Rep. Lance Gooden: Nancy Pelosi said impeachment should be bipartisan

close

Video

Gooden: Pelosi said impeachment should be bipartisan

Texas Rep. Lance Gooden on House Judiciary Committee Democrats approving articles of impeachment.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," December 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS]

Rep. Jerry Nadler: For the third time in a little over a century-and-a half, the House Judiciary Committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president.

Rep. Mike Johnson: Fourteen hours yesterday and a few moments this morning, this anticlimactic end to this whole charade was fitting and appropriate. There wasn't much there.

Sen. Mitch McConnell: This is a really weak case. And that's why I think you're going to see bipartisan opposition to their articles only in the House.

President Donald Trump: So, the impeachment is a hoax. It's a sham. It started a long time ago.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin: We have had the phones ringing off the hook. We actually had to install a third phone line yesterday in the office because we couldn't keep up with –

Bill Hemmer, Fox News: Really?

Elissa Slotkin: -- the pace. Yeah. And that's in Michigan and in D.C.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger: The allegations against the president are incredibly [inaudible].

Male Speaker: The allegation [inaudible].

[CROSSTALK]

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Neil Cavuto, anchor: All right. Well, a lot of those lawmakers are going back to their districts to get a sort of a temperature on how their voters feel. It could get them an earful. In the meantime, we are focusing on markets, as well, that have sort of been nonplussed by all of that. Why is that? Again and again, impeachment isn't the story. Some other big things are. We'll get into that, as well. Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto and this is "Your World." First, what is next on the impeachment stop? Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill with more on that. Hey, Michael.

Mike Emanuel, Fox News: Neil, good afternoon. Two articles of impeachment are being sent to the House Rules Committee to prepare for votes on the House floor next week. Republicans, unable to stop it, are fired up.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Rep. Louie Gohmert: We voted on a provision, an allegation of abuse of power. There was an abuse of power at the Department of Justice. There was an abuse of power at the FBI. There was abuse of power at the FISA court.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Mike Emanuel: Another House Judiciary Republican says this is all pure politics.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler: The fact that we came in this morning for a 10:00 a.m. vote, when we could have done it last night, was because they wanted to keep this in the news cycle one more day. This has been politically orchestrated and politically motivated from day one.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Mike Emanuel: There's also the 31 House Democrats in districts President Trump won in 2016 who could pay a heavy price with their impeachment votes. So far, Democrats from more liberal districts are saying they don't think voters will side with the GOP.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal: I have a tremendous amount of faith in the American people. And I would just say look past the Republicans' obstruction and lies, look past all the spaghetti they threw at the wall and tried to get to stick that isn't real.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Mike Emanuel: The Rules Committee will prepare the articles of impeachment on Tuesday. That could set the stage for votes on the House Floor as early as next Wednesday. Neil?

Neil Cavuto: All right, Mike. Thank you very, very much. Now, to the White House. We find our John Roberts and how they're digesting all of this. Hey, John.

John Roberts, Fox News: Neil, good afternoon to you. I spent some time in the Oval Office with the president around noon time. He said that he watched some of the proceedings with the vote this morning, but he said he watched a lot of what was going on in the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday and the debate over the articles of impeachment. The president, again, calling the whole thing, "a sham, a hoax," accusing Democrats of running, you know, the sort of thing that should never happen to a U.S. president, insisting he did nothing wrong, warning that what the Democrats are doing, "trivializing impeachment," the president said -- some people say, "weaponized impeachment" -- could eventually come back to bite them the next time there is a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. The president has every expectation that this will end up in the Senate in a trial. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and Senator Lindsey Graham have said that they want a short trial. What does the president want? I asked him that question. Listen here.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

President Donald Trump: And I'll do whatever they want to. It doesn't matter. I wouldn't mind a long process because I'd like to see the whistleblower, who's is a fraud. Now, look, we're dealing with a lot of corrupt people. There was nothing done wrong. To use the power of impeachment on this nonsense is an embarrassment to this country. The president just said it: "It's an embarrassment to our country."

[END VIDEO CLIP]

John Roberts: Now, the president to whom the president was referring was the president of Paraguay, who was in the Oval Office with him. On "Hannity" last night, the Senate majority leader said he will coordinate on the way forward with the president's White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, an acknowledgment that does not sit well with Democrats. Listen to Congressman Raskin again.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Rep. Jamie Raskin: I couldn't believe it when I was told that Senator McConnell had said that the Senate is working directly with the White House to set up the rules that they want. That is a complete surrender of the constitutional duties and prerogatives of the Senate, essentially turning them over to the White House.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

John Roberts: Well, it's mostly about impeachment here in Washington. It's not all about impeachment. The president also announcing today agreement on Phase One of a new trade deal with China. China has agreed to buy more agricultural products, energy, and manufactured goods from the United States. There was also some movement on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer that we don't yet know exactly what that's all about. In exchange, the president is going to cancel new tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on Sunday and will lower some other tariffs, but still leave on tariffs of 25 percent on $250 billion in Chinese goods. Why? Listen here.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

President Donald Trump: It's, to mean, not complicated, but that's what I do. It's a phenomenal deal. The tariffs will largely remain at 25 percent on $250 billion, and we'll use them for future negotiations on the Phase Two deal.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

John Roberts: The Phase Two deal. The president was saying, just in recent weeks, Neil, that this whole China trade thing may have to get pushed off the calendar until after next November's election. But the president said today that Phase Two is going to begin right away. The Chinese agreed that it will. But they also said how Phase Two progresses depends on how Phase One rolls out. So, I think it's still not a done deal just yet. Neil?

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, even the Phase One had some bumps along the way. Thank you --

John Roberts: [laughs]

Neil Cavuto: -- John Roberts. All right. Texas Republican Congressman Lance Gooden with us right now. Congressman, it's not your bailiwick within the Financial Services Committee, but generally in the House, when they do have this impeachment vote, it seems pretty sure to go along largely party lines, and then it goes to the Senate. How do you think that's going to go?

Rep. Lance Gooden: Well, first off, back to the largely upon -- largely along party lines comment, Nancy Pelosi said this should be bipartisan if we're going to go forward. And she's getting what she wants in the sense that this will be bipartisan against the impeachment resolution. We have Democrats that are going to be peeling off with us next week.

Neil Cavuto: How many do you suspect?

Lance Gooden: No. No Republicans are going to stray.

Neil Cavuto: How many do you suspect Democrats will peel off?

Lance Gooden: My guess -- my guess is 10, give or take a few. But the point is, is they are not unified on this because they know they don't have a case, they know that the facts are very weak, and they know that the process has been flawed. Even if you hate Donald Trump, you've got to agree that this process has been flawed. Democrats in my district -- we don't have a lot -- but they're nice people, too. They have come up to me and said, "I don't like the president, but I do agree that this process has been flawed." And you have to agree that the president deserves a fair shake, and he hasn't gotten it. So, no matter what you think of the president, you, as an American -- any American should be disappointed and ashamed of this process. I certainly am.

Neil Cavuto: Well, you know, some of your Democratic colleagues are ashamed of what they're hearing coming out of Mitch McConnell and the United States Senate, that he is working with the White House counsel on the impeachment process that looks like it's sort of an inside, friendly, you know, game here. What do you think of that?

Lance Gooden: Well, I think that the White House should be worked with and accommodated. They were not even allowed to be present, in many cases, for the proceedings that we had here in the House. So, I think the president will get a fair shake in the Senate. I think that the Republican-led Senate will do a fine job. But I think we also need to wait and let's see how it shakes out.

Neil Cavuto: All right.

Lance Gooden: I see that the --

Neil Cavuto: Though, but it doesn't bother you on the level of the president earlier saying, "I'll do what I want to do," and it will almost seem like he's orchestrating this in the Senate. At least that is how it appears to some.

Lance Gooden: Absolutely not, because this whole process is a sham. So, we're now, in the Senate, concluding a sham process. You can't sell suddenly legitimize this sham process, no matter what happens in the Senate.

Neil Cavuto: But you do risk

Lance Gooden: Nothing that takes place --

Neil Cavuto: -- countering a sham process with what your critics say will be a sham of your own, right?

Lance Gooden: I'll tell you when our critics will stop criticizing, and that's when Republicans retake the majority. Because Kevin McCarthy, our leader, the minority leader of the Republicans in the House, he has said to me, other members that I worked with, he said, "When we take back the majority, we're not going --

Neil Cavuto: No, I understand --

Lance Gooden: -- to govern this way."

Neil Cavuto: -- but that's not what I what I --

Lance Gooden: No president should --

Neil Cavuto: -- sir, that's not what I --

Lance Gooden: -- no president should be treated this way.

Neil Cavuto: -- that's not what I asked. I guess what I'm getting at is -- and you're quite right, and a lot of people agree with you. And, certainly, in your party, there's reason to feel bitter and angry about how the process went in the House. But, now, we have what seems to be, at least on the surface, a cozy relationship going forward where you're supposed to have a trial in the Senate. You don't think there's anything awkward there?

Lance Gooden: I don't. And in fact, we heard Lindsey Graham say -- I think it was last week -- he said, "We're not going to call all these witnesses that our supporters and our base back home want us to call because we don't want to run this thing like the House Democrats did." So, I think you'll be -- in a few weeks or months or whenever this goes down -- you'll be saying, "Wow, this was a fair process. It's a shame it even came to this point." It's a shame that the --

Neil Cavuto: Will it be a fast --

Lance Gooden: -- U.S. House of Representatives --

Neil Cavuto: -- process? Wil it be a fast process, Congressman? The understanding we have is there might be few, if any, witnesses and a vote up, or down, and done.

Lance Gooden: You'd have to ask the Senate. I don't know how -- I don't want to speculate, but I suspect it will be fair.

Neil Cavuto: Okay.

Lance Gooden: And I suspect it won't be nearly the joke that you've seen the last few months in the House.

Neil Cavuto: All right, Congressman, thank you very, very much. We have Bloomberg pollster, Doug Schoen, with us --

Lance Gooden: Thank you.

Neil Cavuto: With that, right now, I've got a fair balanced view from Democrats where this is going, Doug where do you think this goes if they wrap this up that quickly in the Senate again I'm taking the leap here that fairly or not, the president is impeached in the House. What do you think?

Doug Schoen: I think that the Senate will acquit him as Mitch McConnell has said. I think Donald Trump is going to say the Democrats are 0 for 2. No collusion, no charges by Special Counsel Muller, and impeachment was a big nothing. I think on balance, it's going to hurt the Democrats marginally in swing states with swing voters. But this is going to be a very close election. And I think by the time we get to next November, Neil, this impeachment process will be a distant memory deal.

Neil Cavuto: Do you think right now, the president seemed to be itching to get a chance to speak or state his case. Mitch McConnell seems to be indicating that wouldn't be a good idea. I get a sense that they want to make this quick done and over, which will be the winning argument.

Doug Schoen: I think the McConnell approach is the winning argument. Look, we know the outline of the facts and they're seen very different ways by the Republicans and the Democrats but the quicker this is done and the quicker the president does what Bill Clinton, the president I worked for who had been impeached did, which is to talk about the issues and the progress, the better off President Trump will be. I dare say the country will be.

Neil Cavuto: How do you think the two sides when this saga is done will get along and be able to do stuff?

Doug Schoen: I don't think they will Neil. Everything I've seen both by talking to people, observing, watching TV suggests we're even more polarized and it's more toxic. And goodness gracious, I heard on one show last night somebody called the Democrats the enemies of the people. I've heard all that rhetoric on both sides. I'm not blaming either party, but I can tell you, Neil, we all lose Democrats, Republicans and Independents if we don't pull together to work constructively.

Neil Cavuto: All right, Doug Schoen, thank you very much.

Doug Schoen: Thank you, Neil.

Neil Cavuto: Speaking here we're getting possible details of the Supreme Court could come out with a decision regarding the president's finances decisions that will be coming down potentially shortly. It's not a ruling on this as much as the possibility that they will take up the case, after this.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Prime Minister Boris Johnson: With this mandate and this majority, we will at last be able to do what?

Crowd: Get Brexit done!

Boris Johnson: You've been paying attention. Let's get Brexit done. But first, my friends, let's get breakfast done.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Neil Cavuto: What was remarkable isn't so much that Boris Johnson, his conservatives, won this special election, he called. That was almost expected. What wasn't was the landslide margins by which he did, boasting conservatives a majority in parliament and all but paving the way for a formal separation of Britain from the European Union. What is more telling is how much British voters recoiled at the extreme liberal policies, at least they deemed, for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labor Party, their sort of Democrat Party, if you will. And whether that could be a preview of coming attractions in this country. Let's get the read from the Federalist Mollie Hemingway. Mollie, what do you think?

Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist: Yes. Well, I think there are lessons for both parties here. We can see that this is this right-wing populism has growing appeal, not just in this country, but in other countries as well. And that there are challenges when you have a left-wing ideologue who's beholden to identity politics. So, I think, you know, while each country is different, you don't want to take too much out of a given election. This seems significant in the same way that that initial Brexit vote that was in 2016 seemed significant going into our following presidential campaign.

Neil Cavuto: You know, Mollie, I was wondering, too, knowing that I would be talking to you, that a lot of people back in this country might say, especially in the Democratic Party, maybe we shouldn't showcase extreme liberals whose positions might be deemed out of touch with the main American electorate. So, this could be seen as an opportunity for Democrats to sort of recalibrate and look for a more moderate nominee. Always hear Joe Biden come up there and not exclusively, but definitely not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. That might be a leap. But what do you think?

Mollie Hemingway: I don't know. I think that is absolutely true, that there were problems with Corbyn. I mean, this is a guy who openly embraced a lot of, you know, pro-terrorism type stances. He has, he has a lack of appeal that is very significant. I am not entirely sure if that's the same as a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren. And to some extent, I think there are ideological rigidity has something of an advantage for them. The thing that both left and right need to realize is their policies need to serve the people.

And you've seen this growing calcification in both parties. What's really interesting and exciting about this moment is looking at politicians who are willing to embrace a slight change in what were previously thought rigid orthodoxies that they had to have. This party, the Conservative Party in the UK, was willing to go slightly left on economics, but staying true to these big picture issues like the importance of borders, national identity.

Neil Cavuto: Right. Right.

Mollie Hemingway: And if you are able to think that way, you can have huge success. I mean, there is a reason why people see some sort of similarities between Trump and Boris Johnson and Brexit and whatnot. But really, it's a larger warning for both parties that identity politics is not a big a big seller, and it's going to turn off a lot of people. I mean, these are stunning defeats for Jeremy Corbyn's party. And it's not just his ideology. It's really -- or his political ideology. It's also about just the -- how beholden he was to some of the extreme fringes.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, he did take extreme positions. That became the face of the party. And so much so that after these results, he has stepped down as head of the party. But let me ask you -- one thing I also notice is that while the polls, by and large, got the result that the conservatives would win correct, they didn't get the landslide nature of this correct. And I'm wondering if there was such a thing as a secret Boris Johnson vote that a lot of people when polled didn't admit that they liked him and wanted to vote for him. He's a very appealing fellow, but a lot of people in Britain didn't like to admit that. That was exactly what happened in the case of Trump in this country.

Mollie Hemingway: You do wonder how many times this has to happen --

Neil Cavuto: Right. Right.

Mollie Hemingway: -- where you have the media establishment just refusing to concede the possibility. All of the celebrities saying that, you know, that these people are deplorable for even considering about considering voting for someone different than who they would vote for. And they do it over and over again. It's almost becoming part of a pattern where not only do they do a really bad job covering the campaign, they then freak out following its -- and voters don't seem to care. You can call them horrible names all you want, but they do know what's going on. They do care about the bigger issues, and they will vote in their interest.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah. And in Britain, it has more impact as you say "deplorable." You know, that kind of stuff. All right.

Great job and Molly, thank you as always. All right, in the meantime, the big issue right now seems to be not impeachment in this country about a trade deal that was scored with China, one that could be in the works with Mexico and Canada. A lot of news that you're not hearing because it is so good for the economy or so good for those who don't want to report on the economy.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

President Donald Trump: I was doing the final touches on the China deal, and that's going to be one of the great deals ever and it's going to ultimately lead to the opening of China, which is something that is incredible because that's a whole big untapped market of 1.5 billion people.

[video clip ends]

Neil Cavuto: And, you know, the markets agreed with him. The S&P and the Nasdaq inching up and record territory today, not so much the Dow, although it's less than 30 points away. And this has really been guiding the markets trade. The idea to keep the economic recovery right now better than a decade old going. Alan Knuckman, Jonas Max Ferris, on all of this. Alan, do you -- and on the importance of trade, the details have yet to come out here. But what we know of the first phase of this deal is it's something. And as you've reminded me, markets wanted to just see something, right?

Alan Knuckman: Exactly. And that's what the market's been looking for, a little bit more stability. And as your resident optimist, I see so many positives right now, so many signs of stability that I want to be a little bit cautious because we've come a long way. It's been an incredible couple of weeks, a credible couple of months. Let's remember that the S&P is up more than 200 percent off its lows and in the last decade, averaging about 13 percent annually. So, this is not a new phenomenon. This is a renewed push. But if you look at some of the factors out there, very simply, the declining dollar, oil prices moving higher is a positive barometer, low volatility. The S&P target for me is still 3500, which is 10 percent up above. But let's be a little bit cautious because there's nothing to worry about as it stands right now, with Brexit behind us and the trade deal behind us, you know, where's our wall of worry to overcome?

Neil Cavuto: Well, normally, that could be a counter indicator, right? John? And so many people have given up worrying. I mean, that is that. But we're not at that stage by any stretch. But I'm wondering, Jonas, when you look at the anomaly of this whole impeachment saga, it's a fixation for news networks and the rest, but not so for investors. They call it a non-event. Things that develop on trade or great corporate earnings or robust, you know, consumer spending during the holidays and what have you. That is their focus, maybe properly so. But what do you make of it?

Jonas Max Ferris: Well, because the trade wars are more important to investors than the impeachment. That's a voting thing and a political thing and it's not that it's unimportant. But, the trade war, if it went bad, or kept, you know -- there was no resolution, it kept spiraling down, have significant impacts to stock market. It has already had a significant impact. The Chinese stock market's been lagging our markets since this trade war started, only recently started to do well because it looks like we're heading towards improvement. I wouldn't say either of these are totally behind this at this point, but they're going in a good direction. The markets also, and the economy driven by the lower interest rates that I think we got because of the trade war. I think the Federal Reserve was worried that this was going to drag the economy a little more than it actually did. We did reverse course, essentially, on interest rates that boosted stocks and probably housing in the whole economy this year. So, there's been a lot of weird benefits to the trade war, even though it has not been settled, nor is it in a substantially better position than it was before it started. But it seems to be going in a good direction right now.

Neil Cavuto: You know, when we look at all the numbers and everything that come up, by large, they've been very, very good. They've been the wind at this president's back. And one of the things that he had said is, you impeach me, you might as well impeach those markets and the economic recovery. Along comes Goldman Sachs with a report out today saying that if Democrats had a clean sweep- I believe, by that they were talking about the White House and the House and the Senate- we'd be looking at a market correction. In other words, a drop of at least 10 percent. Do you buy that, Alan?

Alan Knuckman: I don't think so. I often say the presidents don't make markets. They don't break markets. With President Trump, we had a self-fulfilling prophecy. He wanted lower interest rates, so he caused enough chaos to create an environment where they had to lower interest rates. He's also talked about weakening the dollar to help support the stock market. So, he's going to do whatever he can to keep the stock market up. But for me, it's really important to talk about corporate earnings. We did all of this this year in 2019 with corporate earnings growth actually slowing and somewhat negative. So next quarters, the next couple of quarters, we're going to see earnings growth come back again. That's truly what drives the stock market and how much money corporations are making. So, I know we like to get into politics and policy. But as I always say, it's all about price. And you can't argue with this momentum. And I'm looking for more, more and more momentum.

Neil Cavuto: All right. But -- go ahead, Jonas.

Jonas Max Ferris: How much money they make after taxes is important, as you just said. And there's a booby trap in the market, which is the corporate tax cut we got. If -- all the Democrats want everything and that -- they targeted that to go back to the rates it was, then stocks enough to adjust back to the higher -- the average tax earnings would decline. So, there is that in the market that some -- that can't go away, now. They've got to pay for that somewhere else in the finances. But the corporations don't want to start paying more taxes again. Stocks enough to decline to adjust for that.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, left or right, they like those taxes low.

Alan Knuckman: That's a big "if."

Neil Cavuto: I wish we had more time. I do want to just update people a little. Take a look at the Supreme Court of the United States. Might indicate later on today, maybe this hour, but it would be willing to take up the case of the president's financial records, taxes, et cetera, that various groups want to get their hands on. Most notably, Democrats and the Southern District Court of New York, District of New York, I should say. The court isn't going to rule one way or the other on whether they should. What we are waiting for is whether they'll even take up the case. More after this.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Neil Cavuto: All right. It is on the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, is going to take up the issue of the president's taxes and whether he has to turn them over. Much more after this.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Neil Cavuto: All right. We kind of knew this was going to happen, that this was going to be all the way up to the Supreme Court and the battle over the president's financial records, including his taxes, bunches of folks want to get their hands on him. The president's been fighting them on that. And now it looks like the Supreme Court will take up the matter. John Roberts has more from the White House. Hey, John.

John Roberts: You know, actually, we did not know that the Supreme Court was going to take this up. That was somewhat of a roll of the dice on the part of the president's attorneys. The Supreme Court is looking at three cases here. The one that -- the case that they accepted -- is predicated on is the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., wants to get information from the Trump Organization and the president's accounting firm, Mazars USA, in regard to those payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during the election campaign.

The federal district court in Manhattan rejected the petition by the Trump organization and the president to stay that. That then made it its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It sided with the federal district court, but now, the Supreme Court is going to take that up. And it's likely, too, that they'll take up a couple of companion cases as well, involving the House Oversight Committee, as well as the financial committee in the House and the Intelligence Committee. They're all looking into various aspects of President Trump's financial dealings with the Trump Organization. One of the committees wants the information from his three oldest children, Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric as well. But the central case here is the Manhattan district attorney who wanted financial records from the Trump organization and eight years of tax returns from the president. This will now be heard by the Supreme Court. So, the next time we will hear anything on this is, of course, oral arguments, because they will be scheduled, and then, the final decision, which likely won't come until June. Neil?

Neil Cavuto: Then we're talking around convention time.

John Roberts: You are, yeah. And you know, time is running short during the election. But I don't know what the decision was by the court in this private hearing. I didn't see a note on that. I expect it was probably 5-4, which is the conservative liberal makeup of the court. And the the court could come under some criticism, as well, for siding with the president on this, sort of giving a rubber stamp to whatever it is that president wants. But we'll see what they come out with, eventually, in June. And if they side with the president, and they deny access to the Manhattan district attorney and these three congressional committees' access to the president's financial records, well, then the Democrats really will have a talking point when it comes to the election. But the president will be protecting his financial records [laughs], which is probably better for him than the argument against would be for the committees.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, well, at the very least, nothing gets out until at least then. Kristen Soltis Anderson with us right now. John Roberts, thank you very much. Kristen, to this, obviously, that's assuming a decision that would be in favor of the president, even assuming one not, in the interim, you don't have any tax records out in anyone's hands, right?

Kristen Soltis Anderson: That's right. And I think this is the sort of issue that does not tend to have very much of an impact, at the moment, on the president's political standing, as long as the tax returns remain a big question mark. This is one of those issues where you have high agreement, but it's fairly low salience for voters. You have large percentages of the public that say, "Hey, I'd like to see the president's tax returns." But it's very low, in terms of priorities, for them. They'd much rather see a focus on other issues, rather than the expenditure of resources and time focused on the tax returns. So, as long as they remain not released until such a time as the court rules, I don't see this affecting the president's poll numbers terribly much.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, and I also wonder, what is this about? Is it really just trying to incriminate or embarrass the president, or question the size and -- of his, you know, portfolio, how wealthy he is, or is this about getting to the bottom of transactions? I mean, it's in the eye of the political beholder, right?

Kristen Soltis Anderson: Sure, and it can be all of those things. I mean, for a long time, Democrats wanted access to the president's records, in part because they claimed he was not as wealthy as he says he is and that the tax returns would prove that. Then, there was an interest in getting access to them because they said, "Well, is he getting income from foreign sources, from places that, perhaps, he shouldn't be, or that might present conflicts of interest?" And then, of course, you had the Stormy Daniels story. So, there are a lot of different angles to this. But overall, for your average voter, you will see it through the lens of "If you already like Trump, you think, 'he should be able to keep this private.' If you don't like Trump, you'll think, 'I want to see what's in it. I want to know what's going on.'" Again, it tends to be the sort of issue where a significant majority wants to see what's in it. But that's not a very high priority for them on the long list of things they'd like to see coming out of Washington.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah, I think that a lot of people are saying "I'd rather be seeing a lot higher numbers in my own tax returns. I really don't care about the president." So [laughs], we'll see that all sorts out. In the meantime, the fallout from this and when all of this, apparently, comes at the Supreme Court [unintelligible] and, indeed, is taking this up, a decision right in the middle of convention time could get interesting. After this.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Neil Cavuto: Well, a whole bunch of people want to get their hands on the president's tax and financial records. Multiple parties, congressional state subpoenas, you name it the Supreme Court will be considering this is going to take up the case. This was the last stop the president to push to make sure they would, and they are now. Now, of course, the devil is when it comes out and what the decision will be. A guy who is quickly becoming a favorite guest of mine on all these legal matters involving Constitution and impeachment and all that attorney Sam Dewey joins me right now. Sam, good to have you back.

Sam Dewey, attorney: Thank you again Neil. Good to be here.

Neil Cavuto: The timing of this, Sam, is everything right? I mean, this would be a decision that the Supreme Court could conceivably make June, July. But where do you see this going?

Sam Dewey: Well, I think the court is going to move the case fairly quickly. They granted review in all three cases today, the tax case, as well as the accounting cases, and they've set all those cases for argument in March of next year, which is a shortened briefing schedule, and then I expect they'll try to rule as quickly as possible. But I think you're right, we probably won't have a decision until June or July, because this will be a it is a complicated case and it's a case that they're going to want to be careful with.

Neil Cavuto: Now, if memory serves me right, said they had at least agreed to put a stay on getting any of this stuff out or risking getting it out in anyone's hands until they decided what they were going to do on deciding this. On taking the case up so now what happens?

Sam Dewey: So all the lower court orders are now stayed until the Supreme Court decides the case. So the committees don't get the information and district attorney Vance doesn't get the information until the court rules on the merits of the case now.

Neil Cavuto: The only one I could dig up, Sam, similar potential magnitude was the Supreme Court taking up the issue of Richard Nixon and all the tapes and releasing them. And I believe that was a nine nothing vote that demanded the president release them. Do you see a vote that would be that decisive one way or the other?

Sam Dewey: I don't necessarily think so in this case, because both the opinions below were split opinions on the three-judge panel and then on the D.C. Circuit in the master's case, there was a petition for rehearing and bonk and multiple judges dissented. That was not the case in the Nixon tapes case. So, I think there is more of a potential for a split here.

Neil Cavuto: All right so back to impeachment of bill and [unintelligible], they said, and that is what happens now. It looks like a foregone conclusion once this clears rules committee and all the other stuff and then the up or down vote in the House that along party lines largely, the president will likely be impeached in the House, and it will go nowhere in the Senate. There's been some controversy here about how quickly the you know, Mitch McConnell indicates he wants to get this done. The president was open to wanting witnesses, even the Bidens or what have you. What do you think is going to happen there?

Sam Dewey: So, I think it could unravel in one of two ways. And I think as to the president's views, the way I've taken his comments, is he just wants a fair process. Beyond that, he's open to letting the Senate work its will. And what I think we could see is either some variation off the Clinton process where it's mainly arguments with maybe a few closed-door witness depositions, or we could see a more fulsome trial with witnesses being called to testify in the Senate. I think it'll be one of those two, which I'm not sure.

Neil Cavuto: So real quickly, I know the Supreme Court, the chief justice, would be involved in that, but he has no say in how the Senate conducts this. Right? The Senate is just going to say we're not going to have witnesses. This is going to be very, very fast. What is his role in that?

Sam Dewey: So as to whether or not to have witnesses -- unless the Senate adopts special procedures under the existing rules, a witness would have to be called by a special order, which would be a motion any attorney or any senator can make. And then that would be voted on a 51-vote threshold. There is precedent for the chief justice to break a tie on a procedural motion. But in today's day and age, I don't see Chief Justice Roberts doing it. The last time that happened was Chief Justice Salmon Chase in the Johnson trial.

Neil Cavuto: Well, you are an encyclopedia, young man. Thank you very much for filling one question after another. Sam Dewey, excellent read of all things impeachment, controversy, balance of power, you name it. Talk about balance of power -- Boris Johnson has a new five-year lease at 10 Downing Street, and this ad might have close the deal.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Neil Cavuto: All right. You know, if you've been following the impeachment hearings, they've been ratings blockbusters, it depends on who's watching, though. You know, if you get into it, great. If not, you know, maybe not so much. They're not moving the market needle, that's for sure. Are they getting young people involved? By and large, we're told they are not. They're really just not that into it. We've got Fox News Headlines 24/7's Carley Shimkus, Fox Business's Susan Li, and the host of Sincerely Kat on Fox Nation, Kat Timpf. Young people in general? Into it.

Kat Timpf, Fox Nation: I think it's kind of sad if you're that into it. I mean, look, I know it's important, but we know this stuff already and each side of the exact same thing. So yesterday I know I'm on Fox News and I shouldn't say this, but what I did is I turned on C-SPAN2. There were, was, a nomination for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife director and I I left it on for a little bit. People were saying aye, people were saying nay. There was a little bit -- a little something extra.

Neil Cavuto: I split screened it.

[CROSSTALK]

You know, a lot of them were the old talking points, the left or the right, whatever. I don't think it moved the needle on people's impressions, right?

Carley Shimkus, Fox News Headlines 24/7: Right. I don't I don't think that whether you're young or old, it doesn't really matter. It's just such a strange moment in history right now because impeachment is really such a huge deal. And what's happening right now is such a momentous thing. And it doesn't feel like the national mood matches how big this is. And that's really because people realize that this is a symbolic impeachment. It's not going anywhere in the Senate. But also, Democrats have really been saying that they want to impeach the president for three years. So, they -- shot themselves in the foot because there's really no shock factor now that it's happening.

Susan Li, Fox Business Network: Yeah, well, why don't they just take some advice from President Trump's tweet to Greta Thunberg this week saying watch an old-fashioned movie and chill. Is that kind of a way of saying watch Netflix and chill? But that's -- look, Mitch McConnell says there's zero chance of a passing in the Senate, so just chill out.

Neil Cavuto: Well, and that's where it's going to go. You know, in the meantime, Boris Johnson, a surprising big victory and I think conservatives are expected to do well in Britain, not this well, I always say and The London Times bears me out that this ad he did for his campaign, it was sort of like Love Actually, I love that movie. And he was pitching the Brexit thing and all of that. But it was very funny, and it resonated with voters. I think they liked their candidates to be appealing and have a sense of humor.

Kat Timpf: I've never seen Love Actually.

[crosstalk]

Kat Timpf: As a general rule, I don't watch movies with love in the title. I just find that --

[CROSSTALK]

Neil Cavuto: I've always made the argument that, you know, we make fun of candidates a lot of time, but sometimes they appeal to people on different levels.

Carley Shimkus: Well, I mean, I think Boris Johnson won it with his personality because he's kind of like this jovial bloke. Very authentic at the end of the day, isn't that kind of what we want in our leaders? But the funniest thing he said in an interview was he doesn't know how many children he actually has and that --

Neil Cavuto: That could throw people off. Yeah. But it helped that -- they have a parliamentary system, so it's not as if you're running against an individual. But in debates with Jeremy Corbyn who is very, very serious, very, very down with the future, where he saw England going.

Carley Shimkus: Yeah, I mean, there are so many parallels between what's happening here with you could say Boris Johnson is President Trump. Jeremy Corbyn is like a Bernie Sanders. But I think that people that are U.S. politicians should do some more funny ads. Like this I could see Bernie Sanders doing like How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Kat Timpf: I don't think so, because a lot of them aren't funny. Remember whenever Hillary -- remember Pokémon go to the polls? It keeps me up at night. That was so bad.

Carley Shimkus: It's so bad. But it's such a funny thing to talk about. So, it's like sort of the gift that --

Susan Li: Isn't Larry David the gift for Bernie Sanders?

Neil Cavuto: The president has a good sense humor when he goes after someone and says, oh, she's a real beaut -- comedic potential. In the meantime, there's a new study on millennials, i.e., these ladies spend more on lottery tickets and a lot of other financial vises than other generations. In other words, that they're just throwing their futures away.

Carley Shimkus: I was really surprised by the lottery ticket thing because I always saw buying lottery tickets as something that older people do like --

Kat Timpf: My grandma.

Neil Cavuto: Why are you looking at me?

[laughter]

Kat Timpf: -- she loved nothing like -- she loved Jesus and the scratch-offs --

Carley Shimkus: The scratch-offs!

Kat Timpf: -- those were her favorite things.

Neil Cavuto: Was she a saver?

Kat Timpf: Well, you know, it depends how many -- not really, no --

[CROSSTALK]

Neil Cavuto: -- you did save and get disciplined about it. Don't roll the dice on something like --

Susan Li: Well, I mean, millennials are the poorest generation since the Great Depression --

Neil Cavuto: Oh, here we go.

Susan Li: -- and I know you watch Sex and the City. You've seen a little bit. You know Carrie Bradshaw? --

Kat Timpf: Don't watch anything with sex in the title, either. [laughs]

Susan Li: She would spend her last five dollars on Vogue rather than actually buy a meal.

[CROSSTALK]

Neil Cavuto: Over a meal?

Susan Li: Yes. And shoes, of course.

Neil Cavuto: All right. Well, you're the future, and I'm very, very worried. All right, we have -- ladies, thank you all very, very much. We're going to get an update, too, on the Supreme Court taking up the issue of the president's taxes and, maybe, right slap in the middle of the primary season. Ultimately a decision right as the parties have their conventions. Wow. After this.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Neil Cavuto: Never mind impeachment, a lot of people are looking at this. Now the battle in the Supreme Court over the president's taxes as one of this president's best weeks ever. We're going to be exploring this and particularly its tax decision and what happens with the former acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker. His views on impeachment, a special "CAVUTO Live" -- it's always live, of course- 10 a.m. to noon Eastern Time on this fine channel. We'll be exploring that impeachment and how it is the markets ignore that and focus on the fact that the economy is doing just great. See you tomorrow.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.