Should Charles Barkley be supporting Pence instead of slamming him?

close

Video

Should Charles Barkley be supporting Pence instead of slamming him?

Charles Barkley tells Vice President Mike Pence to 'shut up' after he slams the NBA's handling of the Hong Kong controversy.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," October 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: It looks like it's becoming very serious, from what I'm hearing. Investigate the investigators.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: President Trump weighing and reports the investigation into the origins of the Russian probe is now a full-fledged criminal investigation. And some Democrats on Capitol Hill are crying foul.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

To John Roberts at the White House with more on how this is all playing out -- John.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon to you.

Late last night, FOX News was told that the investigation that is being conducted by career prosecutor John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the state of Connecticut, has now morphed from an investigation into a criminal inquiry.

Now, FOX News was told back on October the 8th by a senior administration official that Durham was expanding the scope of his investigation, based on what he had been finding. Adding staff, it's also extending the timeline.

He had been looking into events since the creation of the Trump campaign up until Election Day. He is now looking beyond election night, all the way into the spring of 2017, after the president took office, and up to the firing of James Comey.

The president this morning on his way to South Carolina weighing in on the news that the investigation is now criminal in its nature. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Investigate the investigators, whether it's Strzok and Page, whether it's Clapper and whether it's Comey and all of these people, because terrible things went on for our country. And we have a great attorney general, highly prestigious man, a very honorable man.

And they have been looking at it for a long time. I can't tell you what's happening. I will tell you this. I think you are going to see a lot of really bad things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: This indeed is a significant development, because changing the nature of the investigation now means that prosecutor Durham can impanel a grand jury, he can compel witnesses to testify and seek possible criminal charges.

Now, while Durham is, as I pointed out at the top of this, a career prosecutor and investigator, who has also worked for the Obama and Bush administrations, Democrats today, by association with the attorney general, basically dismissed him as a partisan shill.

In a joint statement, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff saying -- quote -- "These reports, if true" -- and they are -- "raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge."

Don't forget, Charles, Durham is the guy that Eric Holder, Obama's first attorney general, entrusted to look into possible abuses of terrorist suspects at the hands of the CIA.

Now, a couple of reasons why this investigation has gone criminal, we're told. It's because of evidence that Durham and Attorney General Barr developed in a recent visit to Rome, and as well some of the contents of the upcoming inspector general for the DOJ Michael Horowitz's report.

Apparently, when Horowitz's report is released, which he says will be soon, publicly, with few redactions, a lot of this will be made clear -- Charles.

PAYNE: John, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, Democrats trying to play down the Durham investigation.

But my next guest says some of these former intelligence officials should be concerned.

Doug Burns is a former federal prosecutor. And he joins me now.

Doug, well, first, before we start about who should be concerned or not...

DOUG BURNS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.

PAYNE: ... speculation on how this may have turned, how they have now -- how it morphed into criminal investigation.

BURNS: Well, first of all, one little bit of a technical, in-the-weeds point -- and I'm not criticizing anybody who's saying now it's a criminal probe.

Anybody who's been in this business 30 years like me, it really was more of an administrative investigation, and now it's a grand jury one. And there's a profit in DOJ where you can convert it to grand jury.

PAYNE: How does it make the transition, though? How does it make the transition?

BURNS: Yes.

PAYNE: Do you have to come up with new evidence, something, a smoking gun, something dramatic to make -- make the sort of...

BURNS: That's a very good question.

It's less about new information. And that's not an editorial, by the way. And it's more about now we're ready to convene a grand jury, and ostensibly present evidence to them.

The other really important point -- and you have heard all the experts say, but it's worth repeating, Charles -- is that in an administrative case, people can decline to be interviewed, but once you issue a grand jury subpoena, then all of a sudden you have to go in and comply with it.

And that's a very significant distinction.

PAYNE: Who do you think then -- we started about, you know, you saying you think there should be some folks in our criminal justice system who should be concerned now.

BURNS: Well, I think the people that have been mentioned all day long -- and I agree with those who have mentioned them -- are Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe Page, and Strzok, is the most notable six names.

Again, I don't prejudge anything. No good lawyer should. We don't know what it is. But I found it interesting when I read some stuff -- and it was referred to just a minute ago about how the attorney general and John Durham went over to Italy.

And apparently this academic, this professor, Joseph Mifsud, at one point was offering up some negative information about candidate Clinton. And the point is, what they're looking at is the exact circumstances under which he decided to come forward with that.

I don't want to get out in front of my ski tips, to use that dumb cliche, Charles. But the point is, if that was some type of setup, and it wasn't 100 percent kosher, that may be what they're looking at.

PAYNE: So, you talk now about the potential six names that are floating out there.

BURNS: Yes.

PAYNE: Specifically, more specific, like, for instance, Brennan, what exactly you think they could be looking at with him?

BURNS: Well, no, it's a great question.

Here's the thing. I mean, when you translate all this stuff into political rhetoric, it's interesting. The political rhetoric has always been this was an entirely legitimate intelligence investigation. We get that. But it may not have been. It may not have been an entirely...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: We know there's been a dark cloud over this from the very beginning.

BURNS: It may not have been an entirely legitimate one for the reasons that you have heard everybody on the left dismiss as nothing more than Republican talking points and sound bites.

But the reality is, you have heard it a million times. That information, Charles, that was presented to the FISA court, that's going to be looked at really closely. Did they fail to make it clear to the court?

I have been in judge's chambers for 30 years with warrants and applications for search and arrest warrants. And the point is, you have to answer the court's questions, make it clear what was the genesis behind the development of the information in the first place.

You have heard that.

PAYNE: Right.

BURNS: And this is what they're looking at. And that's I say they have to be concerned a little bit.

PAYNE: Would there be criminal liability for knowingly pushing forward this investigation on a faulty...

BURNS: Yes, very good question, because I was trying to think of the different crimes.

Obviously, you have process crimes, lying, 1001 -- 18-USC-1001, not being truthful. But again, there's also a criminal fraud theory if in fact they were pushing a narrative to a court that they knew wasn't exactly the way they were presenting it.

But, again, I'm not getting ahead of anything. But they have now moved to the grand jury phase.

PAYNE: Well, it's great. Hopefully, we will know more answers.

Doug, always appreciate it.

BURNS: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Meanwhile, stocks finishing the week in the green, the Dow surging back near 27000. The S&P 500 also closing in on its all-time high, stocks gaining on optimism about trade and some upbeat earnings reports.

Amazon shares, though, heading in the opposite direction, as costs from its one-day delivery weighs on its earnings. But, for the week, all the major averages finishing higher across the board. Great week for the market.

Democrats, meanwhile, continue to ramp up subpoenas for the impeachment inquiry after House Republicans stormed a closed-door testimony this week.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs is here. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a hoax. It's just a continuation of the Russian witch-hunt, which turned out to be phony. The Mueller deal was phony. And now they have this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: President Trump continuing his assault on the impeachment inquiry, calling it a hoax and phony.

House Judiciary and Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs joins me now.

Congressman Biggs, thanks for joining us.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Thanks, Charles. Good to be with you.

PAYNE: So what do you make of these latest developments? It feels like the table or the tide may be turning something -- somewhat here.

BIGGS: Well, I think it's interesting.

I mean, I always viewed this as kind of a quasi-criminal investigation that Durham was doing. And I think it really takes it into a grand jury setting. And that's going to be interesting to see what comes out of there, because that's where, if criminal charges are going to occur, they're going to rise right through that criminal jury -- excuse me -- that grand jury hearing system.

PAYNE: Yes. It's -- there was always a lot of frustration about the origins of this investigation.

BIGGS: Yes.

PAYNE: And even more so after the Mueller report was released.

And now some folks believe that there was a deliberate attempt to investigate then candidate Trump, because of concerns that he would become president of the United States. In your mind, does that reach the level of criminality?

BIGGS: Well, I think it does.

First of all, in order to investigate like that, somebody has to give the approval. And they have to -- they have to get FISA warrants, which is what they did here. They have to go before a court. They have to state things that are accurate, under oath -- penalty of perjury. That was done here.

They're not allowed to spy. Some of these intelligence agencies are not allowed to spy directly on Americans. And they were doing this for political purposes. If that's the case, there's some various -- there's various criminal statutes that are going to come into play here.

They should be concerned. There were some people that you mentioned your last segment that I think ought be concerned. There's others that were not mentioned that ought to be concerned.

PAYNE: Well, who are they, sir? Who are some of other ones we didn't mention?

BIGGS: I would look at Bruce and Nellie Ohr. I think I'm very concerned about those guys.

And I can't remember if you mentioned McCabe. I think McCabe should be concerned. I would even suggest that DAG, former DAG Rod Rosenstein should be concerned, because he signed off on...

PAYNE: Really?

BIGGS: Yes, he signed off on at least one of those -- those FISA warrants.

PAYNE: Congressman Biggs, the media, of course, and Democrats, they have a different take on this.

The New York Times saying the move is likely to open the attorney general to accusations that he's trying to deliver a political victory for President Trump.

Salon, of course, even further left, went on to say that Bill Barr's alternative universe investigation has a goal: right-wing authoritarian rule.

So, already, you're getting a lot of pushback from the media, obviously a lot of pushback from Democrats. I mean, what are they missing here?

BIGGS: Well, first of all, those -- those folks are missing that, when Durham was confirmed, he was confirmed with a lot of Democrat senators praising his integrity, and Bill Barr too.

So these guys are considered to be men of integrity, very capable, very honest attorneys general. They have gone after both Democrats and Republicans in their -- in their careers.

What they're missing is, if this is true, if there are allegations that are provable and criminal in nature, that you have the intelligence agencies spying on an opponent in a presidential election, than you have basically undermined the very notion of a constitutional republic.

That's what they're missing.

PAYNE: Right.

BIGGS: They need to -- I keep hearing them say, oh, we're going to follow the facts. Well, let's follow the facts.

PAYNE: And I think, at the very least, that we should talk about the reputation of the intelligence community as a whole that needs desperately to be repaired.

I do want to bring up Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, because he's telling Republicans that they're going to regret asking for complete transparency in the impeachment inquiry.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Our Republican friends may get what they wished for, all the facts coming out. They will regret it, because, at least from reports, the facts are very, very troubling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: I know the public would love to get all of the facts and make up their own minds. But should Republicans be concerned?

BIGGS: I don't think so.

I think that we want justice and accountability. And the best way to do that is to open up the room, let everybody in. And you know what? What Mr. Schumer is not remembering is, we may get a transcript, but that doesn't reflect all the facts.

You need to be able to see somebody who's testifying, because, when you see them testify, you get to adduce whether they're credible, whether they're - - whether they're telling the truth. So you're -- you're adjudicating veracity and credibility.

And that's important when you're weighing -- if you're the trier of fact. And the Democrats are preventing them from happening, not just to Republicans and not just to the media, but to all of Americans. And that shouldn't happen.

PAYNE: A lot has changed in the last 24 hours. And it feels like maybe the process could be sped up here a little bit.

I know that we have been -- the public has been wanting to get this done, to learn the truth.

BIGGS: Yes.

PAYNE: Is there a chance that that could be happening really soon?

BIGGS: I'm not -- I'm not sure how they can get it done as quickly as they're saying.

I mean -- I mean, Mr. Schiff is now saying that he might actually have some open-door hearings at some point. I don't know when he's going to fit those in before the Thanksgiving recess.

And then you got to give it to the Judiciary Committee, and we have got to do our work in there. So, I don't know how you could do it.

PAYNE: Does your work include, by the way, more -- more storming the door if you have to?

(LAUGHTER)

BIGGS: If I have to, yes, sir. Yes, sir. If I have to, I will do it.

PAYNE: Congressman Biggs, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

BIGGS: Thanks, Charles.

Hey, call it the family feud 2020 style. Former Vice President Joe Biden taking a swipe at Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's roles in the White House.

And let's just say the president didn't let this one -- well, he didn't let it pass. Game on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I'm president, get elected president, my children are not going to have offices in the White House. My children are not going to sit in on Cabinet meetings.

QUESTION: What's improper about that?

BIDEN: It's just simply a proper because you should make it clear to the American public that everything you're doing is for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Well, that didn't sit well with President Trump.

His 2020 campaign sending out a tweet in response to Joe Biden's swipe at Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

"Joe Biden is correct on one point. Hunter Biden would never have an office in the White House, because he's proven that his only qualification is being the son of Joe Biden."

So who wins in this family feud?

Let's ask Democratic strategist Jason Nichols, GOP strategist Holly Turner, and The Washington Examiner's Kaylee McGhee.

Holly, let me start with you.

HOLLY TURNER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, not only would the Bidens never, ever have their children in the White House. You can't make any money doing that. So the Bidens would definitely have their kids serving on some foreign board, so that they can profit from being in the White House.

And, look, I think it's important to point out that Jared and Ivanka do not take a salary. They are -- they have put their businesses aside. They have put them -- most of their businesses are being handled by a blind trust.

This is just Biden trying to deflect from his own very serious vulnerabilities in his campaign and his ethics.

PAYNE: Jason, certainly deflecting, but the questions continue to haunt him.

JASON NICHOLS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, yes, but I think when Holly says that he hasn't -- that Ivanka and Jared haven't benefited, we could talk about their 34 trademarks in China.

So they're certainly benefiting off the Trump name. It's also a clear violation of nepotism laws when you appoint somebody who's a relative to have an office in the White House. It's clearly improper.

Her meeting with people at the G20 was absurd. And so the president really does not have...

PAYNE: But why was that absurd, though? I don't get why that was absurd.

NICHOLS: Because she has...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: She's spearheading several initiatives.

(CROSSTALK)

NICHOLS: Which is problematic.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: ... that was bipartisan today.

And we're seeing prisoners who -- nonviolent felons that were allowed out of prison because of her.

NICHOLS: Charles, first of all, that's a deflection from the G20, which is not anything -- had nothing to do with criminal justice reform.

When we're talking about this, really, what we're saying is that Ivanka Trump did -- has no diplomatic experience, had no place to be amongst these world leaders. And she's there because she is the president's daughter.

PAYNE: Yes, Kaylee, I mean, listen, some would say a community organizer didn't have any diplomatic experience.

But when the American public elevated Barack Obama to the president, we expected him to do the job.

NICHOLS: He was elected.

PAYNE: He was elected.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I -- here is the thing. The Trumps were businesspeople. Ivanka had brands. They did business in China. I guess maybe the criticism might be getting to them. There's reports they might sell their hotel in D.C.

But do you see where there's the same thing, that there's a sort of moral equivalency here?

KAYLEE MCGHEE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes.

And I think that there are absolutely fair criticisms to be made of Jared and Ivanka's role in the Trump White House, for sure. But should Joe Biden be the one to make them?

I mean, he's already under fire for using his power as the former vice president to score moneymaking deals, allegedly, for his son. So the fact that Biden wants to bring this up, it just looks horrible for him.

And that's not just nepotism. That's cronyism.

PAYNE: Well, I want to switch gears, folks.

But it's another Biden battle, Bernie Sanders going after the former V.P. for opening the door to super PAC donations. In fact, Sanders speaking about it earlier today in Iowa. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't have a super PAC. I don't want a super PAC. I don't need a super PAC, because our campaign is funded, if you can believe this, to the tune of $16 a contribution from over a million people in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: All right, Jason, your thoughts?

NICHOLS: Well, I agree with Bernie Sanders.

I think this is a desperate move on the part of a cash-strapped Biden campaign. However, Biden doesn't have to play by the same rules as Bernie Sanders. He's not a progressive. He's a moderate Democrat. He's like Hillary Clinton, who had super PACs that gave her tens of millions of dollars.

He's playing by moderate rules. Moderate rules say that you can have people -- super PACs donate. You don't necessarily have to go by the same path as the other candidates.

PAYNE: And, to your point, I want to share with the audience just how much Joe Biden is trailing his Democratic rivals. He certainly is in a major cash crunch.

Look at that, $33 million, $34 million vs. less than $9 million.

But, Holly, I guess the argument here is not whether it's legal or it's within the boundaries of the rules. But he's, I guess, swore off super PAC money. And then now he needs the super PAC money, it's OK. That's a pretty quick reversal.

TURNER: Well, it is.

Well, it is. I think, from a legal point of view, it is important to point out that Biden has no control over whether a super PAC is formed on his behalf. Legally, he can't have a say in that.

He does need the cash for his campaign to go on. But, look, we also know that cash doesn't make -- doesn't ensure that you win. I mean, Hillary had so much money. She had way more money than President Trump did in their campaign, and it didn't help her over the finish line.

So Bernie is right to be bringing this up. It's a great campaign strategy move. It gets his base fired up. But, in the end, Biden's campaign is on fumes. It's not going to last. Even a little infusion of campaign or of super PAC money is not going to keep the lights on at his headquarters.

He can't pay his staff with that money.

PAYNE: Although, Kaylee, he's still hanging in there in many of the polls.

MCGHEE: Yes, absolutely.

And, listen, Bernie is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he's consistent. And he's particularly consistent on this issue. He has been very critical of the other Democratic candidates who accept big money politics and the rules by which they play.

So it's important to keep that in mind moving forward.

PAYNE: Folks, we have what we call a FOX News Alert here. And it's a trifecta. All three of you have agreed on the same topic.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: Maybe Joe Biden may want to rethink this, although cash is cash, and he needs it.

Thank you all very much. Great conversation. Have a great weekend. And we will see you soon.

TURNER: Thanks, Charles.

MCGHEE: Thank you.

NICHOLS: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: Hey, earlier today, President Trump speaking about the situation in the Middle East.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're doing very well in Syria with Turkey and everybody else that we're dealing with. We have secured the oil. We have a lot of oil. We have secured the oil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: In Syria to make sure we keep the oil away from ISIS. Is this a good move?

We're on it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Is the GM strike about to end?

Sources say UAW members have approved a new contract. That would be huge. This is a very expensive situation for both sides.

Details are coming right up when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, DEFENSE SECRETARY: So, we are reinforcing that position. It will include some mechanized forces. Again, I'm not going to get into details.

But the mission in Syria remains what the mission in Syria began with. It's always been about defeating the ISIS coalition. We want to make sure that they don't have access to the resources that may allow them to strike within the region, to strike Europe, to strike the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: And those resources Defense Secretary Mark Esper is talking about, oil fields, the U.S. troops and tanks staying in Syria to make sure ISIS can't take them.

Former USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold thinks it's the right move.

Commander, thanks for joining us.

What exactly does this move accomplish?

KIRK LIPPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: I think, Charles, when you really look at it in the big picture, putting these mechanized units back in actually gives us a much more robust capability than we had before.

It not only gives us the ability to respond with the Special Operations forces, some of which will be staying behind to rapidly respond, but also back them up with these mechanized forces, which gives us a power projection capability in the region that we didn't have previously.

PAYNE: Commander, what size of force are we talking about? Would it actually be larger than those troops that we -- that the administration initially took out?

LIPPOLD: Well, initially, you had about 1,000 troops in there, but they were always light. They were special operators.

We didn't necessarily have the kind of robust forces that now Secretary of Defense Esper is talking about. To be able to put those forces in there, the mechanized forces, again, gives us that ability, a much more lethal capability, so that when our forces have to go, if they have to go in harm's way against ISIS, we now have that mechanized capability to back them up, to ensure that ISIS absolutely cannot reconstitute and we have the ability to crush them.

PAYNE: We have been told that this tentative arrangement with Turkey would also allow us, however, to prevent ISIS from even reconstituting.

Does this acknowledge that there still is a degree or a threat that maybe they could?

LIPPOLD: I think everyone recognizes there is still a degree and a threat, especially with the forces that are still being held captive, that, if released, ISIS could reconstitute.

Having a coordinated effort, because, obviously, not the Russians, not the Turks, not us want to have any ISIS reconstitution capability exist. So we have to make sure that the fighters that we have captured are -- continued to be held. And we want to make sure that buffer stone stays neutral.

We are not going to jeopardize our NATO relationship with Turkey, even though President Erdogan is starting to become much more of a dictator than we had expected. But, nonetheless, our ability to remain in the region, remain engaged, even with the pullback, by reinforcing the forces that stay is absolutely the right move.

PAYNE: And with all due respect, we may not want to jeopardize our relationship with Turkey, but they don't seem to mind pushing the envelope over and over again. Are they really a reliable NATO ally?

LIPPOLD: I think, when it comes down to it, Turkey would back NATO, regardless of what the circumstances are.

While they may be looking to the east, I still -- you have to remember, the Turks for years tried to become part of the E.U. And the Europeans, I think very unwisely, kept rebuffing them, kept pushing them off, and kept keeping them at arm's length.

And they finally said, fine, enough. If you're not going to allow us to be a full-up member of the West, then guess what? You give us no choice but to look elsewhere to ensure that we as a nation have the ability to defend our interests and our national security here in this vital region, especially when you look at where they sit geographically, a very important region of the world.

PAYNE: Finally, I have to ask you about the new arrangement and whether or not you're satisfied it will keep our Kurds -- the Kurds who fought alongside of American soldiers, will it keep them safe? LIPPOLD: I think it will keep them safe.

You have to remember, the Kurds that Turkey was after are not the same Kurds that represent the Syrian freedom fighters. It is a different group. The two don't mingle. They don't want to mingle.

And we have seen no intelligence that indicates that they are. Therefore, I think that the Kurds that we're seeing there, they don't have a bone to pick with Turkey. Their bone has always been with Bashar al-Assad and Syria and how they're treated in the Syrian country.

PAYNE: Commander, thank you very much. Appreciate your time and your expertise here.

LIPPOLD: Thank you, Charles. Great to be on again.

FOX Business reporting the strike between General Motors and the United Auto Workers is over. We have got the latest details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: The UAW has agreed to a new contract with General Motors, ending a nearly six-week strike, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

FOX News' -- FOX Business' Grady Trimble in Chicago with the very latest -- Grady.

GRADY TRIMBLE, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Charles, all week, the nearly 50,000 striking workers were voting on this tentative agreement.

And what this means is that now the tentative agreement becomes a contract. And this effectively ends this 40-day strike. Now, we were sort of expecting this. If you look at General Motors' stock performance today, it was climbing all day. And it's just under where it was when this strike started six weeks ago. It was at 37 bucks then. It's a little under -- a little under 37 now.

A lot of the workers that we talk to say they like this deal because it included pay increases, their health care costs stay the same, and it includes an $11,000 signing bonus. That was big for the workers, because they have been on strike for six weeks and they haven't been receiving any pay.

There were some workers who didn't like this contract because they say it doesn't do enough to protect American jobs, as it confirmed the closure of three plants in the United States.

But, again, a lot of the workers looking at that $11,000 signing bonus. They were out over $6,000 in wages during this six-week strike. So the big news is that they're going to get that signing bonus. This will be the contract that they will follow for the next four years.

And then they will get back to work, we're told, as soon as tomorrow -- Charles.

PAYNE: Before you go, I know that, initially, the bonus was going to be $8,000. So $11,000 sounds phenomenal.

But the UAW seems like they're going to be busy. Apparently, there are reports out that they have picked their next target, and it's Ford?

TRIMBLE: Right.

So, Ford still hasn't negotiated a contract, and neither has Fiat Chrysler. So that's next up. That doesn't necessarily mean the UAW will call for a strike against those companies.

What it does mean is that this General Motors contract will likely be used as a template for those two automakers as they sit down at the bargaining table and try to work out a deal with them.

PAYNE: Grady, thank you. Good stuff. You have covered this very well, my friend.

Now to the latest on Felicity Huffman. The actress getting out of jail a bit earlier than expected.

To Jacqui Heinrich in the newsroom with the very latest -- Jacqui.

JACQUI HEINRICH, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Charles, of everyone's sentence in this scandal so far, Huffman's was among the shortest, just 14 days behind bars. And she's out early after 11 days.

It amounts to a little over 78 percent of her sentence. But she's not getting special treatment, according to the Bureau of Prisons. Policy allows inmates set for release on a weekend or legal holiday to get out the weekday prior.

Huffman was set for release on Sunday. She admitted to paying $15,000 to have her daughter's college board test corrected and was quick to admit guilt and offer remorse.

She wrote in September: "I broke the law. I have admitted that and pleaded guilty to this crime. There are no excuses or justifications for my actions, period. I would like to apologize again to my daughter, my husband, my family, and the educational community for my actions. And I especially want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college."

She's not completely off the hook, though. She still has a yearlong probation and 250 hours of community service to serve. She already paid a $30,000 fine.

Others charged in the case might not have such a clear future ahead, though. Actress Lori Loughlin and her designer husband are accused of paying half-a-million dollars to get their daughters recruited to University of Southern California's crew team, despite neither of the girls ever doing the sport.

They didn't take a plea. And, this week, prosecutors hit them with additional charges. More than 50 people have been charged in Operation Varsity Blues -- Charles.

PAYNE: Thank you very, very much.

Meanwhile, the scariest part of Halloween might just be how much people are spending -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Charles Barkley to Vice President Mike Pence: Shut up.

The former NBA star blasting the vice president for criticizing the NBA's handling of the Hong Kong controversy and calling the administration hypocritical when it comes to China.

"Your World" audio tech Dion Baia, Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman, and entrepreneur Eva Sadej join us now to discuss.

Gunz, you say that you think Charles Barkley should be supporting, instead of slamming, the vice president.

MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: Right.

Now, so Vice President Mike Pence, I mean, said the right thing here. It's the fact of the matter is that we are America and we shouldn't have to listen to China and China's telling us what to do, be it the NBA, be it in Hollywood, how they're only allowing certain movies to come over there because they might offend them or whatnot.

The bottom line is that the NBA right now looks like they have sold themselves out to China. And all -- all Vice President Mike Pence did was support America. It's got nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat or anything like that.

It's about, hey, we have freedom of expression, freedom of speech. The Hong Kong protesters want that. And we should support that, bottom line.

PAYNE: It's part of our essence as...

GUNZELMAN: Yes, we're America. We're America.

PAYNE: Yes.

But, Eva, in this case, Barkley brought up all businesses do -- all American businesses do business in China. He criticized the Trump administration in the trade negotiations or the trade war. I mean, was that a proper deflection from what he was trying to do here?

EVA SADEJ, ENTREPRENEUR: Well, it's interesting.

I mean, he put Nike and the NBA in an awkward spot, because...

PAYNE: Did they put themselves in an awkward spot?

SADEJ: They did too. It got awkward because, all right, if they support China, that's a problem for some people. If they support Mike Pence, that's a problem for some people.

So it makes brands have to politicize what they're actually going to be standing for. And people love that. Like, 73 percent of people think brands should stand for something. Like, they want them to take a stance.

Here they are again.

PAYNE: Yes, but I sense that 73 percent think they should stand for what I believe in, right?

SADEJ: That's right.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: I mean, listen, Nike put itself on the line. When you do a campaign saying, stand for something, even if you lose everything, and the first whiff of trouble, you pull all your jerseys, all your jerseys out of your Nike stores because you're afraid.

They didn't stand for anything.

DION BAIA, AUDIO TECHNICIAN: I think, yes, Barkley, when he was talking about other people doing business in China, it's -- I think some people viewed it as a little hypocritical, because not every business is making -- injecting politics into like a lot of the sports teams have done domestically, where they're taking a knee or doing something, trying to tackle really partisan issues.

So then when you try to take that internationally, and stand up for something like we're talking about in China, and then people -- it then starts to affect the bottom line with companies and stuff. And people are like, you can't save stuff like that.

Well, if we're doing it here, why can't we do it for everything internationally?

PAYNE: Yes. On Wall Street, we call it talking your book, right? Your position is based on where your money is coming from.

GUNZELMAN: What's different about this is the fact that obviously no one - - we're not going to stop doing business in China. Companies, corporations, they are all going to do that.

But this was a sport. You know what I mean? Like, the average person knows about basketball, knows what the NBA is. They might not know what the heck's going on, on Wall Street, but this is something that they can relate to.

And it looks -- it's a bad look for the NBA. It's bad optics. LeBron James is a sellout. He's got a billion-dollar lifetime deal with Nike, manufactured in China. What's he going to do? It's all about money, bottom line.

BAIA: And I feel like some of the sporting people have brought this on themselves by wagging a finger at us and saying we should take a particular -- particular partisan line about stuff.

And then when you -- Barkley was saying that other companies in China do that.

PAYNE: Right. Right.

BAIA: But companies -- not all companies are doing that.

PAYNE: Of course, Shaq took the opposite side. I mean, he defended the general manager of the Houston Rockets.

SADEJ: Mm-hmm.

PAYNE: What do you make of that?

SADEJ: Yes, he took the opposite side.

I mean, people have different views on what they're going to stand for. And these issues just become increasingly controversial. Like, Yoplait supports breast-feeding. I mean, a lot of people support breast-feeding. Procter & Gamble supports gender equality.

When you start making it about China, like, then it gets heated.

PAYNE: Yes.

SADEJ: Then we have this debate.

PAYNE: Let me switch gears a little bit.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting more and more companies are tinkering with drone delivery. It's an idea that is -- I mean...

GUNZELMAN: I hate this.

PAYNE: No pun intended, but will it take off or will it crash and burn?

(LAUGHTER)

BAIA: I think, in a good 10 or 20 years, almost like driverless cars, you're going to start -- once they get the bugs out, no pun intended, you're going to start seeing this kind of thing happening, where you're going to have these kind of deliveries.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Well, according to the article, it's not going to be years. It's going to be just in a couple of months.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: If they can get the address right.

PAYNE: Eva, I think it's going to happen. I just really do.

I think you're going to wake up and you're going to have a slot in your house where your drone comes and drop stuff off.

SADEJ: I mean, the demand is there. It's a convenience economy.

Like, they're going to -- they're going to deliver us our food, deliver us our stuff, like Amazon, deliver us transport, even...

BAIA: The future is automation.

SADEJ: Exactly, deliver us health care.

GUNZELMAN: This is going to be...

BAIA: We are never going to have to leave the house.

GUNZELMAN: This is going to be an absolute disaster.

Could you imagine just drones flying around New York City? This is going to be a mess. And you know they're not going to have it all set in the beginning. It is just -- it going to be a disaster.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: They're going to be falling out of the sky.

They're going to mess up orders. I don't love this at all, man.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: That's the thing, is that you're getting a can of tomato sauce and all of a sudden it drops out of the sky.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: Yes, I don't trust them at all.

PAYNE: You don't?

GUNZELMAN: No.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Really?

GUNZELMAN: No, I don't trust them.

I don't want the drone thing whatsoever.

BAIA: But what about driverless cars? That's going to happen in a couple years.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: It definitely is going to happen. All of this stuff is going to happen.

BAIA: That might impact the trucking industry and stuff like that, because it's cheaper.

SADEJ: Well, look, the first thing that they're focusing on is safety, because that's what everyone's worried about.

The first thing you said was safety. So they're paranoid about safety right now.

GUNZELMAN: Yes, but even the driverless cars are crashing.

You know what I mean? And they're all about safety too.

(CROSSTALK)

SADEJ: But regular cars are crashing, right?

BAIA: This drone thing could work in rural areas or like in suburbs.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: But, in apartments, how is a drone going to be like 5C, 5B?

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: The people that are already aren't leaving their houses and apartments now really don't have a reason to leave.

PAYNE: I was going to say that.

There's no doubt, though, that there will be a demand for it, right? You can argue whether or not...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: ... drone to get the delivery to me instead of him?

PAYNE: But how many people are going to say -- I mean, this is like DoorDash on steroids, right?

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: That's why they're going to do it. There's a financial incentive to do it.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: We already have that now.

You can get, like you said, food. You can get anything via Amazon. So now you're just really cutting out UPS.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: By the way, speaking of money, there's a new WalletHub survey projecting $8.8 billion going to be spent on Halloween this year. That's up 17 percent, folks.

It includes buying costumes for your pets. I mean, is this too much or is this cute?

What do you think?

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: It's so cute.

(CROSSTALK)

SADEJ: I don't have a dog because I grew up on a farm, and my parents think animals are for farms.

PAYNE: Right. But would you dress up your cow then?

(CROSSTALK)

SADEJ: I would dress up my cow.

I mean, we do it for the Gram. Everyone's going to put it on Instagram. Halloween...

BAIA: Look at the turtle.

(CROSSTALK)

SADEJ: Look at the turtle.

Halloween is the longest holiday. No wonder it's a ton of money. It's not one day.

BAIA: But it's almost popular as Christmas now, where everyone participates.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: It's amazing.

My 7-year-old granddaughter, she's been taking me into these stores. She knows them. Let's go to Party City. Let's go to Five Below.

She's ready. She can't -- she's champing at the bit to go do this thing.

BAIA: Well, it's fun because it's all-inclusive. Anyone can do it. You can dress your kid up. You can dress your animal up, who some people think of as a kid.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: Or it's an excuse to party.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: Saint Patrick's Day on Fifth Avenue, anyone is there to celebrate the Irish heritage? No, they're there to get drunk and have their first beer or whatever.

So it is an excuse to party.

GUNZELMAN: Speaking of, I am dressing up as a White Claw. You know the alcohol? I'm White Claw.

PAYNE: No way.

GUNZELMAN: Yes, for tomorrow.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Everybody's looking for them. No one can find them. They may be chasing you down the street.

So I'm assuming you're not going to dress up then?

SADEJ: Oh, I'm going to dress up. I'm going to be a mermaid.

PAYNE: Really?

SADEJ: Mermaid. I was a peacock last year.

PAYNE: OK. Wow.

SADEJ: I tend to pick my favorite color and some flowy hair costume. And I'm happy that way.

PAYNE: We got some good ones here.

Dion, the pressure is on. Can you beat White Claw and a mermaid?

(LAUGHTER)

BAIA: Probably not.

I'm dressed up right now. I'm trying to look as professional...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Maybe you will shave?

BAIA: Maybe. Maybe I will shave. I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Maybe you will go trick or treating as a young urban professional.

BAIA: Yes. Or I will do something like a throwback that no one under 40 knows, like a Banacek, a Cannon, or Baretta.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Oh, man, we talk about that all the time.

BAIA: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: It will just go over a lot of people's heads.

SADEJ: But you know what's interesting?

The charities are funding -- funding 80 percent of these Halloween pop-up stores.

(CROSSTALK)

SADEJ: Yes, the haunted houses, it's charities.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: Which is nice, because then all the revenue goes to them.

PAYNE: I think our country needs a break to have some fun, right?

So, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

BAIA: And this is the excuse.

GUNZELMAN: There we go.

PAYNE: Hey, the World Series, by the way, folks is back in the nation's capital for the first time in 86 years, and we're going to bring you there next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: We're just hours away from the first pitch of game three of the World Series, where the Nationals lead the Astros in the fall classic two games to none.

Our Mark Meredith is at Nationals Park in D.C. with the latest -- Mark.

MARK MEREDITH, CORRESPONDENT: And good afternoon, Charles.

The gates here at Nationals Park are set open here within the next few minutes. Baseball fans are getting out here for a chance to see game three, as you mentioned, of the World Series.

For Washington baseball fans, it has been a long time since they have seen a World Series in their town, since 1933, some 86 years ago. You can see right now the batting practice under way and, as I mentioned, the gates getting ready to open for the fans.

Now, fans that will be coming out today, tickets are not cheap. You either have to have deep pockets or be a die-hard baseball fan. We just checked and we saw a ticket prices for ticket night's game starting -- starting at about $1,000 and then upwards of $7,000 right behind home plate.

For baseball fans we had a chance to speak with earlier today say it was well worth the price.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This kid has been wearing his jersey for 18 days.

MEREDITH: Eighteen days?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He had -- the day he put it on was the -- when we won against the Dodgers, and we haven't lost since.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They actually can swing the bat well. You never know what can happen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's nuts. A lot of these people have never seen something this, so it's going to be fun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MEREDITH: Well, the Astros are certainly looking to change their fortunes after losing the first two games back home in Houston.

History, if that's any guide, only three teams have ever been able to win the World Series after losing the first two games at home. Charles, a lot of baseball fans very excited for what lies ahead.

Also, I should mention beautiful baseball weather here in the nation's capital -- Charles.

PAYNE: Mark, before I let you go, I understand the Nationals are the oldest baseball team and it's been quite a long drought. The fans out there certainly hungry for this, huh?

MEREDITH: 1933, the last time that we saw the World Series played here in Washington.

You can really feel the enthusiasm here in the city. I live in this city, so we certainly are used to seeing Nats fans. But this city, especially this area right now, it has come alive.

A lot of people, I'm sure, very eager to see what plays out a couple hours from now -- Charles.

PAYNE: All right, it's exciting. We will all be watching.

Thanks a lot, Mark.

And, well, that will do it here, but we are just getting started for the weekend and "Cavuto Live."

Another closed-door impeachment interview happening tomorrow morning, and we are all over that with Alabama Republican Congressman Bradley Byrne, who stormed the last closed-door interview. And House Democratic Whip Dan Kildee will respond. It all begins at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

And remember, of course, catch me on FOX Business and "Making Money." That's at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Another great week for the stock market. We are so, so close to all-time highs. And a lot of folks are getting very excited about the possibility of phase one in the trade deal happening. Perhaps phase two will be shortly thereafter.

We're halfway through the earnings season. It's been absolutely phenomenal. So, make sure you catch me. And make sure you see where your money is going.

In the meantime, we keep it going here on FOX News. "The Five" is next.

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.