Senate passes resolution to block Trump’s national emergency declaration to secure the southern border

close

Video

Senate passes resolution to block Trump’s national emergency declaration to secure the southern border

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott says he voted to stand with President Trump because securing the southern border ensures the safety of every American.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 14, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm running to serve you as president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

O'ROURKE: Thank you. Thank you all for having us out. Really, really grateful. Thank you.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Well, I think he's got a lot of hand movement. I have never seen so much hand movement. I said, is he crazy, or is that just the way he acts?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, maybe that's a sign that you take this Beto guy seriously.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

And Donald Trump tends to do that sort of thing, or frame them in a pithy line about either their physical appearance or their gestures, to send a signal that they're going to be minimized right out the gate.

Now, how will that affect this race as it continues right out the gate?

Let's get to it, to Mike Tobin in Burlington, Iowa, where Beto O'Rourke is now blitzing the state.

Hey, Mike.

MIKE TOBIN, CORRESPONDENT: Hey. Hello there, Neil.

Lots of excitement here in Burlington, Iowa, packed house, as Beto O'Rourke made it official started barnstorming Iowa. He pushed back and Keokuk, Iowa, against the notion that that race that put him on the map, the one against Ted Cruz, he lost it, albeit narrowly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'ROURKE: I come from a red state, where we were already spoken for, written off, it wasn't worth the competition or the effort. And we were able to put Texas in play and, frankly, for the next nominee, 38 electoral votes in play.

I think I was able to show by going to every single county that we will leave no one behind, that no one will be forgotten.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOBIN: At every stop, O'Rourke talked about climate change as a crisis. He talked about bridging the hyperpartisan divide.

The critics are after him. Among other things, Republicans call him no borders Beto because he's got a soft stance on immigration. In fact, he wants to decriminalize illegal border crossings.

And the president criticized him -- you just played the sound bite a little while ago -- for his hand gestures, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, that's a sign that maybe he's a little worried. We will see. I don't know. I always read into those things. What is he up to?

Thank you very much, Mike Tobin.

Now, this is an interesting sort of phenomenon in the Democratic Party, because this is the same guy who raised more than $70 million, close to $80 million in his Senate campaign. Now, half of that cash came from outside the state. That's one thing. But half of that cash also was in small denominations.

So it started with very, very small offerings from people who were psyched by the guy. So does that mean anything?

To Axios reporter Caitlin Owens, who has been examining that.

What do you make of that, Caitlin?

CAITLIN OWENS, AXIOS: I think that small donor -- small-dollar donations are a good measurement of excitement about a candidate.

So, obviously, Beto during his Senate race drew a lot of national excitement. As you said, some -- a lot of this money that he received wasn't from Texas. And so, as we have seen another candidates in the past and get a lot of grassroots fund-raising going pretty early on, Bernie Sanders was one of them in 2016, Barack Obama was another one before him.

And so while a lot of candidates are embracing now the small-dollar donation fund-raising model, I mean, Beto has already been there, done that.

CAVUTO: I'm also wondering how much of that was Beto -- I take nothing away from him -- and how much was it the Democrats' zeal to take down Ted Cruz?

OWENS: You know, I think -- I think it's probably both.

He was -- I think he was surprisingly a strong candidate against Cruz. Now, why that is, we can debate all day. He's charismatic. I think that just kind of his ability to spin a narrative was -- helped him a lot. But then, as the race started getting tighter, like it was kind of a self- reinforcing narrative, where -- to Democrats, it was, wow, we're getting close in Texas. We could take down Cruz. That's a big deal. We should focus on this race.

CAVUTO: I was looking at some of the numbers. Again, it's still early.

OWENS: Right.

CAVUTO: And you often remind me of that. I'm glad you do.

But early small-denomination offerings to candidates also looks good for Kamala Harris, also looks good for Bernie Sanders, just as it did last time, better than $6 million within his first 24 hours announcing his presidential run, not all of that in small denominations.

OWENS: Right.

CAVUTO: But I guess the logic is something the effect that the big money follows first interest on the part of the small money, right?

OWENS: I think that sounds about right.

A lot of large donors kind of wait around to see who's drawing attention, especially when a field is this big. You don't want to waste money throwing it in too early. And so, again, I think these small-dollar donations, they can be really important, especially if they're sustained throughout the race.

But I think it marks who is leading the pack at the moment, who the American people are excited about.

CAVUTO: Do you get a sense right now in this race that some of the premier candidates, they're going to be a top-tier candidate, who will have no problem getting money, and everybody else, let's say as many as 15 others who don't?

How is it looking?

OWENS: I think that, right now, it's a lot about name recognition, right?

I mean, it's March of 2019. We're very early in the 2020 presidential race cycle. And so that's why I think we're seeing people, Joe Biden, who's not even in the race yet officially -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Beto, these people who have had a lot of media buzz over their career -- just last election cycle in the case of Beto.

I mean, I think that's why this could change a lie going forward as people become more familiar with other candidates.

CAVUTO: But, to your point, I just want to emphasize in here, if we knew in retrospect that some of the early money and energy, for example, that we noticed with Barack Obama would signal that he was going to be a bigger threat than Hillary Clinton thought or, for that matter, going way back to before you were born and Jimmy Carter in 1976 was getting a lot of very early interest in the state of Iowa, 10, 15 bucks at a time.

I'm history could repeat itself. It bears watching.

OWENS: I think so. I think you're right. I mean, it's going to -- this is definitely going to be an exciting race, Neil.

And we don't know what's going to happen, but it should be fun for all of us.

CAVUTO: Yes, we're following the money, just like you are.

Caitlin Owens of Axios, thank you very, very much.

Well, Beto O'Rourke obviously thinks that Texas is in play and its 38 electoral votes. And so does a potential third-party candidate named Howard Schultz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD SCHULTZ, FORMER CEO, STARBUCKS: If Donald Trump loses Texas, he doesn't -- he can't get the 270 and chances are, he does not get reelected.

If Howard Schultz decides to run for president, and I enter the race, there is a good chance that Texas for the first time since '76 does not go Republican.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Think about that.

The last time that state, the Lone Star State, went Democrat was when Jimmy Carter was the state in his first run for the presidency. Since 2004, when then President George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 22 points, though, the past few presidential elections have seen tighter Texas races, with Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton by about nine points, still impressive, but a reminder that this state, which used to be a swamper for the GOP, might be changing?

Let's ask Daron Shaw, a member of the Fox News Decision Team and a University of Texas at Austin politics professor.

DARON SHAW, CONTRIBUTOR: How you doing?

CAVUTO: Professor, good to have you. Thanks for coming.

SHAW: Nice to be here.

CAVUTO: Well, you're in Austin, which is the standout in Texas, I'm told, and a sign that liberals thrive there.

And I'm wondering, is it your sense that Texas could turn, that Democrats obviously poured a lot of money in the state with Beto O'Rourke, thinking that he had a chance to topple Ted Cruz. He didn't, but he came close. What do you see happening?

SHAW: Right.

By the way, Austin is often referred to as the blueberry in the tomato soup.

CAVUTO: I like that. That's even better.

SHAW: That's my favorite analogy.

CAVUTO: I do.

SHAW: I think -- yes.

I think -- look, if you're a Democrat, you got to be excited. But the history, as you pointed out, is daunting, no presidential win since '76, no statewide wins in any race since 1994. That's a quarter century. That's a lot of time.

But people look to O'Rourke's performance where we got within 2.6 points in the last election. They look to the changing demographics in the state of Texas, and then the enthusiasm the Democrats had in 2018.

I mean, I was just looking at the numbers. I had forgotten this. But O'Rourke actually had significantly more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. They add all that up, and they think there's some potential there.

But I'm fairly skeptical for a variety of reasons. As you also pointed out, O'Rourke spent on the order of, what was it, I think $79 million, and he -- and he got 6 percent more than Paul Sadler got. Sadler got 42 percent in the 2012 race against Cruz.

So that means, all right, if you want to spend $70 million and get an extra six points and lose by two-and-a-half, go right ahead and do that. And so I think that's why Republicans are still kind of waiting to be -- waiting to see whether Texas is really in play.

CAVUTO: Well, should they worry that it is and spend some time there? Maybe Democrats would be just as happy if they have to reallocate their resources that spend more time there than they otherwise would.

SHAW: Yes, it's a good point.

Yes, I think -- I think the Republicans are going to have to shore up Texas. I don't think -- Trump is not particularly popular here, by Republican standards. And that was a common theme for all the Republicans in 2018 in Texas that had trouble, right?

You had it at the lieutenant governor's race, the attorney general's race, and then with Cruz, unpopular Republicans, they won, but they won by single digits, and sometimes low single digits.

Trump, I think, there's a strong argument, falls into that category, a relatively unpopular Republican. Then you have got a homegrown Beto O'Rourke as a potential challenger. That, I think, would be cause for concern.

But I would also point out, Neil, that times have changed with respect to campaign financing. You were mentioning, when you and I were kind of watching this stuff in the '80s and '90s, there was a -- people were taking public funds. There was like an $80 million cap in total spending.

Spending in Texas was...

CAVUTO: Well, those were the days, yes.

SHAW: Yes, that was a privilege nobody could afford.

Nowadays, candidates are raising $200 million, $300 million. The marginal cost of putting a few dollars into Texas, especially, as you pointed out, if it forces the Republicans to spend some time and energy here, that might be worth it for the Democrats.

CAVUTO: Real quickly, Professor, if the president, though, were to lose that state, where would he pick up the 38 electoral votes that he doesn't have there?

SHAW: He doesn't.

CAVUTO: Interesting.

SHAW: Partly because the math just doesn't work, but partly because losing Texas would be indicative of weakness all across the board.

And I think...

CAVUTO: Interesting.

SHAW: I do agree with Schultz's comment on that front. I think, if he loses Texas, he's not going to win.

CAVUTO: Very interesting.

I'm so glad you're working with the FOX Decision Team and making sense of this. Good to have you, Professor.

SHAW: Thank you very much.

CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, want to go half-a-world away right now.

You're looking live at Tel Aviv. Residents are still on high alert. Earlier, sirens were blaring after an apparent rocket attack from the Gaza. Two rockets could be seen flying over the city. Now, one of those rockets landed in an uninhabited area. There are no reports of injuries.

But remember that the Israelis have this Dome, as they like to call it, that can stop rockets midflight. An Israeli TV station reporting that the rockets were apparently Iranian-made. We haven't heard any of that confirmed by the Iranians themselves.

The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is set to meet with military advisers at headquarters in Tel Aviv. We will keep you posted.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I hope it's going to be for a short period of time. And I hope it's -- look, they have to find out what it is. The biggest thing is, they have to find out what it is. I'm not sure that they know.

But I thought we had to do it. We had to take a cautionary route.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, the president today defending the decision to ground some of those 737 MAX jets, as the investigation continues into the Ethiopian crash.

Now when it comes to both the 8 and the 8 MAXes they are all grounded. Now word that these planes could be grounded -- forget about just weeks. Try months.

FOX Business Network's Jeff Flock at Chicago's O'Hare Airport with the fallout from all of this.

Hey, Jeff.

JEFF FLOCK, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CORRESPONDENT: The impact already being felt, Neil.

Perhaps you see the customer assistance line. These are people that need to be rebooked, as a result -- some of it as a result of the 737 groundings. Others are the result of the weather today. We have got that bomb cyclone. That's caused some problems too.

I want to bring you over to the cancellation board, but, as I do, give you a tweet that is perhaps emblematic of the feeling of a lot of passengers today. Take a look at this one.

Fellow writes: "We are scheduled to fly in 24 hours, both legs on a 737 MAX. The flight is not showing canceled. Am I flying?"

The answer to that is, at this point, we don't know. See, what the airlines are doing, they're not canceling all the 737 MAX flights. What they're saying is, we could cancel another flight, move the plane over there, and then your flight could be going.

So it's a little bit of a catch as catch can. Look at the boards. The yellow and the red, that means canceled or delayed. And there's a lot of it up there.

So I take you to perhaps the other thing that we don't know, and that is the information about that black box. The Ethiopian Air crash black box is now in France to be analyzed. And as the president says, we don't know yet, may take us a while.

As you say, it could be weeks or months. That wouldn't be great, but passengers, I think, feeling good about the fact that they feel any aircraft that could be a problem is now on the ground and they feel safe. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like nowadays they do a pretty good job at managing their safety and everything. So I feel pretty safe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was told that planes are safer than cars. So we're going to roll with that one for today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FLOCK: And then, Neil, I will leave you with this. We always like to put things in perspective. And here's the perspective on this.

The number of MAX jets compared to the number of jets in the fleet, the fleet, U.S., all the carriers together, 7,309 aircraft. MAX jets grounded, 72. You don't even need to be a mathematician. That's less than 1 percent.

CAVUTO: Yes.

FLOCK: And we're safe.

CAVUTO: But there are a lot on order, right?

I'm just wondering. It's still way too early to tell.

(CROSSTALK)

FLOCK: Over 4,000.

CAVUTO: About how carriers -- right, what do carriers do, then, whether they swap out or whatever. We don't know, right?

FLOCK: You know, planes can last longer. They buy these new aircraft because they think they're a good guy. They use less fuel, but they can -- they can keep the old planes longer if they have to. I don't think there's going to be a great impact to the carriers.

I think the impact, it's going to rest solely with Boeing -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend, Jeff Flock.

Jeff referred to this, this so-called bomb cyclone, a wicked weather system that is exploding all across the Midwest.

We're going to look at the fallout from this storm, because it's already substantial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, and this is the appropriate term, a bomb cyclone.

It's wreaking havoc across 25 states today, more than 70 million impacted. Parts of major highways were forced to close in places like Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota. There are a lot of downed trees, causing a lot of widespread power outages. Nearly 700 flights are grounded in and out of Denver International Airport.

Meteorologist Rick Reichmuth at the Fox Weather Center on more of this storm.

What are we looking at here?

RICK REICHMUTH, CHIEF METEOROLOGIST: Such a crazy storm, this bomb cyclone.

It's kind of a term that gets out there in the media and everybody loves it, because it sounds pretty dramatic. It's kind of similar to what we see in tropical season, where a storm go through rapid intensification. That's what happened with the center of the storm yesterday.

That was a storm. Now it's just crossing the Iowa border there headed in towards parts of Wisconsin. That's the center of it. I will say the storm is weakening a little bit. That said, take a look at these wind gusts right now. Winds are gusting at 62 miles in North Platte, Nebraska, 61 miles in Louisville, Kentucky.

That's because we have a line of storms that is moving through there. But the wind is still incredibly strong, blizzard warnings in effect here across the Dakotas, Minnesota, towards the Panhandle of Nebraska. Then you see this green, and that's where we have been seeing incredibly heavy rain with it. And that's been causing the flooding conditions.

This is what happens over time over tonight. You see the front with this moving off towards the east, a little bit cooler air moving in behind it. But the center of the storm goes up in across parts of Canada. And we're going to see less impacts of this storm by the time we get to tomorrow.

So we do have to get through today with severe weather. In fact, we have tornado watches here all across parts of the Ohio Valley, stretched down across parts of the Deep South. No tornado warnings at this moment. To the northern side of this, we had damaged earlier today in Paducah, Kentucky.

Down to the southern side of this, this was a tornado warning here just to the southeast of Jackson. So be watchful. I think we will likely see a new tornado watch box pop up here across areas to the south of that throughout the evening.

Still, these two spots where we're looking at that threat for severe weather, we could be seeing a chance for a large conditions are ripe, Neil, for a large, long-lasting tornado, especially where you see this hatch area. And that's what we certainly need to watch, a lot of population zones with that as well.

Here's your temps today. You see this real warmer springlike air towards the East. That will begin to move off with this front tomorrow. Cooler temperatures come in behind this storm.

But we still have to get through about another 12 hours, and finally this really amazing storm across parts of Central Plains will be out of here.

CAVUTO: When is spring again?

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I'm losing track.

REICHMUTH: I know.

CAVUTO: All right, Rick, thank you.

REICHMUTH: One day.

CAVUTO: Yes, one day. All right, Rick Reichmuth.

Now to more of a political storm, the Brexit storm. I think there's that old line, if at first you don't succeed, well, keep trying again and again and again.

Today, the U.K. Parliament voting to delay it exits plan from the European Union for at least another three months. But there's no guarantee that will hold.

Prime Minister Theresa May has one last shot at getting Parliament vote on her withdrawal agreement next week, whatever the ultimate agreement is.

Where is all this going?

Let's go to Gerry Baker. He is the host of "The Wall Street Journal at Large," amazing interviewer. He's got some amazing guests on his show.

I want to get to that.

But, Gerry I'm looking at this. And you know this continent far better than. I am just wondering, what's going on? It's been almost three years since this referendum.

GERRY BAKER, HOST, "WALL STREET JOURNAL AT LARGE": Well, I was going to say, I hope you don't really want me to explain what's happening with Brexit.

(LAUGHTER)

BAKER: I mean, can we not talk about Einstein's theory of relativity?

CAVUTO: How are they always at this?

BAKER: So, the basic problem is that -- the basic problem is that the British people voted to leave three years ago.

And you have a Parliament that doesn't really want to leave. You have got a leadership...

CAVUTO: That's really it. The politicians don't want to bolt. The people do.

BAKER: They don't want to bolt.

They accept that they have probably got to do it. But they're going to try and do it in a way that minimizes it. People talk about BRINO, Brexit in name only, like RINOs, Republican in name only.

CAVUTO: Right.

BAKER: So they're trying to get -- so there are a lot of members of Parliament who don't want it to happen at all. And there are a lot of other members of Parliament who want it to happen, but in the mildest, most painless way.

And Theresa May's deal, which is actually not a bad deal -- it's probably the best deal that you're going to be able to get in negotiating with the Europeans.

And let's remember what this deal is. And I won't go into detail, but it basically is just the terms on which the U.K. will leave the European Union, which takes care of certain issues. Like, the biggest problem is Ireland, because there'll be a border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom, so there has to be a border.

So, there are all those kind of issues. They have got to resolve all those issues. And there's a lot of problems there.

The particular challenge they have is that the -- this is all supposed to happen by the 29th of March. Under the legislation that was passed by Parliament two years ago, 29th of March is the day U.K. is due to leave.

Now, as it happens, as of today, they have had another round of votes in Parliament. It's fun watching all these votes. And it's like, you know, the ayes to the right 312, the no's to the left 340. It's kind of like -- it's like poetry, poetry to the parliamentary process.

(CROSSTALK)

BAKER: They have had another series of votes today.

And the upshot today is that they're going to extend that deadline of the 29th.

Well, even that's complicated. They're going to ask the E.U. if they can extend it, because it's a dual -- it has to be agreed on both sides. So the government is now going to go to the E.U. and say, we want a little bit more time. We want a bit more time to see if we can get another deal through Parliament.

But still the likeliest thing though, Neil -- and you say, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again -- they're going to probably go and try and put Theresa May's deal, which has already been rejected by a huge majority twice.

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

BAKER: They're going to try and do it one more time.

And the way they think things might have changed is that, because there's now a delay in the deadline -- they have pushed the deadline back -- they are -- they think that enough Conservative M.P.s, who really want to leave the E.U., but are blocking this deal because they don't like the terms of the deal, are going to have to sign up because, if they don't sign up to this deal, the alternative is Britain may not leave the E.U. at all.

And in everybody's mind, in the Conservative Party's mind mostly, that would be disastrous.

CAVUTO: Do most Brits still want to leave, if you thought there were another referendum?

BAKER: It's 50/50. It is really close.

I mean, all of the polling -- look, Britain voted to leave by 52 to 48 percent. The latest polls suggest it's roughly the same. It could go the other way. It could go the same way. But it's very, very close.

(CROSSTALK)

BAKER: It's a very divided country.

CAVUTO: What if they had done it immediately in the summer of 2016?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But wouldn't all this have resolved?

(CROSSTALK)

BAKER: I don't think they could have -- like, legally they could have, but it's a very complicated process. Britain has been a member of the European Union for 50 years.

CAVUTO: Yes.

BAKER: But what they could have done, Neil -- and I think you're right in this respect.

They could have said right from the start, we're getting out. It's a -- you know, we're not going to have a close relationship with the E.U. We'd like to negotiate one, but we are leaving come what may. And if there's a deal, if we can negotiate a deal with you, whereby we have a good relationship with you, that's good. But if we can't, we're going anyway.

CAVUTO: Right.

BAKER: But, right from the start, Theresa May and her government said, we want a deal. We want a deal.

They went into this negotiation with the European Union saying, we are going to have a really close relationship and a good deal with you. It would be a bit like, you know, going into a negotiation to buy someone's car and saying, whatever happens, going into a showroom, and saying, whatever happens, I'm going to leave the showroom with this car.

It's not -- you have got to be able to walk away. And the British government at no point really said to the Europeans, if we don't get the deal we like, we're going to walk away. They never said, we're going to walk away.

CAVUTO: And the Europeans had their number.

BAKER: Yes.

CAVUTO: I know tomorrow night on your fine show at 9:30 p.m. on the FOX Business Network, "WSJ at Large," you have got a very special guest.

BAKER: Yes, Steve Bannon is going to come on, which will be quite interesting, I think.

CAVUTO: He's a pretty quiet, meek guy.

BAKER: Yes. No, I'm going to have to work hard, I think.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I'm going to have to work hard to get him to say something controversial or interesting.

Look, he's a controversial figure. But he's a smart guy. He was very much -- he was a very important figure in President Trump's election, played a key role in those first six months in the administration.

He's got a lot of enemies, certainly, and he's said a lot of controversial things. But I'm hoping that -- what I want to do is, I want to get his judgment on President Trump's first two years and what he thinks.

CAVUTO: Interesting.

BAKER: What's worked, what hasn't worked, what needs more work, and also he's going to talk about the 2020 Democrats and what he thinks about them.

CAVUTO: Yes, he can't resist that.

I look forward to it. That is again coming Friday, tomorrow night, 9:30 p.m. Eastern time. I have worked with this fellow on a presidential debate. He's meticulous in his planning and his research.

And candidates who weren't expecting to say incredible stuff. So do watch that show and that interview tomorrow.

Now, as Gerry and I were talking here, we're getting some news out of Boeing. It is now saying it's going to pause deliveries of some of those 737 MAX jetliners.

As far as I understand, there are 4,700 that have been ordered for the next few years. I don't know the rollout of these, but it's going to hold off on those, because whatever you make those in circulation now, a little bit better than 80 directly affected by what's going on with the freezing of these planes right now in the United States. Thousands more are on order.

And now Boeing is saying, hold that order.

We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: So you think this college admissions scandal is bad now. I want you to meet the guy who knows the alleged ringleader -- why he says you ain't seen nothing yet.

We are back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AL GREEN, D-TX: Bigotry is impeachable...

CAVUTO: Well, you have to prove bigotry, though, right?

GREEN: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You have to prove bigotry. You have to prove the kind of stuff that you outline there. And it's a loose standard, right?

GREEN: Well, let -- no, it's not a loose standard.

And even though Nancy Pelosi was saying go slow on the impeachment stuff, he's not. He thinks that the president should be impeached. What did you think of that?

REP. STENY HOYER, D-MD, MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I think Nancy's right.

I think that it would a huge distraction, without the probability of success.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Are Democrats divided on this issue?

Despite what Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying when it comes to impeachment, take it off the table for now, can the president take her at her word, or is the more rebellious part of the party going to continue to pursue this?

The Washington Examiners' Becket Adams. We have got Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro and the National Taxpayer Union's senior fellow Mattie Duppler.

Capri...

CAPRI CAFARO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Sure.

CAVUTO: ... are Democrats in a pickle on this?

They can continue hearings, which might not lead to impeachment, but just keep embarrassing the president.

CAFARO: Right.

CAVUTO: But there are those who want to ratchet it up. What do you think?

CAFARO: I think that -- I agree with Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi on this.

I think that it is bad politics. I think it sets up a circumstance for President Trump to point to say, look, the Democrats are targeting me, this is all about politics.

And that is not a good narrative to go into 2020 with. That's not going to help the Democrats win in 2020. They need to stand for something.

Now, I will say this. I do think that there are members of the Democratic House Caucus in particular that are waving the impeachment flag. But I think that this issue is that important, that I think Nancy Pelosi will be able to keep her current caucus in check.

People are not going to go rogue and, you know, try to get impeachment done. I will say this, though. I know people have introduced articles of impeachment before. But guess what? They did that in the last Congress too. They're not going to see the light of day. And that's what's important.

CAVUTO: Well, Mattie, that's kind of the argument that Republicans have been maybe hoping for, right, that they go ahead and pursue this, and implode?

What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTIE DUPPLER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think implosion is probably likely outcome if they do pursue this.

Listen, Nancy Pelosi is a very expert politician. And she knows, to expand Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C., it hinges on her controlling her somewhat unruly caucus.

But for every headline that a progressive in the House of representative gets, there's someone like a Steny Hoyer or a more moderate member of Congress who is dying to avoid that impeachment question, because they're coming from a district or a state that voted for President Trump.

So, Nancy Pelosi is playing her card here where she knows, as a member of leadership, she needs to put a stake out there to try and avoid some of those more vulnerable members getting the question about impeachment, because it certainly will alienate the voters that those Democrats need to show up for Senate races and for the presidential in 2020.

CAVUTO: Yes.

But, Becker, can you have your cake and eat it too? Which I always felt, by the way, was a dumb expression. If the cake is there, eat it, for God's sakes.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Having said that, do you think that just having hearings, even though you know they won't lead to impeachment, or you won't formally start impeachment proceedings, those could be grinding and wear down the president, where -- maybe hit his poll numbers, and maybe that would suffice for some Democrats?

BECKET ADAMS, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: No.

The funny thing about this is, Pelosi has been on this case since even before she retook the White House -- or the -- rather, the House. I feel like she's almost a character from Greek mythology who has been cursed to answer the same damn question over and over again, without people actually listening to her.

She's been trying to talk this down for a while, because it may play well to the base, to the sort of crazier fringes of the Democratic Party. But what the Republicans have is that not only do Republicans oppose this, but a majority of independents oppose it as well.

So as long as Republicans keep playing it -- she can keep saying, we're not serious about this, we're not going to do this. But Republicans just have to point to the fringe members of her caucus and say, well, actually, this is a thing. And Republicans can play that off of not just their own voters, but also independents.

And, like you were saying, going into 2020, doing this, it's a grind. Nobody wants to do that.

CAVUTO: It is a grind.

Real quickly, guys, a lot would depend, obviously, on the Mueller report, when it comes out, and what it says. Do you think that will move the needle on whether we get impeachment hearings, Mattie?

DUPPLER: Well, I think that 2020, the presidential folks right now are trying to make this a campaign on ideas.

If you're a member of the House, to propagate any ideas, repeal of the tax cuts, Medicare for all, Green New Deal, all these of big ideas Democrats are talking about, you need a budget to do that. And so far, even House Democrats have been unable to deliver that most basic function of government.

So I think it's going to be really hard for the House of Representatives to lead the charge here, for Democrats trying to make a name for themselves going into the next cycle.

CAVUTO: And, by the way, Republicans were just as unlucky on that front.

But, Capri, what do you think?

CAFARO: I think, at this point, I mean, look, no matter what, the Senate's not going to basically vote for impeachment.

So it's absolutely futile. And I agree that we need to focus on doing the job of government.

CAVUTO: And that will win the day, you think, in the end, Becket, or all things equal after that?

ADAMS: I mean, if Democrats want to be really cunning about this, they can pretend this is like an Obamacare repeal, where they just promise it election after election and jazz up the base, but not actually have to deliver on it.

CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you all very, very much.

DUPPLER: Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, we're talking about the president and what he has to worry about.

Well, right now, he has to worry about the timing, Nancy Pelosi citing something that he has already vowed he would veto. Get ready. It gets very, very dicey -- right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, we know it's about to happen, that, sometime later today, with the House and now the Senate having formerly rebuked the president on his use of an emergency -- declaring a national emergency on the border, and even 12 Republicans in the Senate going along to say that's not a good idea, it goes to the president.

And he's promising a veto. It would be the first of his presidency.

Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott, he sided with the president on this, on what the implications are now.

Senator, good to have you.

SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA: Pleasure being with you, Neil.

Yes, absolutely, I voted with the president. And I care about border security. Floridians care about border security. I have been to the border. I have talked to border agents. They need more people. They need better technology. And they have got to have barriers.

They have got to have barriers to have operational control. It's for their safety and for the safety of every American.

CAVUTO: All right, you say you care about border security, sir.

Does that mean you feel the 12 Republicans who bolted on this do not?

SCOTT: Well, I mean, look, everybody -- everybody is going to decide based on what's important to them. And other senators can vote any way they want.

I don't -- I don't think about how other people vote. I don't -- I'm going to vote for Floridians. It doesn't matter to me what the White House thinks. I'm going to vote for what I believe is good for our families.

CAVUTO: All right, so the fact that, the numbers being as they are, it would still be something that could not be overridden, if the president does make good on his promise to veto this.

But it will -- do you think it will change things on the Hill as a result?

SCOTT: I don't know.

I mean, look, I'm anxious for this to get behind us. I wish the Democrats would do what they say they care about, care about border security. I want to get on to other issues. I'm very focused on how you get drug prices down. There's a lot of other things we ought to be doing up here.

I'm a business guy. I was a governor. You got things done. And that's what I want to do up here. I want to get things done.

CAVUTO: All right, so the president has been arguing that a wall is going up as we speak. Democrats are saying, no, it isn't.

Who is right?

SCOTT: Well, I believe the president's going to get things done. I think he's -- he's going to take the resources that he has now, and he's going to get things done. And he should get things done.

He ran on getting -- on -- for border security. Americans believe in border security. So I hope he does exactly would he said he was going to do and get our border security as he can. And I know it's not going to get done in a year. We're going to have to continue to do this until our border is secure.

CAVUTO: All right, so he gets what he wants under the emergency measure that he's taken, assuming the votes remain as they are now, Senator -- you're closer to this than I am -- and that his veto, likely veto, would not be overridden.

But he has already budgeted better than $8 billion to address a wall expansion in this latest budget that the Democrats have all but said is dead on arrival. So where's this going?

SCOTT: It's -- Neil, it's crazy.

I mean, the Democrats say they care about border security, right? That's what they say all the time. But they won't fund it, right? They say they care about things, but they just won't do it.

And there's other issues that -- to deal with, rather than just dealing with the border all the time. Think about what's happening to people who are taking insulin in our country, that these prices have skyrocketed.

So I know we're going to keep fighting over border security. I wish the Democrats would come to the table and say, you know what? We agree. We have got to secure our borders. And let's go on to other important issues.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator, thank you very much. Good catching up with you.

SCOTT: All right, nice seeing you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right.

We're getting some news from Yahoo News, reporting right now that the family-oriented Hallmark Channel says: "We are no longer working with Lori Loughlin in the wake of the college admissions scandal."

We will have more on that after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, that didn't take long.

We're just learning that actress Lori Loughlin, who has been charged with paying bribes to get her kids into an elite college, has been dropped by the Hallmark Channel's parent company, Crown Media, in the wake of the scandal.

We're following all of this very closely.

And here to help us is Andy Lockwood, Lockwood College Prep, author of "How to Pay Wholesale for College." In fact, he knew the guy who was sort of like an organizer on all of this stuff, Rick Singer, who apparently had a wire on him for the better part of some months here, taping all of these calls with all of these people who were involved in this.

It's very good to have you, Andy.

What do you make of all of this?

ANDY LOCKWOOD, LOCKWOOD COLLEGE PREP: I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

I think it's just endemic of a bigger sort of pay-to-play system. He definitely crossed the line. Don't get me wrong. But pay-to-play is nothing new in college or America or probably every society.

CAVUTO: I get that, but you knew this thing Rick Singer, right?

He took it to a different level. What made -- what's pay-to-play and then pay to illegally play?

LOCKWOOD: Right.

Well, I met him way back in 2010, before he allegedly started doing all this stuff. I have my doubts, of course.

CAVUTO: What did you think of him?

LOCKWOOD: He is a very magnetic, sort of persuasive guy. I did think he was a little weird. He had kind of the crazy eyes.

And he was telling me about how he had Steve Jobs as a client, and all these other famous people.

CAVUTO: Was he in this business back then?

LOCKWOOD: Oh, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

LOCKWOOD: I met him as a colleague, as a colleague.

We were both in the legal side of the business of advising and coaching kids to get into colleges.

CAVUTO: And you do it the legal way, with testing prep and all of that, seeking out schools.

(CROSSTALK)

LOCKWOOD: It's legal.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

LOCKWOOD: It's totally -- yes, of course it's legal, yes.

CAVUTO: So what was your impression of him and with the kind of stuff he was doing? Did you have any signs then?

LOCKWOOD: When I was introduced to him, I was told, by the way, I only believe about 80 percent of stuff out of this guy's mouth.

So I took everything he said with a grain of salt about the Steve Jobs thing and all that. But he told me that he represented very wealthy people who -- to get their kids into the side door of schools by brokering huge donations to their endowments.

And I thought, OK, that's scummy, but I know that goes on. That's not so bad. At some point, he went to the dark side and crossed the line and started getting into like bribing coaches and having proctors take tests.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But wouldn't, Andy -- let's say if that is all true, and that is what the government alleges here, do you think that the schools had to be aware, or no, because they're not being fingered in this?

You're right. Individual coaches are and athletic directors, I believe, at one school, but that's as far as it gets.

LOCKWOOD: It's impossible for me to really comprehend how they could not have been aware that the kid had never played tennis beyond ninth grade and got a tennis scholarship.

So either they were just dumb, which I think is possible, it's unlikely, or they turned -- they showed willful blindness. They just turned the other way. I think it's impossible for them not to know.

CAVUTO: What I'm amazed at -- you and I touch on this on FOX Business, which, if you don't get, you really should demand.

And one of the things that came up was, I could see some of the Ivy League schools, but some of these weren't all Ivy League schools. So what was that about?

LOCKWOOD: Right.

I'm scratching my head over that one, too. So you're talking about schools like University of San Diego, which is a fine school, but it admits 50 percent of its applicants. So it's pretty easy to get in. You don't -- it's not a prestigious school.

To me, this is all about the prestige, chasing the prestige. Why would someone who's the CEO of a billion-dollar company care where his kids goes to school? Is that really going to give them a leg up? Or does he just want the rear window sticker that he can plaster on his car and show off at the country club?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I could see Harvard or Yale. I don't mean anything -- to besmirch University of San Diego. I don't know that.

But it just seemed like you're going to a lot of trouble for something you might just legally be able to get into, right?

LOCKWOOD: That too.

Maybe it's like a big insurance policy. Maybe -- a lot of times, parents hire me because they want someone to kind of coach and guide their kids, and so they don't have to deal with it or they don't have the expertise. There is accountability and time management.

It could be that stuff. But then, yes, I don't understand why getting into a school that admits 50 percent is such a prize.

CAVUTO: All right, so let me ask you about the kids who remain at some of these schools now, as they have got news about their parents. Some maybe knew, others didn't know.

Do you think the schools should boot them?

LOCKWOOD: I have a hard time -- if I were a student there, or another parent of a kid who went there, I feel really kind of -- really ripped off that someone had gotten in under false pretenses.

And I don't think they're going to last there.

CAVUTO: Really?

LOCKWOOD: I think either they're going to withdraw in shame or I think a lot of schools are going to say, listen, you lied on your applications or you came here under some kind of scummy things.

CAVUTO: Yes.

LOCKWOOD: You can't stay here.

CAVUTO: Do you think this is a lot bigger than we're told and that the fact that he was wearing a wire for months and he got a lot of information on a lot of people, it's going to be like drip, drip, drip, a lot more?

LOCKWOOD: I know that there are other people who do similar things that he does legally.

And I think a fraction of them do things like what he does illegally by paying off other people. So I expect there's going to be more to come out. I would be shocked if nothing else comes out after this.

CAVUTO: Just amazing.

Andy Lockwood, Lockwood College Prep, author of "How to Pay Wholesale for College." I don't know if it applied to Ivy League schools. Does it?

LOCKWOOD: Yes.

CAVUTO: Oh, it does. OK, good, good. OK. That's good to know.

Meanwhile, one of special counsel Bob Mueller's top guys is reportedly stepping down, and that has a lot of people wondering maybe this whole investigation is winding down -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Everyone wonders, what does this mean?

Fox News can now confirm that the lead prosecutor on Bob Mueller's team, Andrew Weissmann, will be leaving in the near future, we're told. So is this a sign the Russia probe itself will be over in the near future?

I didn't know, but I know Catherine Herridge knows. She follows this relentlessly.

What does this mean, Catherine?

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Neil, for one thing, Weissmann was in charge of the man and for prosecution.

And this week it wrapped up with a second sentencing. On the other hand, those close to Weissmann say he wouldn't leave if there was major legal work still on the table for the special counsel.

Also today, Roger Stone got a trial date of November 5 and a mid-September status hearing. As he left court, Stone shunned reporter questions. The gag order wasn't my modified, which had been expected. He is still free to fund-raise for his defense and proclaim his innocence.

But he cannot discuss the special counsel case, which includes charges he lied to Congress about his communications about the hacked Democratic e- mails.

For now, Judge Amy Berman Jackson set aside the issues surrounding Stone's book, "The Myth of Russia Collusion," and whether it violated the gag order. Outside the court, a former Trump aide subpoenaed by the special counsel questioned whether the same judge could be neutral after handing former campaign chairman Paul Manafort another three years in jail and criticizing his defense team from the bench.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To think, once again, that I don't know why this judge has not recused himself, but that's just me. I don't get it. I don't get -- I don't get how -- especially after yesterday, with what said at the -- at the Manafort sentencing.

It seemed to me that she can't be non-biased if they get to a sentencing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: And, Neil, that's all I got for you.

But stay tuned, because I'm sure there will be more tea leaf to read tomorrow.

CAVUTO: All right, whatever comes out of -- yes, you're right.

Whatever comes out of the report, I notice that the Senate doesn't want a public release of Bob Mueller's report. The House does. So where are we on that?

HERRIDGE: Look, the statute known as CFR-600 is pretty clear on that. It states that the Mueller report is confidential to the attorney general.

And William Barr testified his interpretation of the statute, that he expects to provide summaries of Mueller's finding, not the raw intelligence, to Congress, and then as much as possible to the public.

So, really, it's driven or governed by the statute at this point, Neil.

CAVUTO: But your sense of the timing of the release? We still don't know, right, of the report itself.

HERRIDGE: We don't, but I really think it is not going to be a short report.

CAVUTO: Wow. Interesting.

You're being very guarded. I like that.

HERRIDGE: You don't like to speculate on these things. Let the facts drive it. Yes, I got it.

CAVUTO: No, no, I hear you. No, there you go. Let the facts drive it.

There's a concept.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Catherine Herridge, thank you very, very much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CAVUTO: I do want to take, before we go to our friends at "The Five," a quick look at the Dow. We were up a little bit today.

So, with all the crosscurrents and no progress on China, Brexit going nowhere fast, all of this, do they look worried to you? Not to me.

Here comes "The Five."

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