hurdle to getting a solution.
Thank you all very much.
So, the question now, what exactly, if anything, is Congress the going to do about this?
Arizona Republican Andy Biggs will join us later in the hour.
But, first, a key vote coming on Wednesday, as House Democrats look to subpoena the full, unredacted Mueller report. But can the attorney general release it?
The judge is next.
PAYNE: Democrats preparing a subpoena to obtain the full, unredacted Mueller report, despite Attorney General William Barr promising he would release a version to Congress later this month.
Chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel is on Capitol Hill -- Mike.
MIKE EMANUEL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon.
Yes, six House committee chairs are pressing Attorney General William Barr, writing -- quote -- "On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee plans to begin the process of authorizing subpoenas for the report and underlying evidence and materials. While we hope to avoid -- avoid resort to compulsory process, if the department is unwilling to produce the report to Congress in unredacted form, then we will have little choice but to take such action."
The six committee chairs are Jerrold Nadler, Judiciary, Elijah Cummings, Oversight, Adam Schiff, Intelligence, Maxine Waters, Financial Services, Richard Neal, Ways and Means, and Eliot Engel, Foreign Affairs.
This afternoon, President Trump complained, Democrats will never be satisfied.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So there's no collusion, there's no obstruction. And now we're going to start this process all over again? I think it's a disgrace.
These are just Democrats that want to try and demean this country. And it shouldn't be allowed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: Still, Democrats continue pushing for the full Mueller report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN, D-MD: You look at every prior case of an independent counsel and a special counsel, they have turned it -- they have turned over the entire report within a day or two.
So what's taking place here is a sharp break from precedent, and it's indefensible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: A key conservative says transparency is fine, but not releasing sensitive material.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Everything should be released that should is legal. We should have everything that Bill Barr has promised.
And I believe it will be, but it shouldn't have classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: The attorney general says by mid-April. Democrats are saying they want it now -- Charles.
PAYNE: Mike, thank you very much.
So, even if Democrats voted forward it, could Bill Barr actually do it? An unredacted version of the report might never be seen.
To Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.
ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: Charles.
PAYNE: Can it be done? I mean, we heard one of the Democrats saying it was -- it has been done in the past.
NAPOLITANO: Well, he's correct. It has been done in the past.
But the circumstances were different. And the regulations were different. If you ask me literally, can Bill Barr, the attorney general, take that report and hand it to Congress, the answer's no, because he is regulated by -- and this is a phrase everybody's going to here pretty soon -- something called a 6(e) -- 6(e) is a section of the federal rules of criminal procedure, which prohibits the government, when it has evidence of guilt of someone who has not been indicted, from -- from revealing that -- from -- sorry -- from revealing that evidence.
This is the rule that James Comey violated when he said, we're not going to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, but here's all the evidence we have against her.
So if the attorney general wants to reveal this to Congress, or if Congress feels it's been short-circuited and didn't get everything it wants, they have to go to a federal judge. Only a federal judge can override 6(e).
PAYNE: So -- but who's the person, and is it person or persons that you're referring to in this report?
NAPOLITANO: Well, we -- one of them would be President Trump. There may be some evidence there that was presented to a grand jury of behavior that didn't rise to the level where they could prove guilt.
There may be others. Everybody thought, for example, Jerome Corsi was going to be indicted. So there may be some evidence in there against him, but he wasn't indicted.
So this rule is intended to protect the privacy of those about whom the government has gathered evidence which doesn't rise to the level of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
PAYNE: Of course, the irony is, from a political point of view, that's exactly what the Democrats are hoping.
NAPOLITANO: It is.
And the president, either because he's very confident in himself -- and we know has a lot of self-confidence -- or because he has an idea of what's in the report -- has already said, go ahead. Release at all. I have nothing to hold back.
That might have been a dangerous statement, because it might very well be taken by the federal judge who will make this decision as a waiver of his privacy rights. We don't know.
We also don't know, Charles, if this report is just about him, or if this is the full report covering Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Jerome Corsi and all the other people that were investigated.
PAYNE: Four hundred pages, almost two years, interviews, subpoenas, it's an -- it's an enormous document. You would assume that everything is in it.
I do want to ask you, though, so, apparently, this Jaworski report from 1974 and the Starr report both were transmitted to Congress.
PAYNE: They both were not redacted.
PAYNE: They included grand jury statements, testimony. And you're saying that they were -- this rule that you referring to wasn't around back then?
NAPOLITANO: The rule was around, but it didn't pertain to this. This was a statute which no longer exists that appointed them.
Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski had far more independence than Bob Mueller did. Bob Mueller still worked for Rod Rosenstein and eventually Bill Barr. Jaworski and Starr had no boss. They were appointed by three judges. That statute doesn't exist anymore.
NAPOLITANO: Here's what the Democrats want to do. They want to second- guess Bill Barr and Bob Mueller about whether or not the evidence rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
They not only want the 450 or whatever it is, 45-page report.
PAYNE: They want the testimony.
NAPOLITANO: They want the underlying documents.
Do you know how voluminous that is? It's probably a few million pages of materials.
PAYNE: Wow. It's amazing. Amazing.
NAPOLITANO: I don't think this is over by a long shot.
PAYNE: All right, Judge, thank you very much.
NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.
PAYNE: Today was a mixed day for the markets, after yesterday's big rally, the Dow falling 79 points, but the Nasdaq and S&P 500 both rising to new highs for the year, and both now at their highest level since peaking last October.
Coming up, sick and tired of promises to end those robo-calls and nothing ever happens? Republican Senator John Thune says, that ends right now -- how he plans to put offenders behind those calls behind bars.
And backing by Nancy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden shouldn't disqualify him for running in 2020 -- that debate coming up at the bottom of the hour.
PAYNE: Forget fines. My next guest is calling to put robo-callers in jail.
Republican Senate Majority whip John Thune is co-sponsoring the TRACED Act and hopes it will soon become law.
Senator, welcome to the show.
SEN. JOHN THUNE, R-S.D.: Hi, Charles. Good afternoon.
PAYNE: I think you found a bipartisan topic everyone can get behind.
THUNE: Seems like it. I hope so. If not this, what, right?
I think most people across the country are incredibly frustrated, not to mention the vulnerable populations, the elderly, who get preyed upon by these scam robo-callers.
And what we're trying to do is ensure that there are sufficient deterrents in place from some of these violators to get these robo-calls, not only the inconvenient ones, but, more importantly, the scam ones, put to an end.
PAYNE: Sir, from what I have read, though, that the current deterrents, whether they're fines or anything else, just aren't enough, in part because some of these are offshore operators.
PAYNE: How would you go after them? How does the TRACED Act go after someone who may be in a different country pulling this off?
THUNE: Well, one thing is, I mean, we believe there's got to be a critical -- credible threat of criminal prosecution. And that doesn't exist today. There are fines levied in some cases, but if you're outside of the country, that doesn't affect you.
And we heard -- we had somebody come and testify in front of our committee a few months back who basically said that these fines are a cost of doing business. They actually build it into their model.
THUNE: And so there's got to be a stronger deterrent, stronger penalties, increasing the fines. We strengthen some of the legal authorities there that the FCC has.
But, more importantly, we believe there's going to have to be, in order to really provide a disincentive for some of these bad actors, the threat of criminal prosecution. And so our legislation attempts to get at that issue, and then also allows the telecommunications companies, gives them more tools to authenticate calls, and so that they can start -- start to filter some of these calls when they come in.
So there's really three prongs or three -- three parts of this process. But we believe that this is something that ought to move. And, certainly, there is a -- I think a desire for it to move by the American public.
PAYNE: There's no doubt.
And the cost of doing business, it's sort of like when you live in a big city, and you see these UPS trucks with a bunch of parking tickets, right? It just comes with the territory, but it's worth -- worth doing it.
PAYNE: But how -- the sophistication is amazing. We just had a conversation in the break.
I'm now getting prefixes on calls that look very similar to my phone number, my family's phone numbers. And the technology curve, staying ahead of that, are the new -- is the new punishment going to be enough to even be able to catch them?
THUNE: Well, I think it's certainly will make a dent in it.
And they are. The spoofing, or they -- where they use an area code that you recognize, is something that they have developed. But, obviously, the violators, the bad actors come up with new technologies to get around some of the filters that have been put in place already.
But we think that there is a real deterrent if you have the threat of criminal prosecution. Today, like I said, a lot of these financial penalties are simply something that they build into their business model.
And I think we have got to have more tools in place, not only when it comes to the threat of criminal prosecution, but also tools that the companies, the providers can use to authenticate these calls and make sure that whoever's calling you -- if someone's calling you to tell you that your flight has been canceled or your doctor appointment has been moved, things like that, obviously, we want to be able to allow to get through.
But most of the bad actors, the violators, are these folks who are just preying on people. And I think that's -- that's what we're trying to get at. And we think that this legislation will make a very serious attempt at that, and hopefully -- not going to end them all, probably, but certainly make a dent in it.
PAYNE: We're looking for 100-0 on that vote.
THUNE: I hope so.
PAYNE: I do want to switch gears a little bit, though, here.
President Trump tweeting out that the move to go after Obamacare and replace it will be a post-2020 issue for your party. Are you happy with that decision?
THUNE: I think it's a realistic one.
I think what the president concluded is that it's virtually impossible to get a health care overhaul reform bill through the Congress on the president's desk, when you have to deal with the Democrat House, whose main priority is to enact a $36 trillion one-size-fits-all government-run health care plan.
And so that's where Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House are coming from. And I think the president recognizes that, in order for us to get the kind of health care that will really lower costs and provide people in this country greater access, it's going to take a Republican House.
And I think he's concluded that the best way to get that is, after this next election, to go out and win the House, get him reelected. In the meantime, work incrementally on things that we can do, like prescription drug pricing. And that's an issue that's a big priority for a lot of Republicans here on Capitol Hill.
PAYNE: Senator John Thune, thank you very much. Always a pleasure. Thanks.
THUNE: Thanks, Charles. You bet.
PAYNE: New fallout, as former Vice President Joe Biden now faces two allegations of inappropriate conduct. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it won't disqualify him from a potential 2020 run. Is she right or wrong?
We will debate it right after this.
PAYNE: A serious security breach at Mar-a-Lago, President Trump's resort and residence in Florida. How the heck did it happen? It's an amazing story. Wait until you hear it.
We're back in 60 seconds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: I don't think it's disqualifying because I don't -- I think disqualifying is what your intention is.
I think that it's important for the vice president and others to understand this. It isn't what you intended. It's how it was received.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAYNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defending former Vice President Joe Biden against allegations of misconduct, saying that, while the former V.P. should be aware of his actions, the accusations are not disqualifying for a presidential run.
Does this help provide him cover to run?
GOP strategist Noelle Nikpour, attorney Leeza Garber, and Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro.
Capri, I'm going to start with you.
CAPRI CAFARO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Sure.
PAYNE: I also read that she said that Joe Biden's got to join the straight-arm club and just pretend that he has a cold and everybody else has a cold.
CAFARO: Who said that?
PAYNE: I read somewhere that maybe Nancy Pelosi said that.
CAFARO: Oh. Well, she...
PAYNE: But does he to do that, though?
CAFARO: Well, look, I mean, I think he probably does have to adapt to this post-#MeToo world.
But I think what we need to think about here is, who are the people that are saying that, yes, maybe Joe Biden is a little too gregarious, maybe a little too, you know, friendly, so to speak?
People that actually know him. People like Nancy Pelosi, like Meghan McCain, even people like Alyssa Milano, who spearheaded the MeToo movement are saying, look, this is not that.
PAYNE: Except, though, for the woman in Nevada, the Democrat in Nevada, and the woman at the fund-raiser.
CAFARO: Agreed, but here's the thing.
The two people that have come forward, do they really know him? Or is this a one-time thing?
PAYNE: But isn't that the point, though, that you shouldn't touch someone that you don't know?
CAFARO: I -- look, I don't disagree. But, I mean -- and I do agree with Nancy Pelosi that, you know, this is something about how it is received, rather than what the -- maybe what Joe Biden was about.
CAFARO: But this isn't about these issues. To me, this is about trying to marginalize Joe Biden before he gets in the race, because there are progressives out there that don't want to see him in.
PAYNE: I think a lot of people agree with that, Noelle, that this is a political setup.
I mean, listen, the other stuff has been around for a while. We know -- be that as it may, though, it's interesting that this is now emanating out of the party. As a Republican watching this from afar, how do you -- how do you see it playing out?
NOELLE NIKPOUR, REPUBLICAN FUND-RAISER: Well, one of the things that is very odd to me is, a long time ago, we used to look for candidates that had that connectability, that would actually be hands-on, that would grab the baby.
PAYNE: Right. Exactly. Kiss the baby, hug the crowd.
NIKPOUR: Kiss the baby, hug, and don't be so cold. Don't be -- like, Mitt Romney did not have a warm presence. And that hurt him with that connectability.
Joe Biden has -- he has ability to connect. He's warm and loving and whatever. We need to really all watch the line between men being affectionate and being sexual predators. There's a big difference in somebody having a sexually unwanted advance vs. somebody with a greeting.
Look, I'm from the South. We hug when we see people.
CAFARO: Right. And I'm Italian.
CAFARO: We get in people's face. It doesn't mean anything.
PAYNE: And I will say, from -- personally -- in the last year-and-a-half, I'm a hugger.
PAYNE: I have had to stop. I have tried. I mean, I just -- when I see people that I know, I hug them. And it's -- just, unfortunately, that's the world we're in.
But, from a legal perspective, Leeza, you know, maybe there's nothing there, but more -- as more and more women come forward, if they do, this does change the dynamic looks at the story, doesn't it?
LEEZA GARBER, ATTORNEY: It certainly changed the dynamics.
And I think, when we're having this conversation about whether it's disqualifying, it's not disqualifying. But is it -- is Nancy Pelosi calling his behavior defensible? I think it's indefensible.
Regardless of whether you know him personally or how he acts, there's a huge gap in understanding what these actions mean. And even though they're not sexual advances, they're very disrespectful.
CAFARO: Well, and I think that this is -- this is the issue, though.
GARBER: But it's not going to discourage him from running.
CAFARO: It may or may not.
I think that there, again, is a group out there trying to say, look, Joe Biden, quit while you're ahead. End as being vice president. Don't embarrass yourself, et cetera.
You have Republicans also jumping on the bandwagon. But I think that there is a generational gap of understanding here where -- and I'm not defending that, because you do have to evolve.
GARBER: But I think it's a cop-out to call it a generational gap, because you have other candidates that are older.
We have people in politics that are older, over 70, over 80 even, and still it's just a lack of understanding, getting into a 2019 mind-set.
PAYNE: Speaking of which, ironically, it's the other -- it's the other old guy in the race that a lot of people in the Biden camp are blaming, right, Bernie Sanders, who himself had good news, right? His campaign announced that they have raised a whopping $18.2 million in the first quarter of this presidential race.
So could fund-raising be another worry for the former V.P.?
I mean, the longer he waits, Capri, it seems like the further behind he's going to be on this fund-raising, which wasn't his strength in the first place.
No, I think that that is definitely an issue. And I do think that Joe Biden may have fallen prey to the Hillary Clinton syndrome. And what I mean by that is, he is someone that I think assumed, because he is ahead in the polls, which, frankly, has to do with name recognition, at least to a great degree, that he figured as soon as he gets in the race, he is going to scare everybody else away, and that it's going to be his.
I think he may have waited too long. With this -- these allegations piling on, it may be even more difficult for him to raise money. I think it's going to be an uphill battle.
NIKPOUR: That's one of the things that I noticed.
And I have got a lot of friends on the opposite side of the street, and they were doing fund-raisers for Kamala Harris. They were doing fund- raisers for Cory Booker. And I started thinking, uh-oh, if these big cats are already holding fund-raisers in L.A. and different parts of the United States, where does that leave Joe Biden?
Because if you have already committed with your -- with your pocketbook, and you have already hosted a huge-million dollar fund-raiser in your home, you're not going to be doing it for Joe Biden.
I think you're right. I think he may be getting in a little too late.
GARBER: By the same token, I think, regardless, he's going to -- he's going to raise funds. He's popular. He has the name recognition.
But at the same time, it's a question of whether females are going to come out and vote for him, other races are going to come out and vote for him. And I think that's pointing in a very negative direction.
PAYNE: When you have been in the public eye this long, there's a lot of baggage out there, and he knows all of it will resurface.
Ladies, thank you all very much.
CAFARO: Thank you.
GARBER: Thank you.
PAYNE: Well, price spikes, product shortages, you name it, what would happen if President Trump takes his threat to close the southern border and acts on it? We're on it.
PAYNE: Several checkpoints at the U.S.-Mexico border seeing a huge backup, as our Homeland Security Department says our border is facing a systemwide meltdown. And President Trump is still threatening to close it down.
Our Claudia Cowan looking into the economic impact of it all from El Paso, Texas -- Claudia.
CLAUDIA COWAN, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Charles, the border is still open, but now it is getting harder and taking a lot longer to cross it.
As you just mentioned, federal officials say they are facing a -- quote -- "systemwide meltdown" at the southern border and have to shift thousands of Border Patrol employees away from their regular jobs to handle the flood of migrants, especially families seeking asylum here in the U.S.
That means fewer officers at international bridges and traffic checkpoints that are busy on a normal day. But now, with reduced staffing, there are fewer lanes open and the result of that is longer wait times.
One cross commuter in Texas said he barely moved half-a-mile and three hours waiting to get over the border. And yesterday in Mesa, Arizona, there was a backlog of 150 trucks that had not yet been cleared.
While the president today acknowledged concerns about such disruptions in commerce, he said protecting the border is paramount.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Sure, it's going to be -- have a negative impact on the economy. It's one of the biggest trade deals in the world that we have just done with the USMCA.
It's a very big trading partner. But, to me, trading is very important. The borders are very important, but security is what is most important.
COWAN: And while everyone waits to see what President Trump decides to do, the White House today announcing that he will visit the border in California to see the situation there firsthand on Friday -- Charles.
PAYNE: Claudia, thank you very much.
Here with more on the potential impact on our economy from all of this, Arizona Republican Congressman Andy Biggs.
Congressman, thanks for joining us.
REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Thanks, Charles. Good to be with you.
PAYNE: The avocado toast sort of made the headlines, but we are talking billions and billions of dollars exchanged by both sides. You're talking about a supply chain where auto parts go back and forth before we get the finished product.
But President Trump acknowledges that that may be the hit we have to take, because security is priority number one.
BIGGS: Yes, that's right.
We did this in -- after 9/11, if you recall. And, in Arizona, in the Phoenix metro area, drug -- illegal drug trade and human trafficking dried up in about five to six days. That's what happened when the border was shut down.
The problem that we face today, of course, is that back then the entire country was unified that we had a -- we had to take a security measure that was pretty extreme.
Today, we're trading more. And we actually have 50 percent of the country that probably doesn't even think there's a problem. Certainly, 50 percent of Congress doesn't think there's a problem along the border. And they're not acknowledging the security issues that we face.
But the president is trying to get at this because we have got to have Mexico's help in this. And Mexico is not doing a thing, as we see two more caravans coming up through Mexico today.
PAYNE: Congressman, we are hearing more of your colleagues saying, OK, acknowledging it's a crisis. They have been backed into a corner after Jeh Johnson said 1,000 apprehensions a day was a bad day. Obviously, 4,100 a day is just catastrophic, beyond what -- it boggles the mind how bad it is.
So have you spoken to any of them in the last 24, 48 hours about perhaps being more realistic about this problem?
BIGGS: I have talked to one or two, and they're still kind of dug in.
And I will say that they're moving a little bit. Before, it was because they didn't want President Trump to get a political victory. Now it's like, well, we don't quite know what to do.
And that's -- that's really kind of where they have moved. But there's still a significant number of the -- of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that say there's really no problem, it's a manufactured problem.
Look, you got Beto O'Rourke that says, let's tear down the fences. And I just don't know what it's going to take for these people to understand the reality of over a million people apprehended in this current fiscal year . That's what's going to happen.
And we're only going to get about a third of the people actually crossing into the country. So you're going to look at three million people will have crossed this country by the end of this fiscal year.
PAYNE: I know Julian Castro today put out a piece suggesting maybe decriminalizing it. So that's a solution. It's not the one I think Americans want to hear.
You talked about Mexico earlier, sir. President Trump, though, said that the -- he did see them stepping up. They're starting to make apprehensions at their southern border, thousands of people, for the first time in decades. They have the ability. They have tough immigration laws.
Is this what you want to see as well?
BIGGS: Yes, absolutely.
They do have tough immigration laws. Their immigration laws are tougher than ours by far. And if you can get Guatemala to also help enforce that northern border, you have a chance to really cut down, because the number of people that are entering the country today are largely coming from the Northern Triangle states.
And if those two countries can get their act together on their border, then that's going to help us on our border. But we have -- we have got asylum laws that are just out of whack right now, Charles, and it's a real problem.
PAYNE: I want to switch gears a little bit, because you are on the Judiciary Committee.
PAYNE: And Jerry Nadler, Representative Nadler, he's pretty adamant about going after the Mueller investigation. Everyone's waiting to see how many of those 81 requests for information become subpoenas.
What's your thoughts on just how adamant he and other Democrats are on still chasing the Mueller report?
BIGGS: Boy, he seems to be locked in. I heard that only about eight to 10 people have actually responded to his requests.
I understand he's going to issue subpoenas. Now he wants attorney General Barr to come in. He will probably expand it to Rod Rosenstein. Who knows who all is going to want to come in?
But they're so distraught, because they put all their eggs in one political basket. And that was that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians to impact the election, and it just wasn't true to begin with.
And they told the American people something that they couldn't substantiate. So they're going to continue on this path. And I just don't know how far down they're going to go. But Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to be able to reel them in. Maxine Waters is out there. Adam Schiff is out there. Elijah Cummings is out there with Jerry Nadler. They're all in on this thing.
And I don't see any end in the near term.
PAYNE: Do you feel like they're trying to intimidate A.G. Barr?
BIGGS: Oh, yes, they -- definitely, they do. They want to intimidate A.G. Barr.
But they're left with nothing left, right, because there's nothing left for them to attack, because they put the -- all the onus on the Mueller report. They said that what a great report it was going to be, that there's evidence.
BIGGS: And now there's not. So it's a problem for them.
Congressman, always a pleasure. Thank you very much.
BIGGS: Thanks, Charles. Have a good one.
PAYNE: How did a woman carrying Chinese passports and computer malware get past security at Mar-a-Lago while the president was there?
Late-breaking details on a major, major security breach next.
PAYNE: New security questions surrounding the president, as we're learning more about a woman who faces federal charges after entering Mar-a-Lago unlawfully.
Blake Burman is at the White House with the latest -- Blake.
BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: Charles, let me just clarify something right off the top. President Trump was at Mar-a-Lago this weekend. We do know that, though he was not actually on the premises, on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago at the time this incident occurred.
Instead, he was at a different property of his playing golf. Either way, this is an incident that made its way all the way up to the Secret Service. And when those officers caught up with this woman, she had two Chinese passports on her.
Here's what we know, according to the federal complaint. Her name is Yujing Zhang. And according to that complaint, when Secret Service agents finally detained her, she had four cell phones, a laptop computer, an external hard drive and a thumb drive with malware.
Now, according to the complaint, she's being arrested for essentially lying to those Secret Service officers. They say, when she first approached a checkpoint outside of Mar-a-Lago, she was -- she said that she was just going to go there to the pool.
At that point, though, according to the complaint -- quote -- "Due to a potential language barrier issue, Mar-a-Lago believed her to be the relative of a member, Zhang, and allowed her access onto the property."
Once on the property, she told a receptionist at the club that she was going to a United Nations friendship event between China and the U.S. No such event was taking place at the time. That raised suspicions on the ground there -- grounds there. She was taking off the grounds of Mar-a- Lago, interviewed, and now she faces two different charges.
Serious questions, though, Charles as to how she was able to make it onto the grounds at Mar-a-Lago in the first place, whether or not they will change their practices or policies going forward. Again, President Trump there that weekend, not there at the time. We are still uncertain whether or not the first family was there as well -- Charles.
PAYNE: Well, golly, serious questions, indeed.
Blake, thank you very much.
Coming up: How could a major breach of security like this happen?
PAYNE: More on the security breach at Mar-a-Lago this weekend.
How did this woman enter the property and what damage could she have done?
Joining us on the phone, former Secret Service agent and executive director of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Pat O'Carroll.
Pat, two Chinese passports, four cell phones, a thumb drive with malware and an external hard drive. And I'm wondering if she had a duffel bag with all this stuff in it. How does this happen?
PAT O'CARROLL, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: I guess, Charles, there's a couple things on it.
The first is, is that there is -- you know, as you mentioned, she had a bunch of stuff on her, but she had no weapon, which is an accomplishment. And the other part of it is that there's numerous concentric rings. And this is really a success, in that she was caught before she got anywhere close to where the president was.
PAYNE: Can you assume, with this -- she was carrying -- if she could have gotten into the house, what was he possibly looking to accomplish here?
O'CARROLL: Well, as with anybody who is probably challenged, is, is that we don't really know exactly what she would want.
But it was access, obviously, to the president, and she got nowhere near there.
PAYNE: Or access to a computer in a house or some sort of electronic device. She looked like she had the tools to do -- to get a lot of information if she got close enough to the right equipment.
And I guess the first security -- part of security is the initial screening and then the secondary screening, which is more of a roving surveillance apparently is what caught her. So she never really got close enough that she could have access to anything personal or any computers or anything, so -- but had she got past the second or third level of security, there were - - God knows what she would have done.
PAYNE: She got too close for comfort, though, and, in fact, apparently passing three Secret Service agents.
O'CARROLL: Well, if you remember, though, is, is that each of them had a different purpose of talking to her.
First was, is that the receptionist had said that she looks like she was a member of a family of a member of the location. And you got to remember, Charles, this is like a major hotel in New York, where general public is going to be coming and going.
PAYNE: Pat, with all due respect, I have been on the streets of New York City when President Trump is here, not even near a hotel that he was staying and or Trump Tower, and there was more -- more screening than this.
I mean, shouldn't heads roll? Shouldn't there be accountability? Shouldn't there be some sense of urgency that, man, something awful could have happened?
O'CARROLL: Well, Secret Service always goes to school on any type of an incident like this.
And I'm sure, as a result of it, they will be increasing the amount of security. And maybe it'll be looking more and more like a street in New York after this.
PAYNE: Well, listen, she could have had anything in this bag, though, right?
PAYNE: I mean, we're lucky she did not, but it could have been a weapon as well.
O'CARROLL: They had magnetometers, to my knowledge.
O'CARROLL: And anybody getting in that close is going to be screened by a mag.
So, the good news, as I said, was, there was no weapon involved.
PAYNE: That's the good news. And it is certainly a lesson.
I mean, during your experience, did you ever see anything like this before?
O'CARROLL: I will tell you the truth, Charles, is that, much like you -- we said before, is, most of my experiences were major urban areas, and not golf clubs.
PAYNE: I got you. I got you.
O'CARROLL: So, everybody's kind of changing their procedures now.
PAYNE: All right, Pat, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
O'CARROLL: Hey, you're very welcome, Charles. Goodbye.
PAYNE: Meanwhile, Democrats seizing on President Trump's decision to push off health care until the 2012 election. So are Republicans worried?
I'm going to former health care CEO Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott tomorrow on "Making Money" on FOX Business.
Now here's "The Five."
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.