This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 9, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


REP. JOSE SERRANO, D-N.Y.: We cannot hold this hearing without mentioning the elephant in the room.

REP. NITA LOWEY, D-N.Y.: Your unacceptable handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Within a week, bill in a position to release the report to the public. I am relying on my own discretion to make as much of it public as I can.

LOWEY: All we have is your four-page summary, which seems to cherry-pick from the report.

REP. ED CASE, D-HI: This is what drives the public crazy, when they see something like this. This is what we have to try to avoid.

BARR: I appreciate the importance as releasing as much of the information in the report as I can, consistent with the law.


SANDRA SMITH, ANCHOR: Attorney General William Barr getting grilled on Capitol Hill earlier, as Democrats continue to demand the full release of the Mueller report. So will they get it? We are on it.

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

Catherine Herridge is in Washington, where this battle, Catherine, it is just beginning. Good afternoon.


The attorney general testified that he is bound by the law, regulations and established practice at the Justice Department. And to that end, grand jury material, he said, classified information, ongoing investigations and the privacy of individuals not charged will not be publicly -- will -- pardon me -- be publicly withheld.

Each category, he said, will have a color code and notes of explanation.


BARR: We will color-code the excisions from the report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the basis for each redaction.


HERRIDGE: While Democrats want the full report as soon as possible, some complain Barr moved too quickly releasing a four-page letter on March 24 documenting Mueller's conclusions.


LOWEY: It is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of pages of evidence, legal documents and finding based on a 22-month-long inquiry and make definitive legal conclusions in less than 48 hours. I would argue it's more suspicious than impressive.

BARR: The thinking of the special counsel wasn't a mystery to the people at the Department of Justice prior to his submission of the report.


HERRIDGE: The special counsel didn't fight against the president on obstruction of justice, nor did Mueller exonerate the president.

Barr and his deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, made that call in part because there was no underlying conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.


REP. CHARLIE CRIST, D-FLA: Can you elaborate on what is meant by doesn't exonerate the president?

BARR: That's a statement made by the special counsel.

CRIST: Right.

BARR: I reported it as one of his bottom-line conclusions. So, I'm not in a position to discuss that further until the report is all out.


HERRIDGE: And there were other headlines during the course of that testimony about pending criminal referrals and the genesis of the FBI special probe. Barr testified that he is personally reviewing all of these matters, Sandra.

SMITH: All right, Catherine Herridge, thank you.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

SMITH: Well, Democrats demanding it, Attorney General Barr not budging on the entirety of it, not yet at least.

So how much information from the Mueller report will actually make it to the public eyes?

Former federal prosecutor Jon Sale with us now.

Jon, good afternoon to you.

We learned a lot today in that hearing. And we have heard a lot from William Barr. What struck you?

JON SALE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, what struck me is, he's not doing anything that's different from what he testified in his confirmation hearing.

First of all, in his confirmation hearing, he assured everybody that Mueller would be able to complete his report without any political interference. Well, that happened. He testified that Mueller was a friend of his, and he thought Mueller had the highest integrity, notwithstanding he was appointed, nominated to be attorney general by the president.

He said he will believe in transparency, to the fullest extent permitted by the rules in the law. Now, if you look -- the rules that he's operating under, he doesn't have a choice.

One of the members of Congress outside the hearing room said it appears that he is -- has allegiance to the president, rather than to the truth. I submit that's just not fair. I think he has allegiance to the law. He said at his confirmation hearing he wasn't going to be bullied. I think then he meant by the president.

Now I think he means by congressional resolutions.

SMITH: Very interesting.

SALE: He has to follow the law.

SMITH: So, based on what we learned today, what will this report actually look like? We learned a lot about the color coding and the actual redaction process, that William Barr and, as we learned, Robert Mueller is also a part of this process.

What will the report actually look like when it makes it in front of the American public?

SALE: Well, I would love to read every word and every footnote.

But it's going to be very frustrating, because it's going to be filled with redactions, for the reasons that Catherine reported with the color coding. But they're required. And it's as simple as that. And if you remember when Mueller filed many of the sentencing pleadings, and they showed them on the screen, and they were filled with the black -- black redactions, well, that was frustrating.

Everybody speculated what's under them, but nobody complained, why was Mueller doing that? There were reasons he was doing -- he was doing it, to protect ongoing investigations, which is one of the four reasons the attorney general's required to do it.

And you criticize -- some criticize him for rushing to write the four-page memo. Now they're saying he's not moving fast enough. Well, I think he's moving within record speed. We're going to have at least the redacted version within a week. Senator Graham said by the end of this week.

So it's hard to really talk until we see the redacted version. And then the attorney general said he's willing to talk to the chairs of the committee.

SMITH: But that is not stopping Democrats, Jon.

Democrats are still saying that at least a select number of members of Congress should get a look at the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Do you agree with that?

SALE: No. They cannot look at grand jury 6(e) material. The law prohibits it.

The attorney general doesn't have the right to show them to anybody without a court authorization. But this is going to wind up in court. He's going to be subpoenaed. The report will be subpoenaed. It'll go to court. And a court is ultimately going to decide.

SMITH: All right, Jon Sale, we really appreciate all that. Thank you for joining us.

SALE: Sure. Thanks.

SMITH: If you don't think Democrats and Republicans are split over Barr, go no further than this.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY, MAJORITY LEADER: I think it really gets down to a question of whether you trust Bill Barr or not. And I do.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: Thus far, I don't think Barr has conducted himself in a manner that earns people's trust.


SMITH: That leaves us with one very big question. Will both sides ever be on the same page?

With us now, GOP strategist John Thomas is here. Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov and The New York Post's Elisha Maldonado join us.

All right, Jessica, so will Democrats ever accept the findings of this report, as it is released within the law?


And Jerry Nadler has a different view than Jon Sale has about this. And he believes that he can subpoena the unredacted version and that a smaller group, maybe the Gang of Eight or the head of the Intelligence Committees, can be privy to the information that's in there, including the grand jury testimony.

So we have yet to see what the official ruling is on that. But when you put out Chuck Schumer vs. Mitch McConnell, that's really what this all comes down to, a group of people who trust Bill Barr and a group who don't.

I thought it was important also to add that Bill Barr said that he had submitted the summary to the Mueller team, saying that they could go over it. And they said, no, go ahead and do it. We're not getting involved in at this point.

So I'm wondering if Doug Collins will be successful in bringing Bob Mueller before the committee to testify himself. I would like to hear from Mueller and from Barr again.

SMITH: Elisha?

ELISHA MALDONADO, NEW YORK POST: Well, I think that Democrats won't really be happy, because I think they just don't want to believe that he's legitimately president. And what we have gotten from the Mueller report is counter to that.

And so I don't think we're going to -- I think we're going to get -- I agree with Jon, getting what -- what Barr said we will get in a week. And I don't think that we will probably get the full story until we get Mueller on the stand. And he's the one who spent two years conducting the investigation, that he's probably got more answers than the redacted document can give us.

SMITH: Well, that, of course, is what some members of Congress are calling for now.

Doug Collins, the Republican from Georgia, saying to Jerry Nadler, well, get Robert Mueller up there. Let's ask him himself how he came to the findings in this report.

I also thought it was really interesting today, John, that William Barr said he asked Robert Mueller if he wanted to see the conclusions he reached, this report that he put out, the four-page report. Robert Mueller didn't have a look at it before him, but he did give him the option.

JOHN THOMAS, GOP STRATEGIST: Yes, one thing we're seeing today is the Democrats' conspiracy theory keeps unraveling at more we learn about this process.

The Democrats thought it was rushed and said there's no way you could have read the 400-page report. And then we find out from Bill Barr that actually the DOJ had been working with Mueller's teams for weeks on understanding what was in the report. So that's wrong.

We're finding that Barr and his team have been methodical, logical and, quite frankly, on the up and up. I think it's only going to get worse for Democrats as we go. And the other thing that struck me from today -- and I welcome Mueller to testify -- is at how unflappable Barr was.

These guys are pros. This is not an amateur campaign hack coming to get grilled by congress people. These are seasoned people. We're not going to learn anything more than what Bill Barr was willing to put in print.

SMITH: During "America's Newsroom," Jessica, we were able to bring Ken Starr in, in the middle of the hearing to get his reaction.

His words, this is a by-the-books law guy, William Barr. Let's let him follow the law. I mean, he said he has his full faith behind him. He was cool, calm, and collected in that hearing room. And he is doing what he can under the law.

TARLOV: There is no doubt that it is better that Bill Barr is up there then Matthew Whitaker. So it's definitely good that the timing of this, they were able to get Bill Barr in front of any committee before -- when the Mueller report came out.

But to what Ken Starr's opinion of this is, a lot of people don't see Ken Starr as the most upstanding of special prosecutors or investigators or whatever term we're going to use here.


SMITH: Bring this to William Barr, because...


SMITH: ... as Mitch McConnell put it, it comes down to whether or not you trust William Barr or you do not.

Right now, do Democrats reason -- have reason not to trust him?

TARLOV: William Barr came into this job having produced a document and analysis of the so-called Mueller witch-hunt, as President Trump likes to say it, to call it, calling into question the origins of this.

He has an expansive view of executive privilege, which is something that also upset Democrats. And then you have his entire record as H.W. Bush's attorney general, which is something that Democrats disagree with. That doesn't necessarily mean that his character is in question here.

But Republicans advocate for policies and a Republican A.G. is not ever going to be a Democrats' pick. And, yes, it's sad that we're passed a time where you can get unanimous votes for someone of the other party.

SMITH: But, just politically, does it behoove your party to continue with this?

TARLOV: Well, it behooves our party to ask for the document.

Now, you can say whatever you want about the collusion part of this or the conspiracy, but we know that Mueller didn't make a decision about obstruction. Bill Barr made that decision. So Democrats wanting to see what the underlying reasons were for Bob Mueller to not make a decision and just lay out the case on either side, that means there is evidence of obstruction of justice.

THOMAS: The trouble is you have is, at what point do you just quit and say Mueller ruled, that's that, and get back to messages that voters actually care about?


THOMAS: Because anything you guys do is going to appear partisan and have no credibility from this point forward.

That's the trouble.

SMITH: So, we heard Mitch McConnell's thoughts. You either trust him or you don't.

Chuck Schumer then was asked, is a William Barr a trustworthy man? Schumer's response was, I will wait until I see it, referencing the Mueller report release. So either you do or you don't prior to the release.

But he says he's going to determine whether he trusts him after the release of the report. He said: "But I don't think Barr has conducted in a way that builds trust. Color me dubious that he's going to be fair unless he proves otherwise."

What does that mean?


MALDONADO: Just playing politics. He's not being honest about what he believes or not and standing by what he had previously said. It's just a game of politics, as usual.


SMITH: All right, last thoughts, Jessica.

TARLOV: If Loretta Lynch had produced a four-page summary of a 350-page report, a two-year investigation on President Obama, and Loretta Lynch had turned over a four-page summary that the special prosecutor had not looked at, and just said, he didn't come to conclusions, but I did, would you guys be sitting here saying, wrap it up, guys, everything is fine?


SMITH: We got to go. Last thought, John,.

THOMAS: If we sat around for two years holding up Mueller as the gold standard, the end-all/be-all, and he ruled in, yes, I would.

TARLOV: Well, he didn't rule in yet.

If we see it, then everyone can go home all happy.

SMITH: Elisha, John and Jessica, thank you very much.


MALDONADO: Thank you so much.

SMITH: Appreciate it.

THOMAS: Thank you.

SMITH: President Trump unloading on Democrats over the crisis at the southern border.

What does Ohio Republican and member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Rob Portman think about that? He will join us next.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: You have a Democrat Congress that's obstructing. You talk about obstruction, the greatest obstruction anyone's ever seen.




TRUMP: We're bucking really bad things with Congress, with the Democrats in Congress not willing to act.

They want to have open borders, which means they want to have crime. They want to have drugs pouring into our country. They don't want to act. We have to close up the borders. We're doing it, but we're doing it -- I could do it much faster if they would act.


SMITH: Well, that was President Trump earlier today placing the blame on Democrats, as the crisis at our southern border continues.

Reaction now from a key member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Appreciate your time this afternoon, Senator.

SEN. ROB PORTMAN, R-OH: You bet, Sandra. Good to be on with you.

SMITH: Great to see you.

So that was quite a moment that we saw from President Trump at the White House earlier. What did you think of it?

PORTMAN: There's a crisis at the border. No question about it.

We had a hearing today actually in the Homeland Security Committee, and we had the professionals there, the people who are actually on the border, Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, the ICE folks. We also had someone there from HHS because they handle these unaccompanied kids.

And it's unprecedented. We have got 4,000 people a day now coming over, more families and kids than ever, more than when President Obama called it a crisis several years ago. So we do need to do more.

Congress has acted, as you know, recently to provide more funding. And that's necessary. And that is starting to help.

SMITH: But that's not enough, we hear, Senator. And what you heard from the president is that the laws need to be changed.


SMITH: And what you hear from those professionals on the ground at the border is that they need Congress to act. So what is Congress doing?


Money is not enough, because, until you change the laws, you will continue to have this magnet and people coming to the United States. So we provided more funding. That's good. There's more barriers being put up. There's more Border Patrol being hired. We need more than actually the Congress appropriated. But it was the most ever.

We need more judges. We said another 75 judges. We need even more.

Here's the problem, Sandra. When someone comes to United States, and they're a family from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, they're being told by the traffickers -- and it's true -- you ask for asylum, and then during the time at which you have to wait for your asylum hearing, you're allowed to go into the United States, into the community.

And that time period, it's 40 days, on average, before there's even the preliminary test as to whether you qualify. The actual court case takes much longer than that. That's just unacceptable, because then often these people don't show up. And 85 percent of these people are being turned down for asylum eventually.

But a lot of them then have already disappeared into the countryside. So that's that's the issue. And until we deal with that, it's going to be hard to keep people from coming up.

There are ways to do it. There's something called the Flores decision that needs to be amended. This is a court decision that doesn't allow us to have people in detention with children for more than 20 days.

But then there's also this broader issue of, how do you speed up the system quickly to be able to get people adjudicated quickly and send them back?

SMITH: I don't know if I sense -- Senator, I don't know if I sense optimism in your voice over whether or not -- whether or not Congress is going to be willing to come together and act on this issue. I hear the urgency from you.

But here was the president earlier responding to reporters inside the White House. Things -- things took another -- went another level when talking about the child separation policy.

Here's the president.



TRUMP: President Obama had child separation. Take a look. The press knows it. You know it. We all know it.

I didn't have -- I'm the one that stopped it. President Obama had child separation. Now, I will tell you something. Once you don't have it, that's why you see many more people coming. They're coming like it's a picnic.


SMITH: Obviously, the president zero tolerance policy came into play. That was quickly pointed out by reporters in the room.

But, if I could, Senator, have you directly respond to the president there.

PORTMAN: You know, what the president is talking about is that this Flores decision I just talked about doesn't let the families stay together, because, in detention, if you get up to 20 days, you reach that limit under Flores with regard to the kids.

So then the question is, do you have the family go into the community or do you separate the kids from the parents?

Separating the kids from the parents is something the Trump administration chose not to do because it wasn't working well. We didn't have the infrastructure. It's caused a lot of issues. As you know, we finally have got those kids back with their appropriate family members.

I do not support separating the families. But I do support changing that Flores decision, so you can keep people in a family unit. That's the whole point. And that's what the president has called for.

It requires a change in law. You can't just do it through executive action or more money. It's a change in the law to be able to say, well, Congress has looked at this. We have decided this is not working.

SMITH: Right. So, finally, if I could, Senator, we have just a short time left here, but a lot to get to with you.

Some Republicans voicing concerns over the departures at Homeland Security. Since you're on the committee, just want to ask you if you share in those concerns, sir.

PORTMAN: Well, I thought Kirstjen Nielsen did a good job. She was under the conditions we just talked about, where you got people pouring in over the border.

And she did come up here and ask us for more money. We did provide it. She was always -- I was -- I met with her last week up here, where she was saying, we got to change the laws.

So she was out there advocating as an effective advocate. The other person that people talked about...

SMITH: We have got a few seconds left, Senator, if you could finish your point.


The other person have talked about -- and they have thrown this together and say, well, she's gone, and now also the head of Secret Service is gone.

It's a whole different issue.

SMITH: Gotcha.

PORTMAN: This guy James Murray, who they have appointed to be head of Secret Service, is terrific.

SMITH: All right.

PORTMAN: And he's a Secret Service veteran. And I think he's going to be -- he's going to be...

SMITH: Senator, I have got to leave it there. An important discussion to be had.

PORTMAN: He's going to be a great, great leader.

SMITH: We will get you back on the program.

PORTMAN: Thanks, Sandra.

SMITH: All right, we have got a lot more coming up on "Your World."

Stay tuned. We will be right back.


SMITH: Another volatile day for your money, the Dow falling 190 points.

The selling began earlier, with President Trump lobbing new trade threats against Europe. A tweet by the president set everything off, calling for $11 billion in new tariffs. That led to an early sell-off.

So are more trade worries going to stop this market rally we have seen so far this year?

Let's bring in our market pros. It's been a while.

Hey, Gary Kaltbaum and John Layfield.

Good afternoon to both of you.

Gary, I will start with you first.

Should we be concerned about these new threats?


The good news is, over the last few months, the Fed went easy. That has helped. But the tariffs have been overhanging. We're still not done with China. And any more just adds to it. The word tariff is a bad word. It's a four-letter word for markets, potentially.

And now when you put the E.U. into the mix, it tends to get a little bit worried. But I wouldn't think today had a lot to do with it. So I think we just need pullbacks in the market. We have had an extraordinary run the first quarter, so pullbacks would be normal as can be right now.

SMITH: John, what do you think? It's been quite a rally so far this year. Can the market take on fears of another trade war?

JOHN LAYFIELD, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, as long as the trade war doesn't accelerate.

It's only $11 billion. You have some type of retaliatory tariffs for what it appears that Airbus has been doing for some time. I think most of the people out there in the world knew this was going on. The World Trade Organization confirmed that.

But what's really going on as far as the market right now is this global slowdown. The IMF just downgraded for the third time since October global growth. And if you add uncertainty to that, then, yes, that's a problem.

The one good thing here, Sandra, is the fact that the U.S. is the one beacon of real light right now. And so if there's any place to invest, to me, in my opinion, it would be the United States, the NYSE.

SMITH: Obviously, heading into earnings season, Gary, that's going to be a big determiner of where these markets go from here. But this sell-off brought us off of six-month highs. Is the Street bullish?

KALTBAUM: Look, I think the market has been very, very bullish.

I worry when things get a little bit too frothy and a little bit too excited. I could tell you, Barron's, the front cover this weekend had something about the markets never going down again and we're going to go up for years.

Whenever I see things like that, I put my head in the sand and start to worry. The big thing also with earnings, they're not going to be that great. It's about the reaction and it's about the guidance. If guidance is good after this earnings report, I think we're going to be OK. But if guidance continues to head south, I think the market could be in for more to the downside in the near term.

SMITH: But when it comes to these latest threats from the president, John, the markets have widely perceived this as a business-friendly president.

And that is why we have continued to see markets rally since Election Day. And you look at the way the president is now taking on Europe with this sort of trade talk, is this something that market watchers, investors can throw their support behind, knowing that the president is fighting for this country?

LAYFIELD: No, I don't think so. I think there has been a business- friendly administration. I don't think there's any doubt about that. I applaud the president for what he's done with tax cuts, with regulation

What he's done with tariffs has been a tax on the American people. It's interrupted global supply chains. It's actually put -- could do some structural damage to our country for years to come.

The problem with the president right now -- with Europe, though, this is separate from just trying to get -- somehow deal with intellectual property theft from China. This is something Boeing has been doing for years.

So, a retaliatory tariff here, well, I'm against tariffs, and most free market people are. This seems to have some credence behind it that you need to do something here to stop what Airbus is doing to Boeing.

SMITH: Well, we are talking about two of the world's largest economies here. So that sort of uncertainty alone will lead to at least a 190-point sell-off, which is what happened today.

Gary and John, thank you.

LAYFIELD: Thank you.

SMITH: Nice to see you both.

Well, a federal judge blocking another Trump administration immigration policy. Where does this go from here? Our judge joins us next.


SMITH: Election Day in Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to hold on to power. Exit polling showing the race too close to call.

We're back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SMITH: A federal judge temporarily blocking the Trump administration from implementing its remain in Mexico policy.

It forces some asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their requests are being processed. So where does this go from here?

I know someone to ask, host of "The Liberty File" on FOX Nation. Judge Napolitano joins us now.

Judge, what's the answer to this?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, I don't know where it goes from here.

It's a very bizarre statute, because the statute says, if someone knocks on the door legally, trying to get in legally, and they don't have a basis to come in legally, you can just turn them around to the contiguous country from which they came, unless it's not their country of origin.

So when the government is turning down Central American migrants and sending the back to Mexico, that actually violates the statute. And that's what this federal judge, who was critical of the statute, said: I don't like this, but my job is to interpret the statute as it was written.

If they knock on the door in Texas, and they're not from Mexico, you can't send them back to Mexico. What are you supposed to do? Hold them in a detention center and give them a hearing, as if they were applying for asylum.

That's very frustrating to the president. It's even frustrating to these people trying to trying to get here. But that's what the law requires.

SMITH: You really get a sense of that frustration. We heard the president talking in the Oval Office earlier today on immigration and blasting the policies, blasting Congress for not getting things done.

So does he -- he and his administration have any legal recourse here?

NAPOLITANO: Well, look, they're going to appeal this to his least favorite circuit court of appeals, the Ninth Circuit. I don't know what they're going to do. If I had to roll the dice, I would say they will uphold it.

And then, if the government loses their, they will appeal it to the United States Supreme Court. None of this can happen overnight. And we don't know how many people are involved. But the judge actually signed an order directing DHS to admit these people into the United States, not at liberty, but into the United States, into one of the detention centers at the border, waiting for a hearing before a judge.

SMITH: All right, so we will see where that goes.

Meanwhile, I have been dying to ask you what you thought. We -- Hemmer and I were sitting all morning watching this hearing, William Barr testifying before a subcommittee on the budget for the Department of Justice, but ended up getting a grilling on his four-page summary of the Mueller report, which he says will be released it in its entirety with redactions within a week.

But still Democrats just don't seem like they're willing to accept the outcome either way.

NAPOLITANO: I don't think they are.

The redactions that the attorney general articulated today, the four categories of redactions, he is required to follow. He is not at liberty to avoid or evade them. But a federal judge can. So this will end up in court.

When this report comes out, whether it's the end of this week of the beginning of next week, people that want to see what Bob Mueller found about Donald Trump are going to see black or white or colored pages with no print on them. They're going to be very disappointed.

Then the House Judiciary Committee will subpoena the report. The attorney general will say, we can't comply with your subpoena, so we're going to move to quash it in a federal court. And then the federal court will rule, is Donald Trump entitled to the same right to privacy as everybody else, or is he different, A, because he's the president, B, because he's already said, release the report, I didn't do anything wrong, I don't care what's in there?

So only a judge can do that. Bill Barr can't.

SMITH: All right, let me try this again, a few seconds left here, Judge. I tried this earlier. We ran out of time.

But can a select -- select members of Congress view the entire -- the entirety of the report? Is that allowed by law?

NAPOLITANO: It is not.

But if he did it, and did it in a -- in one of their secret SCIFs, I don't think anybody would complain. I don't think anybody would interfere with that and say, you broke the law, because you're revealing a classified document to people who have classified clearances.

SMITH: But you will probably tell me that's not something he's considering.

NAPOLITANO: I don't think he's considering it. Quite frankly, I don't think he should consider it. Let's say it's pushing the envelope.

SMITH: Got it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: See you tomorrow with Hemmer.

SMITH: See you tomorrow. More breaking news. We will get you for an hour tomorrow. Thank you, Judge.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

SMITH: All right, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Capitol Hill today to discuss the budget and our country's financial security, where he was grilled about Russia and President Trump's tax returns.

Could continuing to go after the president like this backfire on Democrats in the 2020 election?


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Secretary Mnuchin, will you comply with the law by the deadline tomorrow and furnish the tax returns, even if it means you may be fired by this president for doing so?



SMITH: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin facing a grilling on Capitol Hill over President Trump -- President Trump's tax returns.

Democrats want them released by tomorrow.

Our Blake Burman is at the White House with what to expect next -- Blake.


You had a couple of big hearings up on Capitol Hill today, big in the sense that the two key players involved with potentially releasing the president's tax returns were testifying up on the Hill.

Just a little while ago, it was the IRS commissioner, Chuck Rettig. Remember, the House Ways and Means Committee had sent the letter to the IRS commissioner wanting the last six years of President Trump's tax returns and wanting them produced by tomorrow, that being within one week's time.

Rettig wouldn't necessarily say at this point what might happen by tomorrow or maybe even after that. Before Rettig, it was the treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, as you referenced. He was up on the Hill as well.

Now, the treasury secretary saying that before that letter was produced by Democrats wanting the president's tax returns, that lawyers over at the Treasury Department and over here at the White House had discussions, but after that letter has been produced or since it's been produced, Mnuchin said that he's steered clear.



STEVEN MNUCHIN, TREASURY SECRETARY: I have not spoken to the White House chief of staff or the president about this decision. It is our intent to follow the law. And that is in the process of being reviewed.


BURMAN: The president's personal attorney and outside attorney who is now dealing with the request or the demand from Democrats sent a letter on Friday, essentially, Sandra, outlining the president's position as to why they do not feel those six years of tax returns need to be handed over to the IRS.

And, as we have heard from the president recently, as he said in the recent days, months and even years, his position is he will not disclose his tax returns while he's under audit -- Sandra.

SMITH: That's what we continue to hear.

Blake Burman, thank you.

BURMAN: Thanks.

SMITH: So, do Democrats risk a backlash for going after the president over this?

Here to discuss it, A.B. Stoddard from RealClearPolitics.

A.B., is this worth the fight?

A.B. STODDARD, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Well, Democrats think it is. They are well aware that, with a legal battle and the White House able to sort of drag this out before it even gets to the courts, it's likely that this is not going to be resolved before the next election.

But the idea that the president would spend taxpayer dollars to fight in court to hide his returns from taxpayers is a political battle they're willing to wage. They are going to continue asking from now until the Election Day next year what the president is hiding.

And I think that they think that's...

SMITH: Well, that would be if he's hiding anything.

STODDARD: Well, if he doesn't -- if he doesn't release his returns, he is hiding his tax returns.

SMITH: So he says he's under audit and that it's customary not to -- not to reveal this under -- under an audit, although the law would allow it.

But, right now, the point is, politically, is this worth the fight? The president joked the other day, look, they're asking for six years of tax returns. They have been asking for 10.

He has been adamantly opposed to doing this. So why do Democrats continue to take it on?

STODDARD: Because they think it's politically potent to continue to ask what the president is hiding in his tax returns.

They are conducting a series investigations. And they are absolutely risking a cumulative backlash in its entirety, the combination of all of the legal battles, the oversight hearings, the investigations. That is a political risk they're taking.

On this issue alone, there's no good argument for President Trump not releasing his tax returns. Every president is technically under audit while they are president of the United States, and they release their tax returns anyway.

So, on this, they probably have the upper hand in this argument. It's the totality of their investigations and their hearings and their requests and inquiries with the administration that's likely to in the end risk a -- create a backlash, if there is one, in 2020.

But they think, on this issue, that the president should be telling the American people whether or not he has any conflicts of interest to the business with which he has not separated from while serving as president.


STODDARD: And he refuses to show those returns.

SMITH: So it looks like the fight is not going to go away. And as you heard Steve Mnuchin, he wasn't surprised by that, was how he responded to the question.

And, in fact, he said, we better get this out to -- better get this out to begin with. So he says it is his intent to follow the law.

So, ultimately, do you think this ever happens?

STODDARD: I don't think the administration is going to release them. They have made it clear that they don't intend to.

I think that what the treasury secretary means is, he intends to follow the law, and the law is going to be interpreted differently by both sides. So I think we're looking at a long, long court battle, like I said, that's not likely to be resolved before the next election.

SMITH: Something tells me the questions will not go away and that push will continue.


SMITH: A.B. Stoddard, thank you.

STODDARD: Thanks, Sandra.

SMITH: Great to talk to you.

All right, awaiting actress Lori Loughlin's reaction to a major new charge against her in the college admissions scandal.

The latest on all of that, some breaking news this afternoon on that, we will have that next.


SMITH: Actress Lori Loughlin hit with a new charge in that college admissions scandal. And it's a serious one.

Fox News correspondent Molly Line is in Boston with the latest -- Molly.

MOLLY LINE, CORRESPONDENT: Sandra, this really marks a major turning point in this entire college admissions scandal, this investigation.

A slew of parents indicted today, they're facing an additional charge that potentially means more prison time. And, of course, as you mentioned, one of the most recognizable faces that have been embroiled in this scandal, Lori Loughlin, is among them.

Now, Loughlin and her husband, the fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, were in federal court last week on that initial charge related to mail fraud. But now they, along with these 17 other parents, are facing the additional charges, a maximum sentence of 20 years in each of these charges, conspiracy to commit money laundering, as well as mail and wire fraud allegations.

Other parents embroiled in this scandal have chosen to plead guilty to the first mail fraud-related count, signing plea agreements, including actress Felicity Huffman. In exchange, prosecutors have agreed to seek specific recommendations, for instance, in Huffman's case, to ask for -- quote -- "incarceration at the low end of the guidelines."

Now, prosecutors allege that Huffman made a $15,000 contribution to the mastermind's phony foundation, but others paid more and have received different recommendations.

For example, prosecutors recommended 15 months behind bars for Agustin Huneeus Jr. He's the owner of a vineyard out in Napa, California. He agreed to pay $300,000 to participate in both the exam cheating and the coach-bribing lane of this entire scheme.

Huffman and Huneeus are both expected back in court for plea hearings. That's just next month. At least two parents, a doctor and his wife, through their attorneys, have claimed their innocence. And they are expected to go to trial.

So there are different paths that these parents are taking at this point in time, as this investigation goes on -- Sandra.

SMITH: Molly Line in Boston for us -- Molly, thank you.

Well, a major U.S. company raising its minimum wage to $20 an hour. And guess what? The government's not forcing it to do it. We will have that next.


SMITH: Bank of America raising its minimum wage to $20 an hour by the year 2021, this as a new report shows many businesses hurt by states mandating wage hikes.

So, should the markets decide which companies do and which companies do not or cannot afford to do it?

Joining us now, Point Bridge Capital founder and CEO Hal Lambert.

Well, Hal, imagine that, a company deciding on its own that it's willing to raise its minimum wage to its employees. You go work at Bank of America and make minimum wage, pretty soon, you will be earning a $41,000-a-year salary.

HAL LAMBERT, POINT BRIDGE CAPITAL: Imagine that. The free markets work.

We don't need a socialist redistribution of wealth policy or scheme to raise the minimum wage to $15 around the country. All it does is hurt the employees it's trying to help. And it crushes small business.

Small business employs about half the people in this country that are on minimum wage. And where does that money come from? Where do these politicians that are pushing this think the money comes from? The $15, it comes out of the owners' pocket.

And they can't afford it. Many of them wouldn't even make a profit at that point. They'd have to either lay off employees, cut back hours or completely shut down. And this is showing...

SMITH: But, still, Hal, that message sounds -- that message sounds pretty good to some.

Bernie Sanders is out there touting and other Democrats running for president are touting it. And how do you tell them that that is not a good thing? I know you're making the case that, ultimately, that wouldn't be healthy for these companies to be mandated to raise their minimum wage to employees.

LAMBERT: Well, they have never signed the front of a paycheck.

I mean, most of these politicians have been politicians their whole life. So they don't really understand the economics. But small businesses do. And when you make them raise that minimum wage, they are forced to lay people off, because the profits that they were making disappear.

They don't have any ability to raise prices to the consumers. And the economy is already working. If you look at what's happened over the last two years, wages at the lowest income level have been rising faster than that the highest income level.

So that income gap is actually narrowing. It's actually working. And there's other companies that have announced wage hikes. You have had Wal- Mart announce it as well. Amazon has announced higher minimum wages. And so has Target.

So it's working in the economy. You don't need the government to step in and do this. And, look, I think one other thing we have got to talk about here at the low income level, there's -- you can't do this without looking at this border.

I mean, you have got low-income, low-skilled workers coming across the border. They're competing with the other unskilled workers here in the United States. The high school kids, the kids that are graduating high school that aren't going to go to college, that are getting their first jobs, they're trying to compete in the marketplace, and you have millions of people coming across the border that they're competing with.

SMITH: Well...

LAMBERT: That's one of the reasons I think wages have stagnated at that low end until very recently. Over the last 20 years....

SMITH: Until very recently.

LAMBERT: ... they certainly have had a problem.

SMITH: They have been coming up. And in this case, this is Bank of America raising its own minimum wage.

And here's this statement they put out when doing so. They said: "We are raising our minimum wage because we believe that to best serve our customers and clients, we need the best team. Saying thank you, celebrating great work and sharing our success further demonstrates our commitment to being a great place to work."

So they're going to do this incrementally. And they have been doing it incrementally. This isn't brand-new. Since 2010, they have increased their minimum wage by $4 in an hour, Hal. And it was 2017 when they raised it to $15 an hour. Now they're going to incrementally through 2021 raise it even more.

So, this is making it a pretty attractive place to work as well, Hal.

LAMBERT: Oh, it's fantastic.

And it's amazing what a 3.7 percent unemployment rate will do. That gives leverage to workers finally. When you get that unemployment level down to where it is now, and you have all these jobs being created in the economy, there's competition for labor, and labor finally has the ability to demand higher wages. And Bank of America is paying it.

So it's a fantastic thing. That's the best way to create higher wages across the board, is to have low unemployment, to have great number of jobs created, have a strong economy. That's how you create higher wages. A government coming in and stepping in and mandating wage levels is not going to work.

It really just hurts everybody that it's trying to help.

SMITH: And many like you make the case, roll back regulations, let these companies do their thing. If they thrive, they will bring their employees along with them. Bank of America looks like it's doing that.

In that case, the stock market has been thriving. Not the case today, Hal, a 190-point sell-off. There seems to be growing concerns over global growth, possible new trade war with Europe.

What's your take on what we're seeing in the markets, Hal? Final thoughts.

LAMBERT: Well, we had, I think, eight days in a row of up market. So we're going to have a down day at some point. And we had one today.

You look at the trade dispute that's going on right now with the E.U., look, President Trump's trying to -- they have been in violation of the WTO. It's been ruled on. President Trump is simply coming out saying, we're going to have to take care of that with some tariffs, or they're going to have to fix it.

So I don't understand, quite frankly, why it actually causes the U.S. stock market to drop, when it actually would help the U.S. markets. So I think, at the end of the day, we have had a down day today. It's simply a matter of, we have had a lot of up days. And I don't see it derailing anything on a long-term basis.

SMITH: Tomorrow is a new day.

Hal Lambert, great to have you on the program this afternoon. Appreciate it.

LAMBERT: Thank you.

SMITH: Thanks, Hal.

Thank you for joining us. Nice to see you in the afternoon, for a change.

Be sure to tune back in tomorrow morning. Our show begins at 9:00 a.m., "America's Newsroom," each weekday 9:00 to noon.

Tomorrow morning, we will have Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott. He will be our guest. And former Education Secretary Bill Bennett will be joining Bill and me.

Keep it right here for all the latest breaking news and information. What a day it has been, with those hearings, and they continue this week, by the way, tomorrow morning as well.

"The Five" starts right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.