Sen. Dan Sullivan says the Soleimani strike reestablished US deterrence in the Middle East

close

Video

Sen. Dan Sullivan says the Soleimani strike reestablished US deterrence in the Middle East

President Trump drew a red line and Iran crossed it, says Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto,” January 7, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You are looking live at Capitol Hill right now, a snowy Washington, where the so-called Gang of Eight -- these are leaders from both the House and the Senate -- are about to be briefed this very hour on that U.S. airstrike that took out Iran's top general.  Welcome, everybody. Crazy day. I'm Neil Cavuto. Well, U.S. officials say that Iran was indeed about to carry out attacks on American diplomats and troops when that strike was ordered, and they're going to share the proof. They say they have the intel that everyone has been waiting for.  We will see. We're all over it with John Roberts at the White House, where they are making the case for it, and Lucas Tomlinson on defense officials briefing some lawmakers still very skeptical about it. We begin with John. Hey, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon to you. In fact, we heard from the president, we heard from the secretary of state, and we heard from the secretary of defense today, but none of them, including the president -- and I spent about 25 minutes in the Oval Office with him -- would go into detail about the actual intelligence. As you pointed out, a classified briefing to the Gang of Eight will...

CAVUTO: All right, apologize for that.  In the meantime, we are -- hope to get that connection going soon.  But the defense secretary, Mark Esper, is defending these U.S. airstrikes on the Iranian general moments ago. Back to John at the White House about how this is playing out and how they're responding.  John Roberts, are you with me, my friend? I'm sorry about that.

ROBERTS: Yes, I'm here, Neil. Can you hear me?

CAVUTO: I can, indeed. Go ahead.

ROBERTS: All right. There we go. OK. I was saying today that, between the president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, we heard from three top officials in the administration today about the attack against Qasem Soleimani on Friday. However, none of those officials, including the president -- and I spent about 25 minutes with him in the Oval Office -- would go into any detail about the intelligence. As you pointed out, the Gang of Eight will be briefed on a classified basis about what the U.S. knew prior to the attack being ordered. But President Trump insisted that Soleimani was planning what he called big and bad attacks against American interests.  Here's what the president told me in the Oval Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We saved a lot of lives by terminating his life. A lot of lives are saved. They were planning something. And you're going to be hearing about it, or at least various people in Congress are going to be hearing about it tomorrow.  Our secretary of state covered it very well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The president generated controversy over the weekend by saying he had a list of 52 Iranian targets. And that is a number that coincides with the number of American hostages that were captured in Iran back in 1979, including some sites that are of cultural significance to Iran. That raised a lot of criticism that the president would be committing a potential war crime if he were to attack those sites. The secretary of defense came out and said that wouldn't happen. The secretary of state said any response against Iran would be within the parameters of the law. And today, in the Oval Office, in response to a question I asked him, the president said, yes, he would abide by the law in any military strike against Iran. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to maim our people. They're allowed to blow up everything that we have, and there's nothing that stops them.  And we are, according to various laws, supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage. I like to obey the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: So, the president they're saying, even though it doesn't sound like it's right, that he would obey the law and not strike any Iranian cultural sites.  Justification for the strike against Soleimani, according to the president and other U.S. officials, is not only because of what he was planning in the future, but what he has done in the past. In the Oval Office, the secretary of state laid that all out. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There was actually plotting that put American lives at risk. And I'm confident, I think the president's confident too, that the actions that the president took saved American lives, saved lives of Iraqi Muslims as well.  It was the right thing to do. And our Department of Defense did an excellent job executing the mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: And the president sent a sharp warning to Iran in response to a question from my colleague Steve Holland of Reuters. When he was asked if he was ready to respond to any Iranian attack, the president said, yes, he was. He also insisted, Neil, that it wouldn't be retaliation, because the attack against Soleimani was retaliation for what Iran has been doing over these many years -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, John Roberts at the White House, thank you very, very much. Well, the defense secretary, as I mentioned, Mark Esper, was defending that airstrike.  Lucas Tomlinson is at the Pentagon with more on all of that -- Lucas.

LUCAS TOMLINSON, FOX NEWS PENTAGON PRODUCER: Neil, in a press conference this afternoon, Defense Secretary Mark Esper defended the president's decision to kill Qasem Soleimani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: To somehow suggest that he wasn't a legitimate target, I think, is fanciful. He was clearly on the battlefield. He was conducting, preparing, planning military operations. He was a legitimate target. And his time was due.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOMLINSON: Six B-52 bombers launched from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to be ready should Iran launch any drone or missile strikes against American forces. Back in May, B-52s deployed to Qatar in the Middle East. But now top military brass wants this new bomber task force based outside the region to protect the heavy long-range bombers against potential Iranian drone strikes, officials tell me, Neil. Esper said he expects Iran to launch a counterattack after Soleimani was killed by U.S. forces.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESPER: What happens next depends on them. I think we should expect that they will retaliate in some way, shape or form, either through their proxies, as they have been doing now for how many years, or by -- and/or with by their -- by their own hand.  And so we take this one step at a time. We're prepared for any contingency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOMLINSON: Top congressional leaders will hear from Secretary of State Pompeo, Defense Secretary Esper, the U.S. military's top officer, General Mark Milley, and the CIA director to explain this imminent threat from Soleimani, which Esper said at his press conference could have come in the next couple days. Now, Esper said Soleimani was responsible for that siege or attempted siege at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and over a dozen rocket attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq since late October, and for killing over 600 troops during the Iraq War, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Lucas, thank you very, very much. My next guest will be among those lawmakers briefed on what the administration knew, and when it knew it, and what it was foreseeing to justify the attack on Soleimani. Alaska Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is a crucial member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator, thank you for taking the time.

SEN. DAN SULLIVAN (R-AK): Happy new year, Neil. Good to be on the show again.

CAVUTO: Now, I know the Gang of Eight, or the congressional leadership, is going to be meeting right now to get the details that will be shared with you and your colleagues tomorrow. But many Democrats are convinced that it was spotty. What do you think?

SULLIVAN: Yes. Look, I think the action the Trump administration took was fully justifiable, both constitutionally, strategically and, importantly, Neil, with regard to reestablishing deterrence in the region. General Soleimani, people know this now, but he has been leading the effort to kill American servicemen for years with no consequences. I served as a staff officer as a Marine to General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, '05 and '06. And in the theater, there was no consequences for these thousands killed and wounded.  That has changed now. The Iranians know that there's going to be consequences for killing Americans. The president drew a red line. They crossed it. And I think that makes us safer. And I think he and our military were justified in doing that.

CAVUTO: You know, Senator, the Iranians have responded that they would respond in proportion to this, even though, as you pointed out, the president said he did this in response to they're killing American contractor, now two deaths, in an earlier air raid orchestrated by Soleimani. Now, having said that, though, do you feel that a proportional response on the part of the Iranians means targeting high-up military individuals?

SULLIVAN: Well, look, the Iranians have been focused on killing Americans for decades. And Soleimani has been the architect of that. So, what they just said about what they're trying to do, this really hasn't changed. What has changed is that they now know that, if they do this, there will be consequences. And, again, Neil, I think that you saw someone like General David Petraeus, who said, this was actually more important than killing bin Laden or al-Baghdadi, given how bad this general, this terrorist was. So I think it's going to be more of the same from Iran. I think we need to be very vigilant. We need to take their claims of retaliation seriously.  But, as the president said, as the secretary of defense said, if they do more, then we will be ready to do more on our own, and we can do that asymmetrically as well.

CAVUTO: Senator, we're getting a report that, as recently as this past weekend, on Sunday, I believe -- or Saturday -- the Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Wolf was talking about the security in this country after the Soleimani strike, saying that homegrown violent extremists could capitalize on the heightened intentions and launch individual attacks. How real a threat do you think that is now?

SULLIVAN: Well, look, I'm actually getting ready to go into a briefing with the secretary of homeland security right after this interview.  So I'm going to ask him that. I think we always need to be vigilant. And in particularly -- in particular, Neil, the Quds Force, which Soleimani led, is known to have cells throughout the world, not just in the Middle East. They have been responsible for attacks, for example, in Argentina. So we need to be ready. And any time you're reestablishing deterrence, which is what we're doing, there are risks to that.

CAVUTO: Right.

SULLIVAN: But I think the greater risks are continuing along the same path. For years, the Iranians believed, and I think in some ways correctly, that, when they killed Americans, there would be no consequences. To me, that's even riskier.  We have reset the red line with regard to that. And I think the administration deserves credit for that. And I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should support it, for example, the way they supported the killing of bin Laden.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator Sullivan, I know you have to get to that meeting with the DHS secretary. Best of luck. Thank you, sir.

SULLIVAN: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: In the meantime, we are following up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is under growing pressure to go ahead and send those House impeachment articles over to the Senate, because Mitch McConnell says he already has the votes to force impeachment trial rules.  Does he also have the votes to prevent any Republicans from demanding testimony? After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: I can see the headlines tomorrow: We have the votes. That was the message from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is preparing to start the impeachment trial and postpone decisions on the witnesses that Democrats want. Mike Emanuel at the Capitol with the latest -- Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, Neil. Good afternoon to you.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell coming out of his weekly luncheon with his Republican colleagues saying he has the votes, meaning at least 51 Senate Republicans are with him in favor of going forward with the Senate trial, with a decision to be made about possible trial witnesses later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Obviously, that is the most contentious part of one of these proceedings. And that will be addressed at that time, and not before the trial begins. With regard to getting the papers, it is a rule of impeachment in the Senate that we must receive the papers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still holding onto the two articles of impeachment. She held on to them over the Christmas break.  But critics note House Democrats argued impeachment was an urgent matter that needed to be done by the end of last year. And yet now she's held up a Senate trial.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is trying to put pressure now on moderate Senate Republicans, including some up for reelection this year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Will they stand for a fair trial? Will they stand for bringing evidence forward? Or will they be engaging in a cover-up in one of the most sacred and profound powers that the founding fathers gave the Senate? We will see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: What we will also see is what Speaker Pelosi's play is. A number of congressional sources say they expect she will send over the articles of impeachment soon, but it's entirely up to her.  The bottom line is, they feel like, if McConnell has the votes, then he has the leverage, at least in terms of starting a Senate trial -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Mike, thank you very much, Mike Emanuel. OK, now there are three, if it gets this far. Senator Mitt Romney joining at least two other Republican senators who are at least open to hearing from witnesses at a Senate impeachment trial. Assuming all 47 Democrats make a similar push for witnesses, all you would then need is one more Republican to make that happen. Judge Andrew Napolitano here on whether that will happen. What do you think?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, Mrs. Pelosi got a gift yesterday that I don't think she expected, which came out of the blue. And that was the statement by former National Security Adviser and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who was central to whatever negotiations were going on with Ukraine, of his willingness to testify if he is subpoenaed. It's hard to think of a witness, with the exception of the president himself, whose testimony would be more relevant. So think of this scenario.  Mrs. Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment over, and she names prosecutors. These are members of the House who are former prosecutors, and they will prosecute the case. And one of them says to the chief justice, we want to subpoena a witness who knows more about this than anybody but the president. Who's that?

John Bolton. And he's willing to testify. Oh, you're right. Bring him in. At that point, it will be -- the burden would be on the jurors, the Republicans in the Senate, to overrule the chief justice at the outset of the case. Do they really want to do that in order to keep Ambassador Bolton's testimony from becoming public?

CAVUTO: So, let's say you got three Republicans who would be open for that, right? So now you're at 50. You need one more. They could easily do that. You're not saying you're going to impeach the president. You're just saying you're open to hearing witnesses.

NAPOLITANO: You're willing to hear the testimony.

CAVUTO: Where does that go, though?

NAPOLITANO: Well, once one witness testifies, depending on what he says -- and I think the audience knows that you and I and almost everybody that works here knows John Bolton, because he worked here.  He's a straight shooter.

CAVUTO: And it wasn't an accident that he volunteered this the other day.

NAPOLITANO: No. No. He's a straight shooter. He is a tough guy.  He's honest to a fault, so to speak. I think he's got some strong things to say. But here's another rule of thumb. No lawyer can put a witness on the witness stand without knowing in advance what he's going to say. We don't know what John Bolton will say. So, they can't call him out of the blue.  They have to have an idea of what he's going to say. If he says, I was alone with the president when the president said, fill in the blank, then -- and the fill in the blank is harshly critical of the president, then who's going to come in to nullify that? Is the president himself going to take the witness stand? My argument is, once you open up this can, this Pandora's box of allowing one witness to testify, you don't know where it's going to end.

CAVUTO: The next step is, let's get Mick Mulvaney up here, chief of staff, and on and on and on, we go.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. Correct. And that's the Democrats' dream, in the hopes that something will come out.

CAVUTO: Right. All right. So if you're Nancy Pelosi, would you delay getting these articles of impeachment, or now sense that this opportunity has provided itself to you?

NAPOLITANO: I honestly think -- and, of course my lane is the Constitution and the rule of law. But, politically, I think it's run its course. I don't think she can lose much more credibility than she's hiring already lost by hanging onto this much longer. It's now going to be in the hands of sensible Republicans and another Republican by the name of chief Justice John Roberts. He will be presiding.

CAVUTO: Now, with that testimony -- you kind of hinted in the beginning -- it isn't necessarily public. But if he's the only guy talking, if it were John Bolton, it would be.

NAPOLITANO: So, if they follow the Clinton model, which is what Senator Graham, who was a prosecutor of President Clinton, wants to do...

CAVUTO: Right.

NAPOLITANO: ... all they did was read aloud for senators testimony that had already been given. And when a senator wanted a witness to be examined, the witness was examined in private, in secret, with all the lawyers there, and the testimony was read aloud. There was no testimony taken on the floor of the Senate. Senator Schumer, in the clip you just ran, wants live testimony. He doesn't want John Bolton's deposition read.

CAVUTO: Right.

NAPOLITANO: He wants John Bolton sitting in the well of the Senate being examined by House prosecutors, and then by the president's lawyers, and a half-a-billion people around the world watching.

CAVUTO: And getting pushed back further and further and further.

(LAUGHTER)

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

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

CAVUTO: In the meantime, it was a big crisis in Iran then, a big crisis in Iran now.  One major difference between two American presidents dealing with very different issues then and now -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Well, what a difference more than four decades make. For example, stocks were knocked down today, but they were not knocked out today, investors still very cautious over what could happen in Iran, but it is a strong economy that's the backdrop that is helping Wall Street.  Now, I want you to go back to our last conflict where things were really on the verge of war with Iran some 40-plus years ago, when those hostages were seized at the Tehran embassy in Iran.  And so they sat for the better part of 444 days. It was a crisis. Oil prices were rocketing, and a world was imploding. That was then, very different reads now. Market legends Art Hogan and Teddy Weisberg here to go through that. Gentlemen, thank you for taking the time.

ART HOGAN, MARKET STRATEGIST: Neil, thanks for having me.

TED WEISBERG, PRESIDENT, SEAPORT SECURITIES CORPORATION: Hey, Neil.

CAVUTO: Everyone's worried about where this next shoe drops. Teddy, first to you on the floor. What happens next? But, right now, the markets seem to think it won't blow up. What do you think?

WEISBERG: Well, clearly, it's an event nobody expected, Neil. It coincidentally comes at a time when the markets, all the popular averages are trading at all-time highs, after a great year in 2019. So perhaps it's not the reason we were looking for, but it is a reason. And so we see this weakness yesterday and today, clearly not the end of the world. But I think it's been an excuse for some people to just take some money off the table, because they're nervous. Whether that's valid or not, who knows? Clearly, it's a problem. But at the end of the day, it's still going to be about the Fed and the economy -- the U.S. economy and corporate profits. And, as far as I know, those -- everything there is still rather positive.  And that should be a positive backdrop for the markets going forward.

CAVUTO: You know, Art, I was comparing what would happen -- I know you weren't even born yet at the time, in 1979. But there was this fear that it was going to get out of control, that, with Iran and the Middle East blowing up and long gas lines very shortly after that that rivaled those of the early '70s, we were in big trouble. What do you think?

HOGAN: Yes, it's interesting. I was just taking my kids skiing in Vermont this weekend. And the question from the backseat came up to me, hey, what do you think about U.S. involvement in Iran? And it occurred to me, I asked the very same question at the very same age they are 40 years ago to my parents on the drive to the same destination.  And that's -- what that tells us is that we have had decades of unrest in the Middle East. This is not a new situation for us. What is different, Neil, this go-round is, the United States is much more energy-independent. So there won't be a stranglehold put on us because we have got an energy renaissance going on. That's thing number one. We're a consumer-driven economy, and I think much more so now than we were in the late '70s. So I think that's thing number two. So I think that's why the market is really taking a wait-and-see attitude towards what's the next thing to happen. Obviously, there's going to be some type of retaliation. I don't think the Iranians want to cut off their nose to spite their face and shut the Strait of Hormuz in, then shut down any ability for them to export energy product. But I do think there's going to be a next step.  And I think that's why markets have stepped back and said, we're exactly unchanged on the year right now, if you look at exactly the first four days of trading. There's a reason for that. I think we're in a wait-and-see mode until we find out what the next steps are.

CAVUTO: You know, I do notice, Teddy, to your point, that some people taking money off the table because they had a great run-up last year. I also noticed gold percolating a little bit at seven- or eight-year highs.

WEISBERG: Right.

CAVUTO: That maybe people are spreading the wealth just in case, just in case. What do you think?

WEISBERG: Well, I think gold -- listen, gold is a hedge. And when you see gold get strong, and the commodities get strong because of geopolitical problems, clearly, it shows there's a real -- there's a real palatable nervousness in the market. But, once again, 2019 was a good year and for some people a great year.  And if we had had this conversation a couple of days ago, I would have suggested to you that January probably could be a difficult month, because I think a lot of folks were pushing profits from 19 into 2020, basically, to play the tax game and not have to deal with it until April of 2021.  That might or might not...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You know, but that's interesting, because, Art, one of the things I do remember about the '79 hostage-taking was that people thought it was going to end very, very quickly. And when it didn't, doubts about the situation, concern, fear about the situation, to say nothing of then President Carter's poll numbers, began to respond, not in good ways.  And I'm wondering, this idea that people have that this will be short- lived, what if it isn't?

HOGAN: Yes.  And I think that's the -- the nervousness that we have is that, in fact, right now, we have got a gap between consumer confidence and corporate confidence. If this is something that lasts for a long period of time, if businesses are concerned that some retaliation might actually affect them, some cyberattack is going to affect them, then that business confidence that we hoped was coming back because of the phase one U.S.-China trade deal might get delayed. And that would certainly affect GDP growth in 2020. That's not our base case. But that would be a fear. Business confidence gets affected by the duration of this tension that we have in the Middle East right now.

CAVUTO: All right. By the way, your kids are much more profound than my own. When they're in the back of the car, they were just saying, dad, there's a McDonald's up there. So, obviously, you're debating big points here.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Art, thank you very, very much. Always very good seeing you, Teddy. A reflection of then vs. now. Meanwhile, Iran an issue that could drive voters? Why Democrats may be putting themselves in a very tough position -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, forget Iran. What is next in Iraq? And are troops heading to the region right now? We are already looking at possible sanctions against Iraq. We haven't been focused on that, have we? We should. And we will -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Forget about punishing Iran. Are we now on the verge of punishing Iraq? To Blake Burman at the White House -- Blake.

BLAKE BURMAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Neil. I'm told over here at the White House at the staff level -- that is at the lower level -- they are starting to prepare for what potential sanctions against Iraq could potentially look like. Keep in mind, this all relates, I'm told, to the comments that President Trump made aboard Air Force One on Sunday on his way back here to the White House in which he told reporters, should a potential U.S. withdrawal from Iraq not go smoothly, then the sanctions against Iraq would look -- quote, unquote -- "tame" compared to what is happening with Iran. In the Oval Office this afternoon, the president reiterated that he would want to be compensated for U.S. infrastructure projects within Iraq upon a withdrawal and said that sanctions would have a condition attached to it.  Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we do get out, you know, we have spent a tremendous amount of money on building airports and building -- it's one of the largest embassies we have in the world, Mike.  And we want to be reimbursed for the various costs that we have had, and they're very significant. But we will work something out.  And I talk sanctions, but I'm only talking sanctions if we're not treated with respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURMAN: Neil, I am told so far that no decisions have been made as it relates to sanctions, which makes complete sense, considering that U.S. troops are still inside Iraq.  And as we heard from the defense secretary earlier today, that posture, that position has not changed at this point -- Neil.

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

Then there is this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: You don't see anyone standing up for Iran.  You're not hearing any of the Gulf members. You're not hearing China.  You're not hearing Russia. The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat presidential candidates.

(LAUGHTER)

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": That is sad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, just a week ago, it seemed that impeachment would be the issue driving voters, but now the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley blasting Democrats for not applauding the killing of the top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. So will that come back to haunt them when voters head to the polls next month? From The New York Post, Kelly Jane Torrance. What do you think?

KELLY JANE TORRANCE, NEW YORK POST: I think it will.  I mean, this is a man who's responsible, as the Pentagon recently announced, for the deaths of over 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. And that's not counting all of the proxies in that time and since. And when you add up, he almost killed that many in Iraq. Just last year, when they were protesting, he ordered those protesters killed. He was also part of the response to the Iranian protesters, killing over 1,000 there just in November.  You would think the humanitarians on the left would be applauding this, just like our Republicans were united in applauding the hit on Osama bin Laden in 2011. It wasn't a political issue. It was, this country is safer now and we...

CAVUTO: Do you think that Democrats are banking -- this would seem macabre -- that there will be such violence and upheaval in the Middle East, potentially, that they're on record as saying, you, Mr. President, started it?

TORRANCE: This is the thing, is, most of their statements said, yes, Soleimani is a bad guy, but we think this is a bad idea, although I will say Bernie Sanders was the exception. He didn't say anything about him being a bad guy. And Ilhan Omar, of course, just called him a foreign official.

CAVUTO: And Sanders was also very skeptical about starting assassinating top leaders within various regimes. He likened it to going -- doing the same in Russia and China. So I get that. But I do wonder what you think this means, if it if it makes them look like they're unsympathetic to stuff that they had been very sympathetic and supportive of in the past with Barack Obama when he had these raids to take out other henchmen and very high-ranking henchmen in other countries and regions?

TORRANCE: Although it is funny that Biden, he's changed the story on this, of course, but Joe Biden said he advised Obama not to go after Osama bin Laden. He's changed the story on that. Yes, I think when you have a man who's responsible for the deaths of this many Americans, let alone people elsewhere, I think most American people see, this was a bad guy. It was good to take them out.  Now, of course, we are going to have to -- and I think, by November, for example, we will have a better idea of what the repercussions are going to be. I think it'd be a huge risk for the Iranian regime to start a war. They cannot win it.

CAVUTO: But the die is -- the die seems cast here.  I raised this, pressed this, by the way, with Colorado Senator, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bennet on whether, if he were president, he would have taken out Soleimani, given the chance. This is from this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: If you were president, and I came up to you and said, Mr. President, we know where he is, we can take him out, are you telling me that a President Bennet wouldn't try to take him out?

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm telling you that it would depend entirely on my assessment of whether that would keep Americans more safe or make them less safe.

CAVUTO: Well, intelligence officials said, he's going to kill more people, he's going to kill more people. Would a President Bennet say, no, I don't care?

BENNET: It's to say -- Neil, I didn't say I wouldn't care. I'd say the question is, will we make Americans more safe or less safe?

CAVUTO: Would you take him out? Would you take him out?

BENNET: It would depend, Neil, on whether Americans would be more safe or less.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: It would depend.

TORRANCE: I'm really glad you pushed him on that, Neil. And it is -- Susan Rice, former Obama national security adviser, wrote a piece in The New York Times. And she said, yes, Soleimani was bad, and maybe he was going to kill Americans, but I can't trust this administration to be honest about that. I mean, this is where we are, is that even the Pentagon says they had evidence he was doing so. Democrats don't want to believe it. And they really just want to push a political point.  And I think that if he had been allowed to continue what he was doing and more Americans died, President Trump would be facing a lot more problems now. And Democrats, I think, would have...

CAVUTO: So, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, then.

TORRANCE: Exactly. Exactly.

CAVUTO: All right, Kelly Jane Torrance, your first big winter now and season in New York, right?

TORRANCE: Exactly.

CAVUTO: How is that working out?

TORRANCE: You know what? I have had a little bit of a cold all month, Neil. I will be honest with you.

But everybody else seems to, too, so we're all in it together.

CAVUTO: Well, they all love you here. Welcome.

(LAUGHTER)

TORRANCE: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Kelly Jane Torrance, The New York Post. In the meantime, 2020 Democrat Michael Bloomberg looks at California as a model for the rest of the country. Say what?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: California is a part of this country that is something the rest of the country looks up to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, 2020 Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg now touting California as example to the rest of the country.  Will that play out for the rest of the country, particularly Middle America?

McClatchy White House reporter Francesca Chambers, Iona College political science professor rMD-BO_rMD-BO_Jeanne Zaino, and The Federalist's senior editor, Mollie Hemingway. Mollie, what do you think?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST: Well, it was an interesting comment to make. He was specifically citing California's work against gun rights and on climate change issues. The question is why he's doing this. Mike Bloomberg's best shot would be if he's running as a moderate, as someone who is a viable other choice to Joe Biden. If he's running to the left of Joe Biden, it's hard to see where he can pick up steam, even if he has so much money, he can buy enough ads to get to get some placement here in the Democratic primary.

CAVUTO: You know, maybe it's all about appealing to the base, base that is very leery about him still. Jeanne, what do you think?

JEANNE ZAINO, IONA COLLEGE: You know, I think Mike Bloomberg is clearly doing this because, on Super Tuesday, California has 495 delegates.  That's four times more than the first four states in February combined.  He needs to be out in California. He needs to win there and the 1,500 other delegates that are going to be up on Super Tuesday. And I do think some of his appeal is on those issues he's talking about, on the issues involving climate change and gun control. Those do appeal to moderate and independent voters in the six to seven states that Democrats are going to need to win in if they have any hope of taking this in November. And they are running behind at this point.

CAVUTO: You know, Francesca, I think his strategy has been to avoid anyone winning on a first ballot, and then all bets are off when you get to a second ballot, and the superdelegates can participate. It's also a chance for him to sort of grease the skids for that and remind folks, look, I might be fiscally conservative, some of you might not like that, but I'm very socially liberal, hence my appeal and love of California. What do you think?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, MCCLATCHY D.C.: Well, and guns has been a big issue for Mike Bloomberg for a long time.  And that was part of what he was referencing, as Mollie pointed out. But, Mollie, you said -- you were talking about the ground he could pick up. He actually has lots of ground that he could be picking up in California. That's a big part of his strategy. And he's polling in the single digits there compared to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But, also, to your point to Joe Biden as well, all of the leading candidates are pulling much higher than him in California, which is key to his strategy.

CAVUTO: Now, how does it work, Mollie, on this stuff, that you need -- if you get 15 percent of the vote, you get some delegates, right?

HEMINGWAY: I believe so.

CAVUTO: All right, so, if that's the case, it could be just a matter of letting them pile up. I mean, he's all but given up on Iowa and New Hampshire, but he hopes, I guess, on Super Tuesday and down the road with California that he can -- that he can do that. What do you think?

HEMINGWAY: This was the strategy that Giuliani had employed when he ran for president...

CAVUTO: I remember it well, yes.

HEMINGWAY: ... of not even bothering with the first few states, but trying to pick up people in later races. Bloomberg is actually better positioned to do that than Giuliani was, because by the time Giuliani's strategy was put into effect, people decided that he was too far behind to actually throw support. But the fact that Bloomberg is even running, and that he has a constituency, that he has support does indicate that there is general dissatisfaction with this field of candidates, even though there are so many to choose from.  He wouldn't be -- he wouldn't be getting even the limited support he's been getting, as high as 11 percent in some polls, if people were really happy with the candidates that they have previously been offered.

CAVUTO: I'm just wondering, the way that the delegates are apportioned, the fact that so many of them have money, not Mike Bloomberg kind of money, but they have been raising a good amount of money, it does push the contest later than it would normally go, doesn't itrMD-BO_rMD-BO_, Jeanne?

ZAINO: It does. And -- but let's not forget, we're talking in California, an enormous state, enormously expensive. And I would just suggest that, yes, Mike Bloomberg definitely wants the nomination, as all these candidates do, but, more than anything, Mike Bloomberg has proven since 2018, when he invested that amount of money, $120 million, by some estimations, in taking the House back for the Democrats, that he wants Donald Trump out of office. So I would suggest that people should be very, very cautious about Mike Bloomberg's endgame. He has Hawkfish now, the digital advertising voter targeting messaging program he's setting up. He is blanketing $120 million already in negative Trump ads, not positive Bloomberg ads. So this is somebody whose endgame, I think, is a little different than some of the other candidates out there.

CAVUTO: But, real quickly, Francesca, it could prove why so many other Democratic candidates are leery to criticize him, right?

CHAMBERS: Well, he does have a lot of money to spend, it's correct. He hasn't spent it on them so far. But this race has been getting a little bit nastier and a little bit hotter, just even this past week, as they realize that, especially for the top four, they're all polling very close together, that there can only be one, as they say, Neil.

CAVUTO: You're right.

CHAMBERS: And if he were to start to be doing better in the polling, they might also turn on him a little bit more. They did originally, and they were talking about the amount of money he's putting in. To this point, I think, because, again, of where he is polling, that they haven't put their focus on him either.

CAVUTO: Yes.

CHAMBERS: It goes both ways.

CAVUTO: It's his money, right? All right, guys, thank you all very, very much. Speaking of a guy who is also pretty rich, maybe not Bloomberg rich, but Tom Brady, he says he's playing, and he's even thinking of going somewhere else. But it's going to be a big, wicked paycheck.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: You know, wherever Tom Brady plays football next season -- and it seems very clear that he wants to, and he will -- he will likely get a raise. And he made $23 million last year, which I thought was a staggering amount, but it only puts him 17th on the highest-paid players list. So there are 16 people ahead of him. Mike Gunzelman on that, Abby Hornacek with us. Abby, where would he go?

ABBY HORNACEK, "PARK'D" HOST: That's still a lot of money. He's not going anywhere, Neil.  People can talk all they want about what team could use him the most or what team could offer him. I mean, every team could honestly use him the most.

CAVUTO: Sure.

HORNACEK: But you talk about the money. This isn't about the money for him. He and Gisele have a combined net worth of $580 million. I think that's plenty. And I think this...

CAVUTO: He's actually richer than he is, right?

HORNACEK: She is. Go, girl. Yes. That is how it should be, right?

CAVUTO: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

HORNACEK: This, to me, for him is about legacy. And a word that's congruent with legacy is loyalty. He was picked 199th in the NFL draft, and then spent 20 seasons with that team, who picked him 199th in the draft. So, there really is no reason for him to leave.

CAVUTO: So, he's been loyal. He's loyal. He's done it.

(CROSSTALK)

MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: If it was any other 42- or 43-year- old NFL player, I'd say, good riddance, get out. But the bottom line is, it is Tom Brady. You're talking six-time Super Bowl winner, four-time Super Bowl MVP. It's Tom Brady. But like you said, two things are going to have to happen. He's going to get a raise. He's going to have to get paid. And, two, they're going to have to give him a contract extension, couple years. He's not going to just do a one year and done. So right now...

CAVUTO: But he wouldn't do more than two years, right?

GUNZELMAN: I don't think they would give them more than two years. I personally think they would give him a two-year $50-52 million deal.

CAVUTO: Wow.

GUNZELMAN: Right now, Tom Brady's the 14th highest paid quarterback, all right? He made $23 million. We said 17. Are you questioning...

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: No, this is quarterbacks. That's NFL players.

CAVUTO: Quarterbacks.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: Quarterbacks. So he made 23. Russell Wilson, the leader, made $35 million. But then you have randoms like Jacoby Brissett. He made $27 million. Who is Jacoby Brissett compared to Tom Brady? So he's going to have to get paid for sure.

CAVUTO: All right, and he is not like any other 42-year-old.

(CROSSTALK)

HORNACEK: He is not.

CAVUTO: Now, he has talked about he's wild about his health and what he eats and how he lives and all of that. He could go on conceivably for years, right?

HORNACEK: He really could. But I think, at that point, athletes run the risk of being a sellout at some point. And Tom Brady will never be a sellout. I feel like he's too good for that.  He's too grounded. He's got Gisele to ground him as well. But...

CAVUTO: Well, maybe he doesn't want to work with Belichick anymore.

HORNACEK: Maybe so.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Would that be a reason that..

GUNZELMAN: There have been some rumors that there's a little bit of rift between them. But he does like Robert Kraft. And Robert Kraft likes him as well.  I think Belichick and Brady stay for at least a couple more years. I'd say about two years.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So, Belichick's contract is up as well, right?

HORNACEK: Yes. And you could...

GUNZELMAN: We don't officially know when it is up. There's rumors that it might be up. One of the teams that he might have gone to was the New York Giants, but they hired somebody else today from the Patriots, actually.

CAVUTO: What about the Washington Redskins? What about them?

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: Ron Rivera went there. So, he's not going there.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: So, I think Belichick and Brady stay together. And Robert Kraft is just going to have to hold it all together, and it's going to cost them, bottom line.

HORNACEK: Right. I don't care if Belichick is the worst person for Tom Brady, which I'm not saying he is, but if, worst-case scenario, he was, there's no way we're going to see Brady in a different jersey, because he's not going to run the risk of, look, Michael Jordan. You don't think of him in a Wizards jersey. I don't think of LeBron in a Lakers jersey. This guy has been there too long to risk that right now.

CAVUTO: And I think starting at this point on a whole new team and building them up.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: He doesn't need that.

GUNZELMAN: And he's a family man. Some rumors are like, oh, he will go to L.A. to play with the Chargers.  He's not bringing his family all across the country.

CAVUTO: But weren't there reports he was selling his home or something?

GUNZELMAN: There are. Yes, for $33 million, it's going for. He dropped it eight mil from the original asking price.

(CROSSTALK)

HORNACEK: They're downsizing.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Because he's moving from the area?

GUNZELMAN: But he also sold his mansion, his other mansion, a couple years ago from the area in Massachusetts. So this is the second time he's doing that. It's Tom Brady. He's not going anywhere. He's staying.

CAVUTO: And all his business interests are tied to this area.

(CROSSTALK)

HORNACEK: Yes, all of his business interests, his family, like you mentioned. And I think, at some point, when you have spent 20 years with a single organization, you make relationships with the custodians, you make relationships with the security guards, the fans. And that would...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Look at Gunz.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: I would be best friends with him.

(CROSSTALK)

HORNACEK: People would be devastated if Gunz left here, because he's friends with everybody.

GUNZELMAN: It's unfortunate, though, because I hate the New England Patriots so much, because I'm a Jets fan.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I hope he stays right where he is. Stick around. We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: It's really like the World's Fair, the Olympics of technology. The Consumer Electronics Show going on in Las Vegas. No one has covered it as long or as well as this next lady, Liz Claman, who's been looking at what's getting all the buzz -- Liz.

LIZ CLAMAN, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: OK, we have moved to Samsung, Neil. I want to show you the line. And this is always one of the most crowded booths. What are they waiting for? Let me show you the Galaxy Fold 5G phone. And you have to wait in line to see this thing. Oh, wait a minute. Look what I have, Neil. I jumped the line for you. Here it is, the foldable phone. It is quite extraordinary. It is one of the most extraordinary pieces of technology. This one's 5G, not available in the U.S. yet, but the 4G, foldable, is sold out.  Look at this. It has six cameras. And you can keep it wide for when you need it, like that, or when you just need to make a quick exit. It just goes like that. Very cool, the Samsung Galaxy Fold 5G. I got to tell you, foldables are a very big trend here. One of the most extraordinary pieces of technology we saw today, the Lenovo foldable laptop. Look at this beast. It is so cool.

CAVUTO: Whoa.

CLAMAN: There is no seam. And you can also turn it vertically. You can turn it horizontally. You can put a little kickstand at the back. And then you got to -- if you need the keyboard, it's right there. So that is the very first foldable laptop that is now going to be out on the market this year.  Another cool thing that we saw, oh, yes, the Hyundai-Uber flying taxi?  Part of me said, isn't this just a glorified helicopter?

(LAUGHTER)

CLAMAN: Actually, it isn't. It can hover, and then it cruises at 150 miles an hour. They believe, at some point soon, that you will be able to levitate above all of that traffic in Boston, L.A., New York, and it'll be a taxi one day. We shall see.

CAVUTO: It's amazing.

CLAMAN: Tomorrow, we're back at it again live from CES.   CAVUTO: I look forward to it.  I know that's your ride home too, that helicopter, so safe travels.

(LAUGHTER)

CLAMAN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Look forward to getting more from you tomorrow.  Liz Claman there, along with the labor secretary of the United States, Elaine Chao, joining us to talk about technology and the way we travel.

Here's "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.