This is a rush transcript from "Your World," October 2, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Well, a triple-digit sell-off on a triple whammy for Wall Street. They are still trying to make sense of it.

Welcome, everybody. I am Neil Cavuto.

We have got an impeachment fight revving up, an economy that may be slowing down, and now a deal not about China not getting done, all three a rotten deal for investors today.

We have got Susan Li at New York Stock Exchange on where we go from here, John Roberts at the White House, where the president says, try as Democrats might, he's not going anywhere.

We began with Susan on what happened on the corner of Wall and Broad.

SUSAN LI, CORRESPONDENT: Hi. That is right. Hi, Neil.

So at our session lows today. At the worst, we were looking at the worst star for the fourth quarter since 2008. And this is on concerns of slowing U.S. growth. We also had private payrolls today coming in better than expected for the month of September, but pretty much solidifies the fact that we are dealing with slower growth in jobs, a slower pace than last year, when we saw 214,000 jobs created each and every quarter.

And couple that with a disappointing manufacturing gauge that we got yesterday, the weakest in 10 years, and that has people concerned about a reality of slowing U.S. economy and when that will eventually hurt the U.S. consumer.

So, the likes of Kohl's, Macy's and Best Buy, the retailers, taking a hit today. Also, Wall Street felt a bit of panic on concerns and news reports that Bernie Sanders will be taking some time off the campaign trail because of chest pains and having two stents put in. And does that give the advantage to somebody like Elizabeth Warren in capturing the Democratic nomination?

Warren not seen as pro-business. She has threatened to tax every stock and bond trade and break up big tech. So that had Wall Street having a bit of a gut check.

But let's keep things in perspective, since we are taking a look at the first nine months of this year. The first three quarters of this year have been the best for the S&P going back to 1997, for the Dow Jones industrial, the best since 2013, and for the Nasdaq, the best in two years.

So things aren't that bad for the entire year, but a bit of a gut check for the past few days, since we are down some 900 points for the Dow -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, it is October, isn't it?

Thank you very much, Susan Li.

And guess who The New York Times is reportedly finding got an early account of the whistle-blower's accusations? Well, does that mean the Schiff is about to hit the fan?

I practiced that at least 10 times.


CAVUTO: John Roberts at the White House was more on that.

John, interesting day.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's one of those things that can be acute alliteration or a career-ender, Neil.


CAVUTO: Exactly.

ROBERTS: Glad you got it, the former and not the latter.

This was a bombshell report that The New York Times had that hit literally a minute before President Trump walked into the East Room today for his press conference, his news conference with the president of Finland, Sauli Niinisto.

I had asked the president one question about whether he would cooperate with the subpoenas that will soon be coming to the White House from Capitol Hill. The president said he would, though I suspect that they're not going to fully comply with the subpoenas We will have to wait and see.

But then it was -- I told him up front, I want you to ask you two questions here and get fresh answers to both. He tried to block me from answering the second question. I said to him, look, I think this is a question that you're going to want to answer, because it was The New York Times' report that the staff members in the House Intelligence Committee on the Democratic side got an early heads-up that this whistle-blower complaint was coming, because the whistle-blower met with a staff member and went over some of the process of filing this complaint, may have gone over some of the information as well, and that some of that information was passed on to Adam Schiff, though The New York Times says Schiff was never told the whistle-blower's identity.

So I asked the president to react to that report today. Listen to the exchange.


ROBERTS: There is a report that came out just before you and President Niinisto walked out here that the whistle-blower met with a staff member of Adam Schiff prior to the complaint being filed.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Oh, I love that question.

It shows that Schiff is a fraud. And I love that question. Thank you, John.

ROBERTS: Your response to the fact that happened and that Schiff may have learned some of what the whistle-blower knew prior to the complaint?

TRUMP: Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I would go a step further. I think he probably helped write it.


ROBERTS: Now, there is no evidence that the whistle-blower helped write -- or that Adam Schiff helped write the whistle-blower complaint or that the staff helped write the whistle-blower complaint.

The House committee on -- the House Select Committee on Intelligence in a statement simply said -- quote -- "The whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community. This is a regular occurrence, given the committee's unique oversight role and responsibilities. At no point did the committee review or receive that complaint in advance."

The president was also asked today about his increasingly harsh language about the whistle-blower and whomever at the White House it might have been that delivered the information to the whistle-blower.

President Trump using the word spy and treason, prompting my colleague Jeff Mason from Reuters to ask the president if he describes anybody who disagrees with him as treasonous.

Here's what the president responded.


TRUMP: I consider when they lie, when they stand before our great body and our great chamber, and they make up a story that's fiction, like Schiff did.

He took that perfect conversation I had with the Ukrainian president, and he made it into a total lie. It was a total fabrication.


ROBERTS: Now, immediately following that, the president got testy when Jeff Mason followed up with a question about what was it that you were seeking from President Zelensky of the Ukraine regarding Joe and Hunter Biden?

The president usually doesn't get testy with Jeff, so I think it's an indication, Neil, that the president is getting increasingly frustrated by how this impeachment inquiry is consuming literally everything political in Washington these days.

CAVUTO: But, you know, you were remarkably calm through that exchange with the president. I don't know. I mean, that's tough, tough pressure there.

All right.


ROBERTS: You know, it's two tablets of Valium every morning.

CAVUTO: Oh, my goodness. All right.


CAVUTO: Hey, look, whatever you do, buddy, you got to do.

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

By the way, the whistle-blower's attorney is on the wires now making a statement on all of this, before I get to the down Dow in a second: "I can unequivocally state that neither any member of the legal team or the whistle-blower has ever met or spoken with Congressman Schiff about this -- about this matter."

So we will follow up on that. We will follow up on the big sell-off today that the president pins on this impeachment push. Yesterday, of course, with the big 300-plus points sell-off, he blamed the Federal Reserve.

Charlie Gasparino back with us, Liz Peek, Deirdre Bolton.

Deirdre, this is all impeachment worries that did this, what do you think of that?

DEIRDRE BOLTON, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I would not say all impeachment worries, but it is certainly one more uncertainty.

And that goes along with a lot of other points that we have been following, the weak manufacturing obviously yesterday here. That followed from Europe. We saw this unrest in Hong Kong. I mean, some of that footage was really disturbing.

CAVUTO: Incredible, yes.

BOLTON: We know that the U.S.-China trade talks set to resume next week. We saw oil inventories double the estimate, which made a lot of investors think, are we really slowing down even more? I think there's a lot of attention the jobs report out Friday.

I mean, there's a lot of things for investors to manage.

The one, I would say, salvo I would offer is that, yes, manufacturing was terrible, right? I mean, it clearly was a bad number. But 10 percent of our economy is manufacturing; 90 percent is services. So I would just say, before panic sets in, there is at least that one point to keep in mind.

CAVUTO: Got it.

It's funny too, Charlie, because part of the argument has been numbers are slowing from where they were, but this is a case of them contracting. And does that change the picture?


And I would say impeachment has nothing thing to do with it. I mean, I have been spending -- I spent a good part of today talking to investors and traders. I mean...

CAVUTO: Because they don't think it's going to happen, right?


Well, he's not going to get convicted in the Senate. It's just not going to happen. So they take that off the table. And what you have is, again, Neil, you have a debate in the market right now.

I can't tell you if we're going to go into a recession. I can't tell you if we're going to go into slowdown, but you have conflicting numbers. You have some good numbers, and today you had some bad numbers. Today's bad numbers causes all those algorithms to kick in and you sell.

And we're going to know soon enough, when you start seeing GDP prints, corporate earnings. That's when you really know.

CAVUTO: The jobs number on Friday.

Liz, that's what you watch too. Right?


And the first number we're going to look at is the ISM services number, which is very big, because, as Deirdre points out, manufacturing is a pretty small part, 10 percent or thereabouts, of the economy, maybe 11, only about 8 percent of jobs.

And, by the way, probably the ISM number that was so concerning...


CAVUTO: This is the supply management survey, the people who buy stuff. And they're not buying as much, right?

PEEK: That's right, the purchase -- and keep in mind, that's just a survey of people. Right?

That's people saying, yes, I feel good about things or I don't. It's not really hard numbers.


CAVUTO: Well, they're cautious, apparently, about the trade environment. And they're holding their powder dry, right?

PEEK: Without question.


PEEK: We have seen that kind of creeping into the numbers increasingly.

And, by the way, that's actually affecting real numbers, like capital spending.

CAVUTO: Right.

PEEK: But what I was going to say -- and I think that the China news is not particularly favorable, this Hong Kong situation.

I think you have to question whether President Xi can look weak in Hong Kong and also weak negotiating with the United States.

GASPARINO: That's a great point.

PEEK: I think that's a real problem.

CAVUTO: I wonder if he's salivating at this and saying, who says I need a deal more than the president?

GASPARINO: He can't look weak in the face of a trade war with the U.S., just culturally and historically with the Chinese.

PEEK: Right.

CAVUTO: Right.

GASPARINO: But I will make this one point.

James Freeman had an interesting statistic on FOX Business today, that trade -- the sort of tariffs and everything could wipe out 40 percent of the positive stuff on the tax cuts and the deregulation.

I mean, do you remember that number he cited? It was fascinating. So trade really -- even though we're talking manufacturing, a small part of the economy, all this trade stuff could really impact...

PEEK: Yes, but keep in mind trade hasn't disappeared.

I mean, while imports from China are way down, we're importing much more from Vietnam and other countries.


CAVUTO: What do you make of that?

BOLTON: Well, I would just say, to both of your points, ever the diplomat, right, it's really about confidence.

PEEK: I agree.

BOLTON: And I understand a business leader saying, I don't know what to do.

What if I -- I'm trying or I had plans to build a manufacturing facility in China? Now I have to reroute.


CAVUTO: And it's not, by the way, that they can't.

It's just for the time being they're just waiting, right?

PEEK: They can sit on it, right.

GASPARINO: Take China out of it.

USMC, not passed. Tariffs across the board.

CAVUTO: Well, that's where this impeachment thing comes in.

And let me ask you. And that's where the impeachment comes in, because if it's delaying the vote on this Mexican-Canadian-American trade deal, that's not a good thing.

PEEK: But I don't think that vote was going to happen anyway. I think Democrats...

CAVUTO: You don't think that they were going to vote on it anyway?


PEEK: No, because they don't want to give Trump a win just before the election.

GASPARINO: It just shows you the folly of his trade policies.

I mean, let me tell you something. This -- if you can think of one real existential problem for the Trump -- for Trump in 2020, it's not impeachment, really, because it's not -- he's not going to be impeached.

It's the economy falling out because of his trade policy.

CAVUTO: But we're not there yet, right?

BOLTON: And business leaders -- and we're not there yet.

And also business leaders who say, OK, fine, maybe I move a factory to Vietnam, but then, is the Trump administration -- are we going to fall out with Vietnam for another reason?

GASPARINO: Is it that easy to move a factory to Vietnam?



CAVUTO: Many already have, though. Many already have.

BOLTON: Some have. That's part of the problem, right? It takes a long time.


CAVUTO: You're a hater, by the way.

GASPARINO: I just...


GASPARINO: I take a Valium every morning.

CAVUTO: Yes. That's the least...


PEEK: Corrections in the market are commonplace.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

PEEK: About every two years, we have a 10 percent correction.

CAVUTO: And now we're 5 percent off our highs.

PEEK: Yes.

As Susan Li pointed out, we have had a great year so far. Taking a little money off the table right now is probably not surprising.

CAVUTO: See that, a half-full glass?


GASPARINO: We have a trade war. It's a little different this time.

CAVUTO: OK, sure.

PEEK: It's always different.


CAVUTO: It's always different this time. Here we go.

And, by the way, where is the floor vote on impeachment? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, if it comes to that, it would be Republicans, not Democrats, who fear being put to the test.

A top Republican on that very issue -- after this.



QUESTION: Do you plan for a full House vote on impeachment inquiry?

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Well, there's no requirement that there be a floor vote. That's not anything that is excluded.

And, by the way, there are some Republicans that are very nervous about our bringing that bill -- that vote to the floor.


CAVUTO: Well, my next guest isn't one of them.

Minnesota Republican Chairman of the House Republican Congressional Committee Tom Emmer, he says it's Democrats who are nervous.

Your sense -- and it's good to have you, Congressman -- is that it's the Democrats are getting nervous that she's moving too fast, right?

REP. TOM EMMER, R-MINN.: Oh, no, they -- they understand.

And I don't think they all do. I -- some of them live in a bubble. They think that they're winning.

We're going to release some polling tomorrow morning. I will just give you a little piece of it. Two-thirds of the voters, two-thirds of the Americans in the districts that we have targeted to flip the majority believe that this socialist Democrat majority in the House is way too obsessed with their hatred of this president and their need to impeach without facts, rather than doing the things that they expect them to do.

That doesn't bode well for them next fall. And that's why they're going to lose the majority.

CAVUTO: All right, so you're convinced that the House flips?

EMMER: I am convinced.

CAVUTO: And this will be the issue that does it?

EMMER: This is only one of them.

If you think about it, Neil, they talk about the suburbs all the time. They're going to have a very difficult time selling this radical socialist agenda to get rid of cars, to get rid of hamburgers, to eliminate all fossil fuels, to kick people off their private insurance.

It's going to be very hard to sell that in the suburbs, where people actually that -- they're paying attention.

CAVUTO: Chairman, do you get worried, though, when you see a day like this in the markets? And it might be overstated. Markets swing wildly. Trust me, I have covered them for decades. They often and always do.

So, leaving that aside, the trigger for this, Congressman, was this notion that maybe the recovery is sputtering, that certainly, on the factory floor, evidence that a lot of guys who run those factories are cutting back on spending, not spending nearly as much, cutting back on hiring, if they hire at all, that all this could be collapsing, just at the wrong time for the president.

EMMER: Yes. No, I don't think so.

I mean, there were reports about a month ago that 43 percent of economists interviewed thought that we are on the verge of a recession. What are we going to call it? The help wanted recession?

We have got seven million open jobs. We have got unemployment down at 1969 levels. We have got an economy that's growing that, as we get through -- if Nancy Pelosi and company would allow the new NAFTA, the USMCA, to come to the floor for a vote...

CAVUTO: That's not going to happen, is it?

EMMER: No, they're too obsessed with their hatred for this president. Again...

CAVUTO: It's been signed off on by the leaders of these countries almost a year ago.

EMMER: Right.

CAVUTO: Is it your sense it's not going to happen before the election?

EMMER: Right now, this socialist Democrat majority is so obsessed with their hatred of this president, they are not interested in working with their Republican colleagues in the House.

They won't work with the Republicans or anybody else in the Senate. And they're not going to let this president get anything done, including USMCA.

And because of that, Neil, they're going to lose their majority next fall.

CAVUTO: Do you have any problems, not only about the impeachment validity or whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor, with the tone of the president's conversations, whether he's talking to the Australian prime minister and asking for help debunking the Mueller probe, or presumably talking to the Ukrainian leader, asking for his help looking into Joe Biden and his son and that relationship?

Just mentioning and doing that, do you have a problem with that?


EMMER: I will tell you what's inappropriate.

What's inappropriate is this obsession with hatred of this president, that you would do anything to undermine not only the administration...

CAVUTO: I know that, sir, but that that alone, on any level?

Some of your colleagues have expressed at least concern, they wouldn't do that themselves. Rick Scott was telling me that, other Republicans, but that it didn't pass the high crimes and misdemeanor test.

EMMER: There's no crime here.

And yet they throw the term impeachment around like we throw candy around on Halloween.

And I will tell you, what is very disturbing is Hunter Biden getting $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian natural gas company. That stinks to high heaven.

CAVUTO: So, they're going to look into this, that you argue they should look into that?

EMMER: I think everybody should be looking into that, absolutely.

CAVUTO: All right, so Biden sinking in the polls right now, and Bernie Sanders presently sidelined. We hope things are going to be all right with this heart situation, some tents being put it.

Elizabeth Warren emerges as the front-runner among the Democrats. How do you feel, for the time being, about that?

EMMER: If Elizabeth Warren is the candidate, not only will that reelect Donald Trump, but, again, because of their obsession with their hatred for Donald Trump, and the fact that they have promised -- this new socialist Democrat majority promised they were going to get things done.

They aren't working on reducing the cost of prescription drugs. They aren't working on surprise billing. They're not taking care of things like USMCA to get our trade agreements in place, so that we can start moving product.

Because of that, Neil, they are going to lose their majority in the House as well next fall.

CAVUTO: And the president will win reelection?

EMMER: Yes, he will.

CAVUTO: All right. We will watch it very, very closely, Congressman.

He's the chairman who's trying to get Republicans elected to the House. And, if it works, then he could be in good -- in good shape.

The president clearly thinks this whole New York Times report about Adam Schiff gives him an edge. Does it really?

After this.


CAVUTO: All right, it's the new wrinkle. What did Congressman Adam Schiff know? And when did he know it?

Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill on a meeting that has some eyebrows raising.

Hey, Mike.


Yes, Chairman Adam Schiff's spokesman, Patrick Boland, responded to this New York Times report, saying -- quote -- "Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since, under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community."

The New York Times says the House Intelligence chairman, Adam Schiff, learned about the outlines of a CIA officer's concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the whistle-blower filed a complaint.

So Schiff knew about it well before last week's public hearing, and he also knew to push the Trump administration to release that complaint.

Schiff's spokesman goes on to explain: "At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance. The committee didn't receive the complaint until the night before the acting director of national intelligence's open hearing before the committee."

Now, the House staff member urged this person to lawyer up and to file a whistle-blower complaint. And we understand that that staff member then shared some of the allegations with Chairman Schiff -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you, my friend.

Well, if Adam Schiff did indeed know about the whistle-blower complaint before it was filed, what does really that mean?

Former federal prosecutor, a darn good lawyer in his own right, Doug Burns.


CAVUTO: What does that mean?

BURNS: It doesn't necessarily mean anything, honestly, because the point is, he consulted with an attorney. They went through it. They laid it out.

And we have this term, something's cured. And the point is, once the document is out in front of the world to look at it and read it and review it -- and by document, I mean not only the synopsis of the conversation between the president and the Ukrainian leader, but also the whistle-blower complaint itself.

It's a little bit sort of...

CAVUTO: Now, the whistle-blower, you were telling me during the break, reads like a legal document.


I have heard people -- to me, just to clarify this, I hear everybody putting these legal points into political terms. And it's a little bit comical, honestly. Like, in other words, OK, he knew about it a day in advance, therefore, we will just feel it out, this is some coordinated effort, et cetera, et cetera.

That's a little bit over the skis.

CAVUTO: Then what does it mean?

BURNS: Yes, but then, in reverse, this document is a legalistic thing.

You can see it was done by a law firm. It cites all kinds of statutes, so, therefore, it's a coordinated effort, et cetera.


CAVUTO: A coordinated hit job.

BURNS: Yes, a coordinated hit job. Thank you.

But the point is, I don't buy into all these wild theories. I just look at law as law. So the point is...

CAVUTO: So if you're going to prepare -- you're a whistle-blower doing that.

BURNS: Right.

CAVUTO: Would you go through lawyers to get it right, dot the I's, cross the T's?

BURNS: I think many whistle-blowers -- and, again, it's so comical.

CAVUTO: Because that's what they're going to argue, right?

BURNS: It's so comical, that it sounds political.

But, no, many whistle-blowers are going to consult with a lawyer. And the lawyer is going to maybe sketch out the complaint.


CAVUTO: What do you make of what the president is saying, with Democrats saying, are you threatening the whistle-blower?

BURNS: No, I think that's also over the top.

I mean, the way I come out on this -- and I keep joking around about it, Neil -- is, it's like one big moot court. When you do moot court in law school, one side of students gets up and argues evenly their side, then the other.

And what we see a lot of times in the discussions in the media is people arguing one side vehemently, then the other. The point is, the truth is always sort of down the middle here.

So the point -- where I come out on it is, OK, it's a little different. I don't believe in running down the street, like the bulls in Pamplona, or getting way out in front of the skis and all of that.

I say, if you have an allegation, we're going to look at it, we're going to interview the witnesses. OK. There's a big dust-up, by the way, it's interesting, about firsthand vs. hearsay. And everybody went crazy with that. So, I'm going to explain that.

CAVUTO: Because this whistle-blower wasn't in or knew about the conversation. So he's getting it secondhand.


BURNS: But this is interesting. A, you're exactly right. The old funny thing. Timmy told me that the light was red.

Well, you can bring in Timmy.

CAVUTO: That's why the president is arguing that they got ahead of their skis, that they're doing the whole Mueller thing all over again.


BURNS: Right.

And the other thing is that you said ahead of the skis. The idea of somebody getting it early is interesting, because they came out, don't forget -- and, again, this sounds political. But they came and said, this is impeachable before the thing was released, which is...

CAVUTO: Well, could I ask you this?

BURNS: Yes, please.

CAVUTO: One quick thing that comes up -- you're a lawyer. The whole quid pro quo argument that the leader of Ukraine was asked, get some information on a guy who could potentially be my opponent next year.

BURNS: Right. Yes.

CAVUTO: And if he got that information to the president, is that alone a quid pro quo?

BURNS: Well, no, the quid pro quo means on both sides of the equation.

So, again...

CAVUTO: So, leaving the aid that might have been held up.

BURNS: Yes, but let me be fair.

He doesn't -- he doesn't mention aid in the conversation.

CAVUTO: I understand.

BURNS: So, naturally, everybody from the right -- no, no, again, this is where I disagree with them. They foam at the mouth: You see that? There's no quid pro quo.

You have to look at the withholding of the aid earlier, the chronology.

CAVUTO: We don't know whether that happened.


CAVUTO: Let's leave the aid out of it. I want to ask you, as a lawyer.


BURNS: With nothing more, to answer your question -- sorry to interrupt you.


BURNS: It's not a quid pro quo unless I say, Neil, if you do this for me, then I will do that for you.

CAVUTO: Yes, but what if all I wanted was dirt on someone, and he delivered the dirt? Did I get my -- what is that Latin term? It's this for that. That's what quid pro quo is.

Did I get that?


BURNS: Yes, quid pro quo.

But a lot of lawyers have said -- and they're right -- that you don't necessarily -- and it gets complicated -- necessarily need a formal quid pro quo.


CAVUTO: But then you don't have a high crime and misdemeanor, and all this is a waste of time.

BURNS: I think it is a waste of time.

But the point is, if you're asking them to get dirt on an opponent, then you're getting a thing of value. So it's getting in the weeds. You have heard people explaining that.


CAVUTO: But this is a political process, right, Doug?

You want a drip, drip, drip of accusations and that all that are unseemly for a president to do, but not necessarily enough to remove him from office.

BURNS: Ten times more political than legal, obviously, and you're exactly right.

And so the argument is that they really -- they disagree with him so vehemently. Put aside the personal animosity.

But they disagree with his policies, and they want to remove him from office without the voting box. That's a fair argument. And then the converse is oh, no, no, he's abused his power.

But I think, in the end, honestly, those who say it's not a high crime and misdemeanor have the better of the argument, honestly. I have got to be fair.

CAVUTO: All right. We will watch it closely.

Doug, always good seeing you, my friend, Doug Burns.

BURNS: Thank you. -

CAVUTO: We told you a little bit about Bernie Sanders undergoing a heart procedure. He's recovering. What are his rivals saying?

We're on it after this.


CAVUTO: Joe Biden just responding to questions about his son Hunter Biden on this whole Ukraine controversy.

We're going to play them, and you decide whether there's anything to them - - after this.


CAVUTO: All right, Joe Biden just moments ago taking on the president over remarks about his son Hunter Biden, Ukraine. Take a look.


QUESTION: The president said -- quote -- and, again, he said this without providing -- as you pointed out, providing any evidence of wrongdoing.

But he said -- quote -- "Biden and his son are stone-cold crooked."

Have you -- have you talked to your son about any of this?

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I talked to my son -- I -- we have communicated. He lives out in California. We communicated a couple times.

But, look, there is zero, zero, zero, zero evidence of any assertion being made. I'm not going to go into it now.

Look, the issue is, this president of the United States engaged in something apparently that is close to -- well, engaged in activity which, at a minimum, gives a lot of running room for the Russians in Ukraine.

And I think we should just focus on, he's the issue. Nobody has ever asserted that I did anything wrong, except he and, what is that fellow's name? Rudy? Hootie? Or whatever his name?


BIDEN: Giuliani. That's it.


CAVUTO: All right, Joe Biden on MSNBC a little while ago saying that the president's the issue, not Joe Biden, and certainly not Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.

Peter Doocy with the latest from Las Vegas -- Peter.

PETER DOOCY, CORRESPONDENT: And, Neil, just in, we have the first reaction from Bernie Sanders, who is dealing with some major health issues since he landed in Nevada.

He tweeted this: "Thanks for all the well-wishes. I'm feeling good. I'm fortunate to have good health care and great doctors and nurses helping me to recover. None of us know when a medical emergency might affect us, and no one should fear going bankrupt if it occurs. Medicare for all."

Shortly after Sanders landed here in Las Vegas, he went to visit the memorial for victims to the Route 91 Harvest Festival mass murder. And then he showed up at a grassroots fund-raiser, where it was very clear he was out of gas.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our -- can you do me a favor? Get me a chair up here for a moment. It's been a long day. Yes.

That chair works.


DOOCY: Experienced chest discomfort from what doctors discovered was a blocked artery that required two stents.

He had to skip this 2020 gun reform forum. But many of his rivals did show up. And they're thinking about him.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have texted and I have called, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I'm sure Bernie is going to be back on the trail soon.

PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're reaching out to send good wishes.



DOOCY: Joe Biden just wrapped up at this event, where he's campaigning like his name or his son's name were never really introduced into the national dialogue by President Trump, as these accusations fly around about who may have abused power when dealing with Ukraine.

That's even though a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat in Biden's corner, Ed Rendell, is now quoted by The Washington Examiner as saying that this could all hurt Biden if the Trump team turns some compelling TV ads about the Ukraine controversy.

Rendell is somebody who Biden has been spending time with since the very first day of this third presidential campaign of his. And he is a very influential Democrat, Ed Rendell is, in Pennsylvania, a state that Biden openly admits is critical to a potential path to the White House for him -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Peter, thank you very much, Peter Doocy, on all of that.

And the latest rumblings within the Democratic Party candidate leadership here as to who is jostling right now, with so much going on, not only what's happening with Joe Biden, but right now what's going on health-wise with Bernie Sanders -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, you have heard by now that Bernie Sanders had to cancel upcoming campaign events after undergoing a heart procedure, some stents put in to alleviate some weariness he was feeling.

How could this shake up the race?

We have got Democratic strategist David Burstein, Republican strategist Alexandra Wilkes, and The New York Post's Brooke Rogers.

Brooke, does it change the dynamics here? What do you think?

BROOKE ROGERS, THE NEW YORK POST: I think it does, yes, absolutely.

I think that it will impact how people see him as -- you know, he's a very loud person. He's a very outgoing person. He's a very energetic person. But he is 78.

So I think that it will impact how he is viewed by his base a little bit. He has a very loyal base. But that is a concern. Health is a huge concern.

CAVUTO: Yes, it's a grueling process for even the youngest of men and women running, right?


And we know -- there's been a lot spoken about the age. And, obviously, we wish Bernie Sanders well.

But it -- I think, if anything, it highlights that. Health concerns, these are not things people want raised during the course of a primary.

CAVUTO: Joe Biden's about the same age, right?

BURSTEIN: Right. And they're the same age as Trump. They're not far off from Elizabeth Warren. They're all kind of in that upper group.

So I think, if anything...


CAVUTO: You're a young guy, so the closer I get to those numbers, they're not so old.


CAVUTO: But how does it play out, you think?

ALEXANDRA WILKES, AMERICA RISING CORP.: Well, all politics aside, we obviously wish Bernie Sanders well. This isn't something we'd want to happen to anybody.

But because we all play politics here, it's impossible to see how this doesn't open up a little bit for Elizabeth Warren. She has been slowly siphoning off that base throughout the -- throughout the duration of the primary campaign. She's been rising in the polls.

And you could potentially see a contrast there of a younger progressive vs. an older one.

Now, as David mentioned...

CAVUTO: Well, she's not a spring chicken herself, right?

WILKES: Certainly not.

But, I mean, optics are everything.

CAVUTO: I know.

WILKES: And in this case, however tragic they might be, they certainly do...


CAVUTO: No, no, you're right. And that's why we're talking about it.

But one of the things, Brooke -- I heard it -- and one of the reasons why some on Wall Street were getting nervous -- outside issue here -- that Elizabeth Warren is the one with the wealth tax, the Wall Street tax.

She's emerged as the unequivocal front-runner even before this right now. And they fear that. They have a real concern about that. What do you think?

ROGERS: I don't think that Bernie Sanders strikes me as particularly pro- corporation, pro-business.

I think that, since she's been -- since she was a bankruptcy professor at Harvard, she's been very anti-corruption and has that a very anti-Wall Street tone to her messaging.

CAVUTO: So, Wall Street's skittishness is justified?

ROGERS: Absolutely.

But I think that -- I'm not sure if Bernie is...


CAVUTO: No, no.

I'm only saying that, if she is emerging, that their view was that she's actually worse in that regard.

BURSTEIN: Well, and I think, look, it already takes away -- she's already, as you mentioned, going in this direction. It's just one more thing to help build her momentum potentially. He's off the campaign trail for a couple days.

And at this point, we're getting into that point where every day counts.

CAVUTO: It does.

WILKES: It's possible that Wall Street here saw Bernie Sanders as splitting up that progressive vote, making Elizabeth Warren's ascent a little less likely.

Now that he might be taken away from the campaign trail for some duration, it might sort of further propel her, which might be making Wall Street understandably nervous.

CAVUTO: But, you know, I actually heard this ghoulish play on it, and in a respectable way, Charlie Gasparino relayed it, this idea that, well, she can never win a general election, she might get the party's nomination, but the old line that she'd be like a George McGovern, she couldn't get further than that, and that might be to the president's favor.

What do you think?

ROGERS: Well, in recent polls, just a couple, but in recent polls, she actually has been pulling head of Biden.

Now, that could be because some Bernie supporters are drifting toward her, and it's causing...


CAVUTO: I'm talking in the general election, if she were the nominee.

BURSTEIN: But I will say this, which is that there's a lot more enthusiasm for her than among the Democratic base than Biden.

And I think that is really important, because that enthusiasm is how you get volunteers. It's how you get small dollars. She's been able to do something which I think has been underreported. She's raised her entire campaign on small dollars.

CAVUTO: Small denominations, yes.

BURSTEIN: She hasn't done those fund-raisers. She's taking selfies with everybody who comes in.

And those things actually matter a lot.

CAVUTO: What about the Biden stuff fallout? Even if there's no there there, the fact that I talked to so many people who said, what was his son doing in the Ukraine years ago? It's new news to them.

WILKES: No, look, if you think that the Joe Biden-Hunter Biden stuff has no impact and there's no problem there, you weren't paying attention in 2016.

The Trumps and the Republicans effectively muddied up Hillary Clinton.

CAVUTO: So be careful what you wish for, Democrats, right? Is that what this is saying? Because there's investigating a lot of stuff going on.

ROGERS: Yes, I think that's absolutely true, that Biden could get muddied in this way.

But you have to remember that this also could draw criticism on Trump's own children, Ivanka and Don Jr.

BURSTEIN: It's already begun.

CAVUTO: It spreads. It spreads. The pox on everybody if it drags on.

Guys, thank you all very, very much.

In the meantime, these Hong Kong protests showing that, when push comes to shove, China will happily shove dissidents off the face of the earth? Yes -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, it's getting nasty again there.

Will these new protests trigger some more violent action?

We talked to a famous Chinese dissident on this very show yesterday who says, when push comes to shove, this is what the Chinese will do, respond as they did in Tiananmen Square 30 years ago.

But the vice chairman of Kissinger Associates and the former assistant secretary of state Bob Hormats disagrees with that you.

You argue, Bob -- and it's very good to have you.


CAVUTO: That it's a different China today.

HORMATS: It's a very different China today. And I think it'd be a big mistake to compare it with Tiananmen Square.

I think, first of all, this is on an island. The Chinese have an interest in Hong Kong, but there's a separate system in Hong Kong. And my guess is that they will be very, very reluctant to intervene, and they will encourage the government in China to take -- in Hong Kong -- to take tough action.


CAVUTO: But if it doesn't work -- and now they upped it with tear gas yesterday, shooting protesters.

She and others are convinced that, at their core, nothing really changed in the 30 years, that China doesn't think the world will do anything, just as it didn't in response 30 years ago.

HORMATS: Well, I think the world have sort of let Carrie Lam and the Hong Kongers deal with this issue themselves.

There are not a lot of countries...

CAVUTO: But isn't China really calling the shots?

HORMATS: They're certainly encouraging her to deal with this issue.

CAVUTO: Got it. She's the Hong Kong authority.

HORMATS: She's the authority in Hong Kong.

CAVUTO: Yes, governor.

HORMATS: But they're not -- they really are not aching for -- they're not really desirous of intervention.

CAVUTO: But are they big on how they look abroad, Bob?

Like, when they -- this looks like really big, strong, mob-like response. And do they want that image?

HORMATS: But it's an arm's length. It's the government of Hong Kong doing it. It's not the government of China.

CAVUTO: Do people distinguish?


CAVUTO: They do?

HORMATS: They distinguish in the region. They distinguish in general that they understand that Carrie Lam has the support of China.

But they also understand that China is looking at Hong Kong as something separate, one country, two systems. And I think they want to allow the government of Hong Kong to deal with this, without their playing a role, in part because they don't want to get involved, and in part because Chinese engagement in Hong Kong would lead to a lot of other concerns.

They want to deal with their economy.


CAVUTO: Yes, you don't want to stir the spot.

What about the trade talks here? And if I could switch gears from this to the impeachment stuff with the president and all this other stuff, do the Chinese look at that and say, well, you know what, we don't -- we don't do anything?

HORMATS: Well, there's a school of thought that I think has passed.

And that is that they will wait out Trump and go with the next administration, which could be Trump or it could be someone else. I do think now...

CAVUTO: But if he's going to be the tougher cop, wouldn't you want to just wait out the next person?

HORMATS: You would.

But then, of course, there's a risk. And there's a risk of a lot of uncertainty taking place that hurts their economy, and, of course, it's hurting our economy.

CAVUTO: Where do you think this all ends? Are we going to have a deal by the election, or not?

HORMATS: Well, that's the interesting thing.

They may conclude that our economy, particularly when you look at stock market today and the recent numbers on industrial output, they may say, well, the Americans are suffering economically.

CAVUTO: So we might need it more than they.

HORMATS: We may need more than they.

And they're not -- they have resilience. They can actually stimulate the economy. They can lower interest rates. They can stimulate...


HORMATS: ... investment.

CAVUTO: Do you think they have the upper hand?

HORMATS: I don't think they have the upper hand, but they -- but we shouldn't assume that they feel they have the weaker hand.

They shouldn't assume that we can intimidate them because their economy is weakening. A, it's not weakening that much. And, B, they see a lot of tools that they can use to prevent it from weakening too much.

The bigger concern, I think, on their part, certainly some of their negotiators and policy-makers, is, do the Americans have the goal in mind of a deal which increases trade opportunities, a level playing field, which is a more traditional kind of trade negotiating deal, although it involves tariffs?


CAVUTO: But not an unequal one, right?

HORMATS: But then the other part of is, if there are people in the United States and the White House or elsewhere who say, our goal is decoupling, our goal is to squelch China, then the Americans, they will say, don't really want a deal, so why should we put our best offer on the table if the motivation of the United States is not a trade deal at all, but to squelch us, suppress us, and decouple?

CAVUTO: Got it. And we will just hold on. Got it.

HORMATS: Then the hard-liners say, we're not going to put big offers on the table, maybe a skinny deal, but not a big deal that answers all these questions.


CAVUTO: Bob, always a pleasure. Long time, no see. Don't make a stranger of yourself.

HORMATS: It's been great, Neil, always.

CAVUTO: Decades, we have known each other. He's not aging.

HORMATS: Absolutely. Absolutely right.


CAVUTO: And it's kind of ticking me off.

HORMATS: That's right.

CAVUTO: But, anyway, even after all those love letters, North Korea keeps firing off all those missiles -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, timing is everything.

The State Department has confirmed FOX just a few minutes ago that it did indeed provide the inspector general Ukraine materials as far back as May 3. That's a lot earlier than thought and is going to involve a lot more timing about who knew what and when and how much they leapt on that material, something that the president had feared was a sham of an investigation and a witch-hunt, as you just heard from his press briefing a little more than an hour ago.

We will keep you posted on that.

With us now is the former USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold.

And, Kirk, I did want to get into the North Korea stuff.

But I did want to pick your brain very quickly on this Ukraine back and forth and who knew what and when. Where do you think it's going?

KIRK LIPPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: I think what you're seeing, Neil, is a continuation of what has happened since the minute the American people learned that Donald Trump was our president.

You have those people on the left that are apparently working every single day to delegitimize and undermine this president. And I think it's unfortunate, because, at the end of the day, it creates a national security concern, because there will be countries like China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia that may take and pick that one moment where they perceive vulnerability, where the American people will not back the commander in chief at a critical moment, and use that moment to gain power somewhere in the world, either regionally, like China and North Korea, or throughout Europe and Ukraine, like the Russians are attempting and still are doing.

CAVUTO: Right.

In the brief time -- and I apologize, Commander -- but this North Korea latest missile test, I guess they have ruled out it came from a submarine, but it definitely came from water or near water.

And I'm wondering, all these little letters and cards, what the heck is going on?

LIPPOLD: When you really look at it, Neil, what the North Koreans have continued to do is what I said they would do when I talked to you about this starting a year ago, until six months ago.

They are going to continue to do research and development to try and miniaturize a nuclear weapon, to gain the capability for an intercontinental ballistic missile that can strike every place within the United States.

And if we continue to allow them this R&D effort, they're eventually going to have an operational capability that will threaten the United States. They are a playing card for China. It's very clear that China is allowing them to do this. They're aiding and abetting it.

And the United States, at some point, like Ambassador Bolton said the other day, they are not going to give these missiles or these nuclear weapons up willingly.

CAVUTO: Right.

LIPPOLD: Therefore, the United States must be prepared to have every option on the table.

CAVUTO: Commander, thank you very much. I apologize for the shortened time, with all the breaking news, but good to have you back with us.

LIPPOLD: Thank you, Neil. Great to be back.

CAVUTO: All right.

We are going to exploring the market fallout for all of this tomorrow on FOX Business with the former SEC top cop Harvey Pitt on whether investors are being treated fairly. Are you? We will ask him tomorrow on FBN.

Here comes "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.