Rep. Cummings likely to refer Michael Cohen to DOJ for perjury probe

close

Video

Rep. Cummings likely to refer Michael Cohen to DOJ for perjury probe

Cohen faces questions over recent congressional testimony; former federal prosecutor Jon Sale weighs in.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 11, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, GUEST HOST: The black boxes recovered. Now investigators are trying to determine what caused that Boeing 737 MAX 8 to crash in Ethiopia.

It's a type of plane that is still flying in the United States. Should it be, especially with China and Indonesia already grounding it?

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

Boeing shares initially falling more than 13 percent on the news, before recovering some of those losses.

We have got Fox team coverage with Jeff Flock at Midway Airport on how Boeing is responding and Doug McKelway in Washington on what investigators are saying.

We begin with Doug.

DOUG MCKELWAY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Charles, we have just received a statement from the FAA, which is on site, and along with the NTSB, in Ethiopia.

That statement says, in part: "If we identify an issue that affects safety, the FAA will take immediate and appropriate action."

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 is a new design, with bigger, more fuel-efficient engines that previous 737s. Those engines necessitated a redesign of the plane's trim control system. And when you turn the trim control off in the plane, two switches right by your thigh, and you power the plane up, it causes a different reaction than in earlier models the 737.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN GOGLIA, FORMER MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: When you apply full power to the airplane, it's going to drive the nose up. So what Boeing did to counter that is, they automated it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: John Goglia points out that the first officer in the Ethiopian air crash had 200 hours of flying time. Compare that to a minimum of 1,500 hours for U.S. first officers.

The flight and voice data recorders have both been recovered, somewhat damaged. And they may reveal what Goglia is hinting at there. Radar data shows that the Ethiopian Air MAX 8 first climbed rapidly, then descended rapidly, continuing its wild oscillations up and down, until it plummeted into the ground, killing everybody on board.

In the earlier October 2018 crash of a Lion Air MAX 8 into the Java Sea, there were similar kinds of oscillations. But, in that case, the plane had maintenance issues with gauges that monitor angle of attack, airspeed and altitude.

In yesterday's crash, the plane had no maintenance issues. While Ethiopian, Cayman Airways and also the entire country of China has grounded all MAX 8 flights, neither Boeing and, as you just heard, neither the FAA has done so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOGLIA: I don't see any technical reason why the airplane should be grounded. Now, if China has some additional information, I sure hope they share it with the rest of the world, so we can make an intelligent decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: Boeing made a bit of a risky decision last December, when it opened a finishing facility in Shanghai, China, not where they build planes, but they actually fit out the interiors of them and paint the planes.

The first plane to roll off that assembly line in Shanghai, China, in December was a Boeing MAX 8 -- back to you, Charles.

PAYNE: Doug, thank you very much.

Now, U.S. carriers are standing by their Boeing 737 MAX 8 jets for now, this in response to nervous flyers. Southwest Airlines tweeting earlier: "At this time, our fleet of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft are operating as planned today, and we plan to operate those aircraft going forward. Just know Southwest Airlines focuses on the safety of our operations and is constant and unwavering."

Should flyers, though, be nervous?

With me now, pilot Robert Marks.

Two of these planes involved in two horrific crashes in about a six-month span, certainly, anyone's going to be worried about this. Is the industry and the FAA to sanguine about this?

ROBERT MARK, PILOT: I don't think so.

I think it's a little early to panic. I know that there are similarities between these two airplane accidents. But airplanes are machines. They're based on science. And we don't -- we don't tend to just panic and make extremely emotional decisions, as the earlier commentator said, without some kind of facts.

And we're going to have something here probably in the next 36 hours with these two recorders in hand.

PAYNE: That's -- that's respectable, except the one fact we know is that there have been two horrific incidents, crashes here, and the initial reports seem like the pilots lose control of these planes.

And would it be the better or smarter idea to ground them temporarily until there's a better handle on this?

MARK: Well, that could certainly be argued.

I tend to be -- I'm a pilot, so I always want to know what happened first.  And I know that's what my friends that the NTSB and the FAA are doing.  From a passenger side, I absolutely understand why people might be concerned.

But we just don't know enough to make that decision yet. We hope we will.  But we just don't. And, again, I think the FAA just telling everybody that, look, we're watching this as close as everybody else, as soon as we see anything that looks like it's a problem, they probably will ground these airplanes. But we just don't know yet.

PAYNE: Well, most experts are saying the plane itself is structurally sufficient. It's a great airplane. Many have zeroed in on potential -- the potential problem being the software that sort of fights the pilot and wants to descend when the pilot wants to go up.

If you just listened to Doug McKelway, it climbed rapidly, this plane, and then it descended rapidly. And then you had these crazy oscillations, the same sort of narrative that we heard with the Lion Air flight.

What should Boeing be doing, what should the FAA be going to convince the American public, the global public, that the software is not interfering with the pilot?

MARK: Well, of course, that's an issue for Boeing, in terms of figuring out the software issues.

We really haven't heard much out of them since the Lion Air accident. I know there's something about to be released. But, also, pilots are very well-trained. And the story of what happened, what they believe happened in the Lion Air accident, which is that the trim kind of got away from the -- got out of sync with the autopilot, is easy to turn off. And everybody that flies a 73 right now knows, if that happens, that's the first thing I'm going to do is reach over and turn off those switches to deactivate that system.

But, again, we don't know that this is not something completely unrelated to that just happens to look similar.

PAYNE: Robert Mark, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

MARK: You're welcome.

PAYNE: Well, of course, Boeing stock getting hit hard on this news, but it didn't finish off the lows of the session.

FBN's Jeff Flock is at Chicago's Midway Airport on how the company is responding -- Jeff.

JEFF FLOCK, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CORRESPONDENT: Yes, stock could have been worse, Charles. They're down 12 percent at the outset this morning and now recovered quite a bit.

But we have got this airworthiness directive coming up at 5:00 p.m. And my experience with airworthiness directives is generally they are issued with regard to some problem with an aircraft that needs to be corrected, so all eyes on that at 5:00 p.m. We will see where that goes.

As you report, Boeing did issue a statement. They say, so far, they don't see any reason there needs to be any change. I will read the statement, just so you have it and you know.

"The investigation," says Boeing, "is in its early stages, but at this point, based on the information available, we do not have any basis to issue new guidance to the operators." So that means no groundings.

But China and Indonesia have gone ahead to ground that aircraft. India has issued a directive which says, you must be an experienced pilot if you want to fly that new 737 MAX. You have to have at least 1,000 hours behind the controls of the previous incarnation of the 737.

Cayman Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, and Comair, the South African air carrier, have all grounded the flight. Lots of aircraft in the pipeline.  Lots of these aircraft in the pipeline, 5,000-plus orders out there now, and the company has only fulfilled about 350 of these.

And specific to the U.S., you wonder why we're out here at Midway Airport.  It's because Southwest flies here. And Southwest is the biggest customer for this aircraft in the world. Southwest has ordered 280 of these, Charles.

They have gotten delivery on about 30 or a few more than 30 perhaps by now, since we have the last numbers. United has also ordered over 100 of these aircraft, as American. So those are continuing to fly. At this point, until we get that airworthiness directive, nothing to change that.

But we're waiting -- 5:00 Eastern time comes that directive -- Charles.

PAYNE: Jeff, before I let you go, you mentioned that Boeing said that this investigation is in the early stages.

Did they ever conclude the Lion Air investigation, do you know?

FLOCK: No, they have not, no, neither that, of course, nor anything that's come out of this latest one.

But it tells me -- that they're going to issue an airworthiness directive tells me they have something, that the FAA at least has something that they need to say, and they're going to say it at 5:00.

PAYNE: This airworthiness directive comes from the FAA or from Boeing?

FLOCK: FAA. This is -- this is -- a government agency will issue this.  And Secretary Chao announced that the FAA would do that at 5:00.

PAYNE: Jeff Flock, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

FLOCK: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: Well, billions more for the wall, new work requirements for welfare, you name it, President Trump's budget is calling for it.

Juxtapose that with something Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just said, and, well, we will debate it.

And Michael Cohen likely heading for a perjury probe. When a top House Democrat hints at it, should he start worrying about it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A $4.7 trillion budget battle brewing over President Trump's 2020 budget. The White House unveiling that proposal today.

To FOX's John Roberts at the White House with the very latest.

A lot of great questions there today, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, budget day, it's one of the best days, Charles, that we get to get deep into the weeds and talk to folks here at the White House about all of these funding requests, which Democrats on Capitol Hill say are dead on arrival.

At issue, a couple of big things, the $8.6 billion that the president is requesting to finish construction of the wall. That money would complete about 722 miles of wall, in addition to the 400 miles of fencing that the president wants to put in with his current budget request and his emergency declaration.

The other big thing is the Pentagon budget going up to $750 billion and the fact that about $165 billion of that will be in what's called the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which really is kind of an off-the-books kind of thing that's not subject to spending caps.

And there are a lot of people who are worried that the Pentagon -- or the White House, rather, may use some of that money in the OCO budget to backfill money that's being used from the military budget to build a border barrier.

I asked the acting OMB director, Russell Vought, about that today. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSELL VOUGHT, ACTING WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DIRECTOR: We do not request any OCO money, overseas counterinsurgency money, for the -- for the purchasing of -- or for the completion of the wall.

We do have emergency spending that we devote to it and we continue to -- continue the military rebuild by asking for what's necessary to complete the wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: And just to let you know we're on the same page, he called it the overseas counterinsurgency operations. It's Overseas Contingency Operations.

Democrats didn't like this one bit, in a statement, Nancy Pelosi saying -- quote -- "President Trump wants to ransack as much as $2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid, while demanding billions more for his wasteful, ineffective wall. President Trump will steal from students and hungry families. The budget is a statement of values. And once again, President Trump is shown how little he values the health and well-being of families across America."

The president does plan on cutting $2.7 trillion in spending over 10 years, and $1.9 trillion of that will come out of mandatory spending, like Medicaid and Medicare. But Russell Vought insists it's not going to be cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, it will be savings.

And he also said that there will be a new work component for people using federal services. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOUGHT: He's not cutting Medicare in this budget. What we are doing is putting forward reforms that lower drug prices, that because Medicare pays a very large share of drug prices in this country, has the impact of finding savings.

In terms of what requirements, it is something that we have long viewed as important to be able to say. Take the same principles of reducing dependency that we saw in TANF and then apply them to housing and to food stamps and to Medicaid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: And just so that you're clear, those work requirements would be 20 hours a week either working in job training or in some sort of community service.

Budget hawks, Charles, say that the economic assumptions that the White House is making for this budget just won't hold water. It assumes an average of about 3 percent growth over 10 years. And that beats out, according to Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, even the rosiest projections from many economists, Charles.

PAYNE: Thank you very much.

From this new $8 billion border wall request to welfare work requirements, President Trump's budget already setting up the battle lines. So the question is, how will this all play out?

Let's ask Campus Reform editor in chief Lawrence Jones, Democratic strategist Rashad Richey, and Axios White House reporter Alayna Treene.

Let me start with you on this, Alayna.

This -- obviously, this is sort of a -- this is a big budget, $4.7 trillion. There is a big ask for the border wall. We know there's going to be some political friction there. So what do you make of the plan itself?

ALAYNA TREENE, AXIOS: Well, the thing I think to keep in mind is that these budgets put forth by the White House are always kind of more symbolic measures.

This is dead on arrival, as some democrats had said over the weekend before the document was even released. And so Congress is the one who sets the spending levels, but it does show the White House's priorities for 2020.

And I think that a big thing here, we saw massive increases to defense spending, which will play really well with the president's base and something that he's always been touting that he's wanted to see increases in defense spending.

But I think a detriment in something that we're seeing is this budget isn't going to be balanced for 15 years, they're saying. The first budget put forth by the president was 10 years. And, of course, remember on the 2016 campaign trail the president said that he would eliminate the deficit over eight years.

And, clearly, this plan isn't doing that. It's actually adding a trillion dollars over the next four years. And so I think that's going to be a big thing that Democrats hone in on, at least from a messaging perspective.

PAYNE: Lawrence, Nancy Pelosi calling it cruel, and there's going to be a lot of attention paid to the notion of work requirements for those folks receiving assistance, including food stamps. How do you see it?

LAWRENCE JONES, CAMPUS REFORM: Well, I think it's common sense.

And we got to look at the states where it's worked, Maine, Kansas, Florida.  Look at how Florida over the last three years, the unemployment is now down to 3.3 percent. When you look at now that there's about 9.9 million people in the work force, this is commonsense stuff right here, and we want to get people back to work.

And so I think if anybody's being cruel, it is Nancy Pelosi and many on the left. They want to have people dependent on the government and so they never make it out of these communities.

PAYNE: Well, speaking of people on the left, let's take a listen to what freshman Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had to say over the weekend about President Ronald Reagan and welfare back in the 1980s. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I think a perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working-class Americans, in order to just screw over all working-class Americans, is Reaganism in the '80s, when he started talking about welfare queens.

He was painting this photo, he was painting this, like, really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were sucks on our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Rashad, this is more of the social justice, let's go, back rewrite the wrongs of yesterday or relitigate them.

She even talked about FDR being a racist. I don't know how this is really helpful. You can get mired in the in the political argument about what really happened in the 1980s, particularly with the economy. But what's your thinking here?

Because AOC seems to be now the person making all the major decisions, or at least setting the tone for the Democratic Party.

RASHAD RICHEY, PROGRESSIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, let's be very clear, Charles. She's not making any decisions whatsoever. She is talking and being a representative for the district that elected her.

And she does have a point. There's a false narrative about welfare in the United States of America. The truth is, there are more whites on welfare than African-Americans, but that is not part of the conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Who's making that, then? Because it's so interesting to me. If someone says welfare reforms, then Democrats say it's racist. Then aren't Democrats assuming that black people are overwhelmingly on welfare more than anyone else?

JONES: Bingo.

RICHEY: So, I haven't heard any of that.

My job isn't to defend what another Democrat or progressive or liberal has said. My job is to tell you what the narrative has been. And, as a radio host that talks to people five days a week, many individuals are under the false impression that there are more black people on welfare than white people.

And that is simply something that should be corrected for context's sake.  But let's go beyond that to the actual policy that has been presented by the president of the United States.

We're talking about a welfare-to-work program. This is a refurbished premise, based on the 1996 plan borrowed from Bill Clinton, a Democratic president. I'm cool with saying, if you are able-bodied, you should actually go out and work. I'm good with that.

PAYNE: Right. OK.

RICHEY: I think 20 hours is a bit high, only because I want to see people going out and applying for jobs.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Last month, 45,000 people left the labor force, even though there's 7.3 million jobs opening.

Lawrence, we got less than 30 seconds, but, obviously, some people in this country don't want to work.

JONES: Yes, there are some people that don't work.

And we shouldn't be taking care of their needs, then, if they don't want to get back in the work force. Look, this is not the president taking away welfare. He's trying to get people back into the work force. And, as I told you, it worked in Maine, it worked in Kansas, it worked in Arkansas, it worked in Florida.

PAYNE: Right.

JONES: And so this is a proven model.

PAYNE: We got to...

JONES: Let's put it back to work on a federal level.

PAYNE: We got to leave it there.

Thank you all very much.

Meanwhile, a perjury probe in Michael Cohen's future? Many are saying maybe, because a top House Democrat is talking about it. Maybe he should start worrying about it.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Michael Cohen could be in legal trouble again, as a top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee says the Department of Justice could open a perjury investigation based on his Capitol Hill testimony last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KATIE HILL, D-CALIF.: I imagine that Chairman Cummings will end up referring him. That's just my -- just my guess.

When he says -- when Chairman Cummings says something like, "I'm getting nailed to the cross," he means it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Former federal prosecutor Jon Sale joins me now.

Jon, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, since that testimony, we have seen a lot of contradictions, at the very least, and some that seem to be outright lies.

JON SALE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Charles, his -- Michael Cohen's wish list obviously was to get a reduction of his sentence. And I predict he may see just the opposite.

I tried to watch him with an open mind. I came into this with -- I was a Watergate prosecutor. And I remember John Dean. And John Dean's testimony took down a president. But, boy, was it different.

I mean, remember John dean himself was secretly recorded. Michael Cohen, as a lawyer, selectively recorded his own client. I mean, imagine that.  But so I start off with an open mind.

And Michael Cohen begins his testimony by name-calling. He calls the president names. Now, anybody who prepares a witness knows that, if you really have something of substance, don't go to name-calling. Just get right down to it and be dispassionate.

And he came across as somebody who had an agenda, who was bitter. He went from darkness to light, blind loyalty. Well, the -- he didn't have a cooperation agreement with the Southern District. And the Southern District in their sentencing memo said he just cooperated -- he did this belatedly and he profited to a great deal.

But what did he lie about? Or whether or not it's perjury remains to be seen. He misled the Congress. What did he lie about? What did he mislead the Congress about? Number one, give me a break. He didn't want a job in the White House. I mean, that is easily proven.

But, more importantly, when he said, clearly, he used the word I never requested, nor would I accept a pardon. Well, never means never. And despite the fact that Lanny Davis tried to do some damage control, where are we? What is the meaning of is? What does is mean?

I mean, he wanted a pardon. What's he going to do if he gets a pardon? He is going to say return to sender, I would rather go to jail for three years? I mean, he downright lied. So there goes the value of his testimony.

And, remember, he reluctantly said, I don't know anything about collusion.

PAYNE: Right.

SALE: And that's what this is all about.

PAYNE: Two things there that I want to come -- let's start back with that I didn't want to pardon.

Semantics. Maybe his lawyer asked. Maybe his lawyer went and asked without him even knowing about it. I mean, when they bring these things up, if they're eventually brought up in a perjury hearing, will his defense be, well, that was my lawyer, I was telling the truth, I never personally requested a -- any assistance from the White House?

SALE: Well, if that's the argument, I would rather be on the prosecutor's side of that argument.

Lawyers do what clients sell them to do. And something as important as a pardon, a lawyer doesn't keep that secret from a client. A client would be thrilled to get a pardon. Do you know how unusual that is? But in this case, Michael Cohen is not getting a pardon.

PAYNE: Jon, you talked about not playing to the Southern District.

Instead, it did feel like he was playing exactly to the room. And we have learned that there was extensive rehearsals, hours and hours and hours.  Perhaps that's what drove him to take this sort of harsh, very harsh personal attack on President Trump right out of the gate, and something that we were there to get -- again, ultimately, we thought we were going to hear about something with regard to Russian collusion.

Could he have spent too much time trying to appease the Democrats in that room?

SALE: He did some cute things. He used some things that were obviously sound bites.

Now, I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, I did bad things, but I'm not a bad person. I told lies, but I'm not a liar.

Now, those things were obviously written for him by somebody else. And, furthermore, he had an agenda. And I think he's looking to sell books and he was -- should have just been dispassionate. And I just don't think he was credible.

PAYNE: Yes, you're -- a lot of people have joined you on that.

Jon, thank you for your expertise. Thank you.

SALE: Thanks, Charles.

Forget in writing. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff system special counsel Robert Mueller should demand answers from President Trump in person. Why do Democrats keep putting the special counsel's actions in question?

And Venezuelans spending the fifth night in a row in the dark, a nationwide blackout turning an already dire situation worse, as precarious food is rotting -- the precious food is rotting. And guess who dictator Nicolas Maduro is blaming for all of this? The United States.

Find out how the State Department is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: The Democratic National Committee holding a news conference this hour. It follows the DNC's announcement that Milwaukee will serve as the host city for the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

We are monitoring it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Day five of crippling blackouts across Venezuela. Now strongman dictator Nicolas Maduro is blaming the crisis on cyber-attacks by the United States.

Let's get reaction from former State Department senior adviser Christian Whiton.

And, Christian, I think it was inevitable that Maduro would blame the United States. Nevertheless, these blackouts are exacerbating a very dangerous situation.

CHRISTIAN WHITON, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY: Right.

And this is something -- this is a lie that Maduro said, of course, that the United States is involved. Everyone there, I think, knows the reality, which is Maduro and his socialist regime have underinvested in Venezuela's infrastructure, in particular energy.

And how ironic is it that this country that is awash in hydrocarbon energy, awash in oil is unable to keep the lights on? Really, a fundamental turning point, if you will. It had been out for four days now in parts of the country.

And what better signal is there that the place is falling apart under the current regime than literally the lights going out? It's taken a very tragic human toll as well.

PAYNE: So, Christian, we have read about the weight loss, the average weight loss of the average Venezuelan citizen, the hours-long wait for things like toilet paper, the rationing of food, and now blackouts.

Some in Venezuela that I hear think that Maduro is responsible for this.  Where's the tipping point for the general public there?

WHITON: I think the public has already tipped.

I mean, there really is no reservoir of support among the public that is apparent. You have seen this general rightward shift across South America.  And where there used to be crowds that could be orchestrated to support a left-wing or socialist cause, you don't see that anymore.

Unfortunately, elements of the military, the police still seem to be on his side. But there are some indications that that facade is cracking too, with some defectors. And, importantly, you have the Oba -- excuse me -- the Trump administration, the State Department and others, signaling that there will be off-ramps, that, in other words, for people who do defect from Maduro and come over to the right side will be treated well.

PAYNE: So, Christian, from the last I heard, the folks in administration are still saying every potential response is still on the table.

That would to me suggest even a military response. Where does the United States stand? Because we have embraced Guaido, the elected leader there.  The people in Venezuela now looking up to American and Americans to come to the rescue.

WHITON: Yes, I think it's important, though.

And it's -- I think while it's good that the administration has said everything is on the table, it's extremely unlikely that we would do a Panama-style invasion, as we did in 1989, in Venezuela, the logistics very big.

But also this is not an interventionist regime. If American citizens were being killed or put in danger at the embassy, something like that, I think you would see things change rapidly. But, really, it would be much better and it seems likely that this regime will go on its own.

And that will be -- not to make light of the tremendous privation suffering that's been caused by this regime, but there was the political upside of having the Venezuelan people take control of their own destiny and putting an end to this pink wave that swept Latin America of socialism beginning with Hugo Chavez being elected in 1998 in Venezuela.

Of course, that led to the current Maduro regime.

PAYNE: Right.

Christian, thank you very much.

WHITON: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Remember the media frenzy surrounding this confrontation involving Covington high school students? Well, now one of those students is planning to sue CNN over its coverage of it just weeks after suing The Washington Post.

More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A new report is claiming the government wants to snoop on the social media posts of people who are disability to try and catch those who are cheating the system. So are there any legal issues here?

Well, here with me to discuss, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.

I mean, it seems reasonable to me, Judge, that if these folks are taking money for disability, this might be the easiest way to make sure that they are actually disabled.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: It is.

But -- and it's not a violation of privacy, per se, because what the government says it's looking at is already public. It's what you put out in your -- in your social media. Now, there's social media and there's social media.

Did but just put it out to everybody, or did you put it out to a discrete group of your friends? And can the government become one of your friends?  I say that in quotes. Remember what Ronald Reagan said, the nine most dangerous words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Can the government become one of your friends without knowing about it?  Answer, not constitutionally. It does need some suspicion in order to start looking at these things. It can't randomly go through social media.

So it could call you in to see if you still appear disabled. And if you -- if you don't come into those meetings, then it can say, ah, something's wrong here, we got to do a little investigation. It needs some basis for an investigation to look at social media.

PAYNE: That's interesting, because, today, with Stuart Varney, we talked about what New York City is doing to get money from non-residents and making sure that they actually move out of the city or the state.

And this seems very invasive. They're -- they're spying on them. They go to their homes. They ask the post office. They ask the doorman. I mean, it's very, very invasive. And these are local governments that are allowed to do that in an effort to retrieve taxes that they think are due to them.

NAPOLITANO: But, again, as long as they have some kernel of suspicion, some articulable basis to believe that the person is cheating the system, they can do that.

Again, that's also relatively public information. P.S., the doormen don't have to answer, unless they're dragged before a grand jury, though I would think most doormen probably would answer.

PAYNE: Right. OK.

The lawyer for a Covington Catholic high school student Nick Sandmann is planning to sue CNN for more than $250 million. This follows coverage -- following the coverage of the confrontation with a Native American protester.

Now, this is just weeks after his legal team filed a lawsuit against The Washington Post. I know you weren't confident about where that lawsuit would go. I have seen the attorney on the air several times, including on Fox News over the weekend.

He seemed -- Lin Wood seemed very, very convincing to me that at the very least he's got a case here.

NAPOLITANO: Well, he is a very competent lawyer. I would never challenge his credentials, nor would I challenge his track record.

I myself would utilize his services, or at least talk to him, if I had a course of action in libel. But libel plaintiffs very, very rarely prevail, because the libel laws are written, because of the First Amendment, to make it very difficult to interfere with the media's coverage of a public event.

The purpose of libel laws is to repair a damaged public reputation. As a matter of law, a 16-year-old child has no public reputation to damage. I will also tell you that the rigors to the plaintiff, here the 16-year-old boy, of libel litigation is so severe, so extreme, I would encourage his parents to think twice about it.

Now, where's the $250 million come from? If you ask the jury for money, and it's less than you told the defendant you were going to ask for, you're going to get the lesser of the two. So when lawyers say, here's what the case is worth, they always put a phone book number in there, so that they don't undercut their own client.

PAYNE: All right.

NAPOLITANO: It doesn't mean he thinks he can prove that kind of damages for a 16-year-old boy.

PAYNE: Judge, thank you very much.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

PAYNE: Now, there's a new poll showing that Bernie Sanders is surging.

NAPOLITANO: Uh-oh.

PAYNE: Reports the establishment starting to come around to the Vermont senator. Should other Democrats now be worried?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Joe Biden hasn't officially entered the race yet, but new polling in Iowa shows him leading the pack of 2020 Democrats, followed closely by Bernie Sanders.

What does this mean for the party's younger up-and-coming candidates?

Let's ask Washington Examiner's Siraj Hashmi.

Siraj, you know what? A month ago, a lot of excitement. Kamala Harris was exciting and some of these other younger potential candidates. They're fading behind. And it's the same old names I thought the Democratic Party was trying to get away from.

SIRAJ HASHMI, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes.

You know, Bernie Sanders, he's actually had a lot more traction than even I would like to admit. I think, in the 2016 presidential election, he was sort of a non -- he didn't have that much name recognition, but he built up a movement.

And he's been able to sustain that. And he's actually doubled the amount of paid staff in the 2020 cycle than he did in the 2016 cycle, when he first started out.

Plus, He brought in over $6 million in fund-raising when he first announced for this cycle. And so I don't expect that well to dry up anytime soon.

PAYNE: Yes, they say always follow the money.

What he did in the first 24 hours was really remarkable. And it was small donor -- it all came from small donors. And I guess it hearkens back to him being sort of the godfather of this socialist movement.

HASHMI: Right.

I would like to liken Bernie Sanders to the left's Pat Buchanan. His views are making it to the mainstream, even if he is not. And so what's happening right now, there are a lot of Democratic candidates in the 2020 presidential cycle who are actually adopting a lot of these policies that they didn't agree to before.

Say, Kamala Harris when she initially said that we should abolish private health insurance in favor of a fully run Medicare-for-all plan. And you're having a lot more candidates actually embrace the Green New Deal, which was presented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

PAYNE: Right.

HASHMI: So there are a lot of things that a lot of establishment candidates are embracing that they wouldn't otherwise do.

PAYNE: What do you think is going to happen if you really get in the heat -- when we get in the heat of this, and you have two old white guys that the Democratic -- Democratic Party has been so vocal about dominating our society today dominating their primary race?

What happens there? Will anyone go crazy about this?

HASHMI: Oh, well, I mean, if Bernie doesn't win, I think we will see a lot of animus towards the Democratic Party that we saw in 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, because it's sort of ceding a lot of power to the establishment, in that the voices of many of these progressives aren't being heard.

And I could see something like that happen to Joe Biden. But if Bernie Sanders comes out, which, with the surge right now, if that lasts -- of course, we're very early into it -- I can see something like that happening.

PAYNE: Sure.

Siraj, let me ask you about this, because today The Washington Post, the magazine, just releasing an interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the issue of impeaching President Trump where Pelosi is quoted as saying that "He's just not worth it." She does go on to say that appeasement would be too divisive.

Again, you have got the younger folks in that party who want impeachment.  She's saying it could -- it could actually hurt the Democrats.

HASHMI: Well, I just have to say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, welcome to the deplorables.

(LAUGHTER)

HASHMI: I mean, this is one thing that Speaker Pelosi is probably right on this, that it is more divisive to impeach the president for something that is not bipartisan, because, of course, the Senate is controlled by Mitch Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.

They have a 53-vote majority right now. And it is not looking good if they even try to go for impeachment, because it just looks like they still haven't gotten over those wounds from 2016.

PAYNE: Yes, we got less than a minute, though.

Let me ask, though, how quickly would it take an AOC tweet to change all of this?

HASHMI: To change impeachment proceedings? I don't think much, because...

PAYNE: To change the Democrats', Nancy Pelosi's mind?

HASHMI: That's a good question, because AOC does have a lot of -- a lot of power in the Democratic Party.

And we have even editorialized that she's becoming kind of like the de facto speaker of the House. But I will say that she doesn't have the gavel.

So she -- she might be able to change sentiment, but she's not going to be able to change votes or even bring a vote to the floor.

PAYNE: Siraj, thank you very much.

HASHMI: Thank you.

PAYNE: Meanwhile, a House committee set to meet moments from now, as Democrats push for the release of the final Mueller report to Congress and the public.

So, how likely is it? We're on it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A House rules committee meeting moments from now to discuss a resolution that would make special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report public when it's released.

Some Republicans signaling -- signaling, though, that that may not happen.  Should it?

Let's ask former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky.

Katie, should the public get a chance to see this report?

KATIE CHERKASKY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, the Democrats better really hope that the Mueller report contains something juicy on President Trump, for all the efforts they're exerting into making this report public.

And, really, what it comes down to is whether there's going to be a recommendation for an indictment. And that's Department of Justice policy.  Obviously, there have been deviations from that in the past. James Comey released a report on Hillary Clinton to a great extent when there was no indictment, but the policy still remains in place.

If there's not a recommendation for indictment, then the policy is that it shouldn't be released. There shouldn't be that information given out about citizens that are not being charged criminally, even including the president.

PAYNE: Now, the political calculus, of course, from the Republican side is, if it's not released, and there's nothing, essentially that Robert Mueller has come up with a dry whole vis-a-vis Russia collusion, then it might make sense for the Republicans to let the public see this, rather than waiting for innuendo, leaks and other -- sort of to let the media set a narrative that maybe there's still something explosive in that report.

CHERKASKY: Right.

And I think that's a reasonable strategy. And I think that is something that it can be done, because, as I mentioned, it is policy of the Department of Justice to not release these reports, but they're not prohibited from doing that, releasing some or all of the report, depending on how much is sensitive information.

Congress can subpoena the report to go through as well to determine if there's a basis for impeachment proceedings and things along those lines.  So there could be a strategic angle for the Republicans to do that. And perhaps it will turn out that President Trump himself would want the report released if there isn't that indictment that comes out of it.

So, only time will tell. But as -- right now, it seems a little premature for the Democrats to be pushing so hard to release a report that they really have no idea what's in it.

PAYNE: Yes. And, of course, this House resolution, we're not sure what's going to come of that.

I do want you to listen to California Democrat and House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff over the weekend on this Mueller report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I think it is a mistake. And I have said all along that I don't think Bob Mueller should rely on written answers.

When you get written answers from a witness, it's really the lawyers' answers, as much as the client's answer. I also think that the special counsel feels some time pressure to conclude his work, and knowing that the White House would drag out a fight over the subpoena, that may be an issue as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Katie, after two years of building up Mueller's bona fides, his ability to get to the -- to the bottom of everything -- they have built Robert Mueller up -- it seems to me they're now questioning the legitimacy of the report before it is even released.

CHERKASKY: That's exactly what my thought was when I heard that.

It seems like some sort of preemption, just in case the report doesn't contain what they want on President Trump, that there's not good enough answers, because he wasn't forced to testify in person, which he -- there's no obligation or even way for Mueller to force the president to do that.

In fact, the receipt of the written answers was something that shows that President Trump was being cooperative. He's the subject of a criminal investigation. He didn't have to provide any of that at all. So this just seems like some sort of preemption of, if it doesn't have what we want, it's because the investment wasn't thorough.

PAYNE: And then, of course, the idea of let's let the House take care of this, they will do a better job, again, despite the fact that we were promised by Democrats that Robert Mueller was going to do an amazing job, and we'd be shocked at what we discovered.

CHERKASKY: Right.

And so I think the writing might be on the wall. We have seen the indictments that have come out of the Mueller probe at this point, and perhaps they're not pointing in the direction that had originally been hoped by some, that there's no collusion, there's no evidence of collusion, it's coming closer and closer to that conclusion.

And so I think now there has to be a point where you try to undermine it before you look like a fool.

PAYNE: All right, Katie, thank you very, very much.

CHERKASKY: Thank you.

PAYNE: And, folks, I do want to remind you, we had a remarkable day on Wall Street, almost 500-point reversal on the Dow Jones industrial average, up 200 points.

It was crushed early in the session on that Boeing news. And every single stock on the Dow but Boeing was up. Every single sector on the S&P was up.

I have also got other good news. Neil, he's back tomorrow. That's going to be fun.

You can start tweeting me now: Yay.

And, also, though please, don't forget about me. I will be on tomorrow 2:00 p.m., the FOX Business Network, for "Making Money," because, well, I like to make you money.

Meanwhile, here's "The Five." They're next.

Thank you very much. 
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.