Tensions rising between key advisers, allies of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

close

Video

Tensions rising between key advisers, allies of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

New divide between Clinton and Sanders staffers could lead to Democratic infighting during 2020; panel reaction and analysis.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 5, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: Forget reports about Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez's campaign money. You might want to worry about what she has planned for your money.

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

New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the lawmaker behind the Green New Deal, is now co-sponsoring a bill that would impose a tax on most stock transactions. The move could raise hundreds of billions in new tax revenue.

FOX Business Network's Deirdre Bolton, well, she's been doing some digging around.

Deirdre, what did you find?

DEIRDRE BOLTON, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I certainly have been, Charles.

Democratic Congressman from Oregon Peter DeFazio leading the charge against Wall Street, expected to introduce legislation this evening that would tax trades on stocks, bonds, derivatives. So it's not the first time that he has targeted Wall Street. He introduced a similar bill two years ago. Not too much pickup at the time.

But now Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is a lead co-sponsor of this bill, along with a dozen others. DeFazio wants to discourage high- frequency trading. This is the group that he says he is targeting.

So, in other words, he wants to avoid another flash crash. DeFazio also saying the money from the tax could go to more worthy causes. For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates a financial transaction tax could help reduce the budget by adding $777 billion to the budget over a 10-year period.

If the exact form of the proposed law were to pass, individual investors would have to pay 0.01 percent, so very slight, per transaction, but they still have to pay to have the same if it goes through, in their online brokerage account. So that means TD Ameritrade, Schwab, what have you.

Individuals wouldn't to be taxed, an important distinction, when putting money into 401(k) plans. But the companies that manage those, Charles, when they bought or sold securities for someone, they would be taxed. In theory, it would stay with the asset managers, but as we know many skeptics say corporations always find a way to pass down costs to consumers.

This is going to be one to follow this evening -- Charles, back to you.

C. PAYNE: Absolutely. Deirdre, thank you very much.

So, this tax hike push comes at a time when many Democrats are pushing privacy policy. So are these tax hikes, are they needed or not?

Let's ask Ryan Payne, of Payne Capital Management, Democratic strategist David Morey, and GOP strategist Holly Turner.

Holly, listen, you got to pay that $93 trillion tab one way. Maybe this is it.

HOLLY TURNER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look, what's coming out of the Congressional Budget Office is -- and this Joint Tax Committee is under that office -- look, they rarely get it right.

So I predict that they're wrong. Additionally, this -- what the Democrats are trying to do is -- is change behavior. And whenever you're changing behavior, your -- all of your predictions about how much revenue you're going to have are going to change, because people are not going to be able to pay this.

I mean, the margins that these traders are -- have and these high-frequency traders, they are slim margins. So it may seem like a small tax, but it's not. And the consumer is going to feel this. It is going to hit Main Street. It is going to hit farmers. It's going to hit every industry in the nation.

C. PAYNE: You know, David, I think that's a real legitimate concern. Most people don't know the history of the Alternative Minimum Tax was just a targeted at 13 people. There was an article in a newspaper; 13 folks didn't pay taxes I think way back in the '60s, and they put this tax out that now has become insidious.

And it's wiped out millions of middle-class Americans over the years. And that's a legitimate fear, isn't it?

DAVID MOREY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it is a legitimate fear.

And this is what happens when you try and do a slice of reform. Listen, this is this how the Democrats can lose in 2020. They can lurch hard left. To be fair, wages, inequality and distribution is a gigantic issue, particularly in the four states that will probably decide the next presidency. That is Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Bernie Sanders almost rode to the nomination on that issue. Donald Trump wrote to the White House largely on that issue. In addition, debt and deficits are out of control. The last three administrations have extrapolated that problem.

But the Democrats can make a mistake by lurching far left, even though this bill -- we're still getting details. I don't know that it's going to move that far through the Congress. This is what the U.K. -- the Labor Party did in the U.K. after Thatcher won, the Democratic Party did after Reagan won.

They launched hard left. So if this is what the Democrats end up doing, and it's why Biden's potential entry into the race is so critical and so interesting.

PAYNE: Right. Right.

And, of course, Ryan, again, it's just -- this is just one of many policies, all that are designed to extract money out of the -- out of the economy, but really ultimately it seems that they all hurt the average American.

R. PAYNE: Well, I worry more about the unintended consequences.

And if you take out the high-frequency traders, that can take a lot of liquidity out of the markets. And when there's a lot of volatility, nobody compared -- no one complains about volatility on the upside, Charles, but they certainly complain about it on the downside.

C. PAYNE: Yes, we're not worried about those, though, Ryan.

R. PAYNE: Yes.

C. PAYNE: I'm talking about like penchant funds, right, retirement funds. Those sorts of things, no one talks about it. As long as you can slap, hey, Wall Street on these bills and say, we're going after the fat cats.

But, ultimately, the problem, though, is the exposure the average American has and the true economic damage that can be done.

R. PAYNE: Yes.

And, again, that could be another unintended consequence. I mean, it also depends on what you trade in these 401(k)s and accounts like that. So I don't know if the impact is going to be that dramatic. But that could also be another unintended -- unintended consequence as well, there, Charles.

C. PAYNE: Well, Holly, there are a lot of these policies that are being floated around. And they all have one thing in common, extracting money out of the economy to apply to what some are considering pie in the sky policies or dreams, like the Green New Deal?

TURNER: Yes, I mean, the Democrats have -- they have chosen their talking points. And it is full-on socialism. That's how they think they're going to win in 2020.

But they do not realize that capital is mobile, and capital will not stay here. Entrepreneurs will not stay in the United States if they are not appreciated. Americans are realizing the greatest economic prosperity that many have in their entire lifetimes right now.

And they think that they can just tax that.

C. PAYNE: But there is resentment, Holly, you would admit. There seems to be some form of resentment in this country, some sort of anxiety.

People who are doing well still fret that, hey, you know what, the fat cats are doing substantially better than I am.

TURNER: But I think Democrats are throwing fuel on that fire. I think in the end, people are very happy.

And when you look at polling numbers, people are very happy with the economy right now. They're happy to have a job. They have raises. Their taxes are lowered. The tax returns are actually now larger than what we thought they were going to be.

So, sure, people are always going to want what somebody else has. The grass is always greener. But, in the end, they can go to bed at night, their bills are paid, their children are taking care of, they have food on the table, and that's what really matters.

C. PAYNE: Although, David, there are more and more mainstream Democrats, moderates from the past, even folks who were like, for instance, in the Clinton administration who are saying, hey, these aren't the socialists, like the socialists of old. These are a new breed of Democratic socialists, and maybe we should embrace them.

MOREY: Well, and I think Holly's uniting the Democratic Party, when it's not.

AOC is more of a pace car than a center of the party. And that's again why Biden's going to get in. I think the nominee is eventually going to push for public-private partnerships, scale the markets, have a coalition bigger than the liberals, because what -- how can you get anything done?

Look at the Amazon deal. Look at the Green New Deal. How could you get anything done without a public-private partnership, without a coalition bigger than the liberals and without depending on government alone to get something done?

So I think the Democrats are going to have to find the center. And with Trump, the center is missing right now.

C. PAYNE: All right, well, let's leave it there, folks.

Hey, the White House, meanwhile -- thank you all very much.

The White House and Republicans are fighting back, as House Democrats launch a new probe into President Trump. Overreach or just more proof the president's legal battles are far from over?

The judge is on it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: Breaking news: Michael Bloomberg out with a scathing new op-ed.

The headline is, he is not running for president. He starts off: "Our highest office, my deepest obligation. I am not running for president, but I am launching a new campaign, beyond carbon."

He goes on to say: "I never made any secret of my belief that Donald trump is a threat to our country. At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, I said New Yorkers know a con when we see one. Last fall, I spent $100 million supporting Democrats in the midterm elections."

It's a rather long piece, but he does go on to say that: "In the weeks and months ahead, I will dive even deeper into the work of turning around our country through concrete actions and results. And I will continue supporting candidates who can provide the leadership we need on climate change, gun violence, education, health, voting rights, and other critical issues, and continue holding their feet to the fire to deliver what they promise."

Once again, Michael Bloomberg, billionaire owner the Bloomberg Company, former mayor of New York City, will not be running for president.

Meanwhile, it didn't take long for the White House that fire back at the House Judiciary Committee's new probe into President Trump.

FOX's John Roberts with the very latest -- John.

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

President Trump today ripping Democrats for launching what his press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, called a disgraceful and abusive investigation.

At an event earlier this afternoon to sign an executive order to address military suicides, the president saying this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The witch-hunt continues. The fact is that, I guess we got 81 letters. There was no collusion. It was a hoax.

There was no anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler, though, disagreeing with the president, saying his goal is simply to exercise Congress' oversight role. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: Our goal is to hold the administration accountable for the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power, and the corruption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Now, with the Mueller report expected to be delivered soon, the attorney general, William Barr, announcing that he is not going to recuse himself, despite demands to do so and despite having written a memo to the DOJ that was critical of the special counsel's investigation.

Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec saying -- quote -- "Following General Barr's confirmation, senior career ethics officials advised that General Barr should not recuse himself from the special counsel's investigation. Consistent with that advice, General Barr has decided not to recuse."

And FOX News has confirmed that Michael Cohen's former attorney Stephen Ryan approach the president's legal team some time ago to ask about the possibility of a pardon for Cohen. The suggestion was that if Cohen didn't have the promise of a pardon, he may be forced to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.

While Rudy Giuliani would not say whether Ryan asked him for a pardon, he did tell FOX News that his standard answer to anyone asking about a pardon is the following -- quote -- "The president has said he will not consider any pardons now. Of course, that doesn't mean that he is in any way diminishing his constitutional power to make those decisions in the future."

During his testimony before the House last week, Cohen said he never asked about a pardon. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: And I have never asked for, nor would I accept a pardon from President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: In a statement today, Cohen's spokesman Lanny Davis saying that Cohen was telling the truth back then, saying -- quote -- "We stand by the truth of Mr. Cohen's testimony before the House Oversight Committee."

Notice, though, that Cohen said he never asked for, nor would he accept a pardon. He did not say, my former attorney asked for one and might accept one -- Charles.

C. PAYNE: All right, John, thank you very much.

Well, there's a lot to cover.

And we have got the right man to do it, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

So let's just start with this broad new probe by the House Judiciary Committee, 81 targets or people or whatever have received these letters President Trump was referring to.

It just -- you don't want to use the term necessarily witch-hunt, but it feels like they're going down any particular rabbit hole and searching for anything in the man's past that had perhaps nothing to do with the job he's in right now.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: I think you're right. And I think they will do that and they have the tools with which to do it, unfortunately for the president.

There is a Supreme Court opinion, and there are cases following it which says basically Congress' investigatory powers are limited to bona fide federal issues. But that is a very, very broad swathe. And Congress can investigate anything. And they famously investigated once for a couple of days the contents of Roger Clemens' urine, which was absurd. But it's what was on their minds at the time.

So the president can do very little about this. Now, Jerry Nadler, who's the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, about what you asked me, issued requests for documents. You can take a request for a document, throw it out. But if you do, the next document will be a subpoena, which you can't throw out and what you must either comply with or take to court and have the judge invalidate, meaning hire your own team of lawyers to do it.

Almost everybody on that list of 81 people has to hire their own lawyer. They cannot rely on White House counsel to represent them.

C. PAYNE: What -- is it specific, though, to what they must either voluntarily now or perhaps later on in a subpoena, what exactly Jerry Nadler is looking for?

NAPOLITANO: It's not specific, what Jerry Nadler is looking for.

And the president is right. This is almost literally a witch-hunt. They're looking for anything they can find. Look, they -- let's go to another committee. The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee has the power under a federal statute -- most people don't know this -- to get any citizens tax returns, you, me, people watching us now, or the president of the United States, without a reason.

They're going to go there. What do they need his tax returns for? To embarrass him, to humiliate him, to taunt him, to drive him crazy, because that's what they think their base wants him to do -- them to do.

C. PAYNE: How complicated does it get, though, when you have someone like a Maxine Waters, a very powerful Democrat, putting out tweets talking about impeachment?

In other words, the position that Nadler is coming from, Representative Nadler, I know it's transparent. We all kind of know what's going on here.

I'm sorry. Say that, Pam? We have -- OK. Yes, let me read the tweet, then share it with the audience.

"Obstruction of justice reality show. Firing Comey, sending coded messages to Manafort and others that he has the power to pardon. Lying about Trump Tower meeting. Threatening Cohen's in-laws. Attempting to destroy Mueller. What more do we need to know? Impeachment is the only answer."

So she's talking impeachment. Nadler is -- I guess he's trying to say to the American public, this is not a politically motivated operation he's running here?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think that Congressman Nadler's motivation is highly political. But he is smart enough, along with his colleague Adam Schiff, who runs the House Intelligence Committee, to have said publicly impeachment is off the table until there is broad bipartisan support for it.

They're not crazy. They may want to drive him nuts, but if they start impeachment, and there is not broad bipartisan support for it, it will explode in their faces. Congressman -- Congresswoman Waters apparently doesn't feel that way. She's ready to start the impeachment investigation tomorrow.

But it's Nadler's bailiwick. Under the law, it has to start in the House Judiciary Committee. And he's not going to do it right now.

C. PAYNE: Much is being made of William Barr saying he's not going to recuse himself from the Russia probe. Of course, this was the issue with President Trump and his first attorney general.

NAPOLITANO: Right.

C. PAYNE: Many people are saying that they already smell -- is there something wrong with his decision not to recuse himself?

NAPOLITANO: I don't think so at all.

I mean, I see no -- I have read the memo that he sent on his own a year- and-a-half ago to Rod Rosenstein, in which he questioned some of the things Bob Mueller was doing. Then we learned during his confirmation hearings that he and Bob Mueller have been buddies for 25 years and have a couple of mutual interests.

I don't think there's a conflict at all on the part of Attorney General Barr. But think about this. Nominated by Donald Trump, continuously praised by the president, now running an investigation that the president calls a witch-hunt.

Obviously, Attorney General Barr does not think it's a witch-hunt, or he wouldn't be running it.

C. PAYNE: And he -- and they grilled him pretty good on this.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, they did. Yes, they did.

C. PAYNE: He was pretty clear.

NAPOLITANO: He promised them under oath he would reveal as much of the Mueller report as he ethically could. That could be all of it. That could be part of it.

If it's less than all, it will never satisfy the Democrats, no matter what is kept back from them. But there are certain things he can't, under the law, reveal.

C. PAYNE: Right. Sure.

NAPOLITANO: He can't reveal information that went to a grand jury that did not result in an indictment.

C. PAYNE: I want to ask you about the news that John Roberts just mentioned.

FOX confirmed report earlier from The Journal. Cohen's lawyer apparently approached President Trump, discussed a potential pardon. This is before the FBI raid. Steve Ryan.

That's -- the implication, of course, is that, hey, let us know now, because, when the heat comes, we may have to -- I mean, that's just from...

NAPOLITANO: Well, such a deal would be reprehensible.

C. PAYNE: Sure.

But what about the idea that they approached President Trump, at least a lawyer approached. We got to be careful with the language here.

NAPOLITANO: Right.

C. PAYNE: But Cohen saying in testimony that he did not request that himself.

NAPOLITANO: This is either...

C. PAYNE: Was he being too cute by half and saying, I didn't request it, wink, wink, my lawyer did, and you didn't ask me that?

NAPOLITANO: He may have been.

We would have to investigate or interrogate the lawyer. It's almost inconceivable that someone would seek a pardon behalf of a client without the client knowing about it, particularly when the client is a lawyer.

C. PAYNE: Yes.

NAPOLITANO: So, again, I don't know if he was parsing his words or if there was a disconnect between lawyer and client.

C. PAYNE: Judge, thank you for always being there to help us figure this stuff out.

NAPOLITANO: It's a pleasure, Charles.

C. PAYNE: Thank you very much.

So, are Republican senators building a wall of opposition against President Trump's emergency wall declaration? It's starting to look that way.

Why former acting ICE chief under Obama and Trump is looking to tell them why they're wrong. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY: I will vote for the motion to disapprove of this, and I will continue to speak out.

I do believe that there is at least 10 Republican no votes.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: I think he has all the authority needs under the statute to do what he's doing with the $3.5 billion in military construction money.

To me, it's not a constitutional crisis. I think he will win in court. And I think his veto will be sustained.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

C. PAYNE: There's a split among Republicans in the Senate right now over President Trump's emergency wall declaration. And it's looking like there's enough opposition to force a presidential veto.

My next guest thinks the party should be getting the president's back on this.

Former acting ICE Director Thomas Homan joins me now.

Thomas, thanks for joining us.

It's pretty clear that the president's going to have a tough time on this, particularly if Rand Paul was correct and there are 10 Republican senators against them. Why are they wrong?

THOMAS HOMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Because here's the decision they should be making.

Is there a national crisis on our border or not? And if this is the only way we can address it, I think that -- I agree with the last speaker. I think the president has the clear authority to move the money from the DOD, Department of Defense, to defend our country, to defend our border.

So, the real question we should be asking ourselves, is there a national emergency? Congress has backed the president into a corner that this is the only way he's going to get it done.

I think they need to side with the president. Congress has failed the president over and over again. Once again, the president is on his own doing the best he can to secure this nation. And I applaud him for it. And he will veto it. I don't think they got enough votes to overcome his veto.

C. PAYNE: Thomas, I'm reading where, in the fourth quarter of last year, 163,000 family members were apprehended. That's three times as much as in 2017.

So, when they talk about the overall number being slightly lower or slightly higher. It feels like the family side of this, particularly the women and the children, is where we should be focused, and perhaps constitutes an emergency more than anything else.

HOMAN: Absolutely.

And Congress -- look, when I was the director, I went to the Hill numerous times telling them, asking them, begging them to close these loopholes; 92 percent of the Central American families that come to the border and claim asylum lose their case, because they don't qualify.

There's loopholes in the law. But rather than Congress addressing the loopholes, they want this uncontrolled border to continue because it's all about the president and failing. They don't want this president to succeed.

So, they're putting their hatred of this president over their responsibility secure the border. I tell you, here's my opinion. If Congress is going to address this legislatively, then the operational components, CBP and ICE, need to do what they can operational to address this.

So ICE should be out there right now, nationwide operation, look for all these family members that have had their due process in court in front of a judge, have been ordered removed. They need to execute those orders because, if those orders don't mean anything, there's no integrity in the system.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: So, you are saying start to round people up?

HOMAN: For people who had due process, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The Democrats stood on the border saying, they have a right to claim asylum. They have a right to see a judge. I agree. But once you have seen the judge, at great taxpayer expense, billions of dollars spent on this process, if that final order saying you must go home, if that means nothing, if that is not executed, then there's no integrity in the entire system.

That's why they keep coming.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: You think that would actually sway the votes or members, and particularly Republicans, who seem to be on the fence on this and the number seems to be growing?

HOMAN: I don't know. I have given up on Congress to fix this.

I just think it's -- look, in FY-15, when I was with ICE, I did this. We had a nationwide operation. We did arrest people who had their orders and they ignored them or they become fugitives.

When we filled a couple planes and sent them south, showing there's a consequence to deterrents to illegal activity, the crossings went down. We're at a point in time where Congress is not going to act, so we need to do something.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: Let me ask you, Thomas.

(CROSSTALK)

HOMAN: Only 1 percent of these families ordered removed have left.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: If you had a chance to speak with Rand Paul, because when you say members of Congress hate President Trump, certainly, there's a large swathe that does.

But I don't think it includes Rand Paul and others. I think he's standing on it on a certain principle or ideology that it's conflated in this particular case, whether you think these are presidential powers that shouldn't be exercised anymore because they have been exercised dozens of times over four decades.

But he seems to be conflating the idea that the use of a national emergency, while he agrees maybe that there's a problem down there, is the wrong tactic, and yet he's going to hamstring the ability to take real action, isn't he?

HOMAN: Yes.

So let me be clear on something. I'm not saying all congresspeople hate this president. Democratic leadership obviously does. I respect Rand Paul. Here's where I think the issue is.

Is there a national security or not? But some of the Democratic -- Republican congressmen I hear saying, well, we don't want to do this because the Democratic president could do the same to us a couple years down the line.

They have already done it. President Trump did it -- I mean, President Obama did it with DACA. He said he couldn't do it. It's not constitutional. He did it anyway. He went around Congress, gave amnesty to 800,000 people.

And where was the anger there from the Democratic Party? They have already done it. I think playing nice is over. I think there's a national security crisis on the border, and we got to solve it. And we got to support this president trying to fix it.

C. PAYNE: There's no doubt that it's an intriguing argument that this somehow opens up the gates for future Democratic presidents to somehow use national emergencies to implement gun control and climate change.

It feels far-fetched. But, to your point, Thomas, without a doubt, this might be the ultimate opportunity to fix a problem that's been gnawing at our nation for years. We will see what happens.

And, right now, it seems like President Trump, to your point, has the votes to override it with a veto. But it's unfortunate it may have to go this route.

HOMAN: It's unfortunate, but I salute the president in trying to do this.

He's the first president among the six presidents I worked for is actually walking the walk and trying to fix this. He's just not talking the talk. He's taking action. He gets sued every time he does it, but he hasn't given up.

C. PAYNE: Thomas Homan, always appreciate it. Thank you very much.

HOMAN: You're welcome.

C. PAYNE: Well, Hillary Clinton says she's not running for president again. But that's not stopping her allies from slinging dirt at another Democratic candidate who is.

Is this helping President Trump?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: Not one, but two billionaire third-party candidates? Why 2020 could see a maverick here. Hear what Mark Cuban just said.

We will be back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: New reports now that their show of unity has come to an end.

Staffers of former Democratic opponents Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are just taking aim at each other. Longtime Clinton ally David Brock telling Politico: "There's concern that he," referring to Sanders, "could emerge. There are some very dyed in the wool Democrats that wouldn't be all that enthusiastic about supporting him in a general election."

Bernie Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver firing back, saying: "It is not a secret that people who would hang out with David Brock would be putting their class interest ahead of the party and the country. We have had -- we have got to nominate somebody who's going to energize and excite the grassroots, not a handful of billionaires."

So with this infighting, could it be their downfall, or will it actually help them rally back and push back against President Trump?

To Trump 2020 Advisory Board member Jenna Ellis, and Democratic strategist Robin Biro, and The Washington Examiner's Jason Russell.

Jason, let me start with you.

I got to tell you, this infighting -- over the weekend, when Bernie was announcing, I was watching live tweets from some former Clinton staffers. And they just took him to task. They ripped him apart. They timed how long it took him to mention gender and other things. There's no love lost.

JASON RUSSELL, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes, it was really silly. And this petty politics is really going to help Trump in 2020, right?

Like, there's all this acrimony from the Clinton side. And that's going to, if it doesn't keep Bernie from getting the nomination, it's going to hurt him in the general election. And then if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, then everyone that is supporting him is just going to say, well, the Democrats rigged this against him again. So what's the point of even voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020 against Trump?

So either way, this pettiness is not going to help Democrats next year.

C. PAYNE: You do wonder who's going to be the bigger person and stand above the fray, if you will.

Bernie Sanders was asked about seeking advice from Hillary Clinton and he gave a response that disappointed a whole lot of people, including Nick Merrill, who's a spokesperson for the Clinton the camp.

He put out this. He said; "I don't know who our nominee is going to be, but I am damn sure that beating Trump and getting America back on the right footing is going to require unified Democratic Party. So crap like this 613 days before Election Day is irresponsible, counterproductive and sets us all back."

Robin, what do you say for your party?

ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know, honestly, Charles, as I have said long -- for a long time now, that competition brings out the best in us. It's an American ideal.

And primaries are always contentious.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: But this isn't competition. Hillary is not in it anymore. This is about the idea. I mean, why there's so much chafing, so much anger and animosity?

And, you know, if the ultimate goal is to win, they're not acting like it.

BIRO: Yes, you're right.

And that should be a concern closer to the general election. Right now, we have got so many candidates. And, really, Bernie's got to sell America on his idea. And right now I think that I'm more concerned that the impetus is for us to try and galvanize around one particular candidate.

Yes, he's the front leaner -- front leader, but let us at least get to the to the debates, for gosh sakes.

C. PAYNE: But we do have a major divide, Robin.

And before I go to Jenna, I do want to ask you one more thing, because you do have a major divide. I think it was on display today. AOC once again coming to the aid one of her fellow congress -- freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and this idea of anti-Semitism, asking about, what about anti- Islamism and those kind of things?

There's a serious divide. You have got moderates, you have got, you know, sort of left-leaning, and then you got the ultra left. And it's a cauldron. It's really amazing to watch.

BIRO: Yes, it is.

And look, I experienced this back in the last election. And it was very difficult for me at the time to try and unify and have our kumbaya moment. But we got there. And exit polling showed that we captured about 81 percent of people who had voted for Bernie. And it was a net positive because he had registered so many voters.

So I'm hoping that we can do the same.

(CROSSTALK)

C. PAYNE: Jenna, I know President Trump is, of course, sitting back and the Republicans just loving every minute of it.

JENNA ELLIS, ATTORNEY: Yes, absolutely.

I mean, this is something that is, I think, great for President Trump in 2020. There are so many people that voted for him very quietly in 2016 that are more vocal and proud supporters leading into 2020.

And if you get outside of New York and D.C. and L.A. and you actually see what is the heartland of America and the people who have just seen what President Trump has accomplished over the last two years, this infighting, and this just pettiness, as Jason called it, in the Democratic Party is not going to help them whatsoever.

I mean, you have candidates like Bernie that are so far into socialism, you have AOC championing that. Then you have Hillary Clinton, who's basically the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party, that just instead of graciously fading away, is trying to push her politics instead of actually supporting someone and supporting her party.

So I think the Democrats are just really fractured at this point. That's only going to help Trump in 2020. And over the next year-and-a half, we're going to see even more promises fulfilled. And I think he's going to win again very strongly.

C. PAYNE: So, if Biden steps in -- and there's a lot of thinking that he will early April -- does it make all of this a moot point? Is he so far ahead in these sort of early polls and does he have so much stature that maybe he could be the one that unites and leads the Democratic Party?

(CROSSTALK)

RUSSELL: No, I don't think so.

I think Joe Biden, he's definitely ahead in the polls. But when you look at his past, there are so many things that Democrats are complaining about, whether it's his views on race. Some of them still bring up his views or his views -- not his views, but his plagiarism from the campaign in, I think, it was 1988.

C. PAYNE: What views on race are those?

RUSSELL: Well, there were some comments back in the 1970s that he made that were actually sort of in favor of segregation that The Washington Examiner reported on a month or two ago.

So, certainly, there's that. But, obviously, like everyone else in the Democratic Party, he didn't come around so quickly enough on gay marriage. He waited until -- you know, until he was vice president, I believe, like the rest of the party.

So certainly there are going to be many complaints. But -- and there are other flip-flops there, too. But anyone who's been in politics for more than a decade has flip-flopped on something.

C. PAYNE: Yes.

But, Robin, I think Jason makes an amazing point here. There's already pushback against Joe Biden. He's not what the Democrats are pushing in terms of new leadership, a new vision, this youth movement.

And I'm not sure it's going to work, despite him leading in the polls right now.

BIRO: And that's a concern.

And his age has been brought up numerous times. Generally, he's regarded as sort of the old guard of the Democratic Party. And there is quite a push now to get somebody younger who can really drive up the youth vote and get people galvanized, energized to get out there.

And I understand that. That's why I'm just sitting back and listening and giving them all a chance to plead their case and make their argument who they feel is best.

C. PAYNE: I'm sitting back and I'm popping my popcorn. I'm doing the same thing. It's never a dull moment.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

ELLIS: Thanks, Charles.

C. PAYNE: Forget Democratic infighting hurting the party. What about another potential third-party candidate? What billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is thinking about right now.

And new drone footage showing the vast devastation in Alabama, as the search for tornado survivors continues. We're going to have the latest on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: A powerful tornado ripping through Alabama, claiming at least 23 lives. Officials say that number could go up, as search-and-rescue efforts continue.

FOX News correspondent Jonathan Serrie is in Lee County with the latest -- Jonathan.

JONATHAN SERRIE, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Charles.

And, today, the coroner released the names of those 23 confirmed fatalities. And take a look at this wreckage behind me. This is a mobile home that was flipped over on its roof during the storm.

And with all of the debris around here, it's entirely possible that there could be additional victims. So authorities continue searching these devastated areas in Lee County for residents who remain unaccounted for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY JONES, LEE COUNTY SHERIFF: The current number we're looking at is approximately seven to eight people has come down, way down, actually, from what we initially had.

That effort will continue today. Hopefully, that number will continue to decrease as the day goes on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERRIE: Crews are still working to clear trees and debris from many neighborhoods still isolated in the wake of the storm.

We flew a drone over storm damage in the unincorporated community of Salem, Alabama. From the air, you can see the extent of the damage, mobile homes torn to shreds, furniture and household belongings scattered among downed trees.

Today, Congressman Mike Rogers toured other hard-hit areas of Lee County, along with Smiths Station Mayor Bubba Copeland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE ROGERS, R-ALA.: It's horrible when anybody loses their life in a storm like this, but children, it just breaks my heart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERRIE: And these victims are getting national attention on both sides of the aisle, most notably, President Trump, who announced earlier today he plans to visit Alabama on Friday to see the damage firsthand -- Charles.

C. PAYNE: Jonathan, thank you very much.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi looking to tamp down the controversy over anti- Semitic remarks by a freshman Democrat in her party, a critical vote coming tomorrow. But not all Democrats are on the same page on this one. Why not?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: A heated battle brewing among House Democrats on a measure condemning anti-Semitism now, this coming after recent controversial remarks about Israel by Minnesota Freshman Democrat Ilhan Omar.

A possible vote tomorrow could now be up in the air.

Our senior Capitol Hill producer, Chad Pergram, has been all over this story.

Chad, so what is the latest?

CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, I just talked to a senior House Democratic source a few minutes ago who said they're still trying to run some traps.

They don't have a final version of the resolution yet. So the tentative plan is to move tomorrow. This could be punted until Thursday. But it's not on the official schedule yet.

Here's the problem, Charles. They're going to move this as under what they call a suspension bill, meaning they waive some of the rules. But in exchange for that, you need a two-thirds supermajority. And if you have a lot of pro-Israel, pro-Jewish Democrats who want to be for this, and they don't like the language, and you can't get to 285, 290, which is the two- thirds threshold, that's a problem.

I'm going to read you some of the tentative language of what we have here so far. It acknowledges the dangerous consequences of perpetuating anti- Semitic stereotypes. It rejects anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the United States.

And so far, the latest version of this that I saw just a few minutes ago doesn't mention Congresswoman Omar by name.

C. PAYNE: So, Chad, that gets to the crux of the matter, doesn't it? This is not the first issue with respect to Congresswoman Omar and Israel or the -- or the Jewish religion. And is this a cowardly way out? Why can't Nancy Pelosi take a direct, more direct approach to this issue, which is really becoming really a difficult one to accept?

Let's not forget Steve King was stripped of some of his House committee seats.

PERGRAM: Right. And that was done by Republicans.

C. PAYNE: Right.

PERGRAM: And Steve King, when there was a resolution against racism and some of the remarks that he had made -- this was obviously directed at Steve King -- he wasn't mentioned in that resolution, and he ultimately voted for it.

The real problem here for Democrats is, there is a schism, these fissures inside the Democratic Party. I talked to one senior House Democratic aide earlier today who said, I wish that we could quit dealing with one another and start to deal with the bigger issues on the table.

They don't like this infighting just about two months into the new majority. It's really causing a lot of divides. And especially when you have these divides between these freshmen -- that's something that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, took issue with, and said he thinks that anti-Semitism is on the rise, especially among some of these freshmen House Democrats.

That was basically his language earlier in the day. And then you have those who want the right terminology, Nita Lowey, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, Ted Deutch, the chair of the Ethics Committee, and so on.

C. PAYNE: Yes, well, it's an ugly problem, and it probably will get worse.

Chad, thanks for helping us out there.

PERGRAM: Thank you.

C. PAYNE: Hey, we know Mike Bloomberg is out, but is Mark Cuban ready to join the billionaires club with a presidential run?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

C. PAYNE: Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, telling FOX News he is not ruling out a third-party presidential run in 2020.

So how would a third-party candidacy the impact that 2020 race?

USA Today's congressional reporter, Eliza Collins, joins us now.

All right, so first Howard Schultz and now perhaps Mark Cuban. What do you think?

ELIZA COLLINS, USA TODAY: Well, a third party, most simply, takes votes from people that would go to the Republican side or the Democratic side.

But with someone like Mark Cuban and certainly Howard Schultz, the voters that they would pick up would likely be those independent, sort of soft Republican or even some moderate Democratic votes, and that would hurt the Democratic candidate.

So we saw, when Howard Schultz was floating running for president, the Democrats really jumped on this. And I imagine that if Mark Cuban starts taking this more seriously, we will see Democrats jump on this as well for that.

C. PAYNE: Although, in the past, he sort of has suggested that he's more of a Republican at heart. I mean, he's a businessman. He seems to be at least fiscally conservative, but you don't see the same sort of pushback, because the Democratic Party erupted.

Their anger at Howard Schultz continues.

COLLINS: Oh, yes.

C. PAYNE: Over the weekend, Howard Dean took shots at him. Do you see the same sort of vitriolic response from the Republican side to potentially Mark Cuban?

COLLINS: I haven't.

But Republicans are really united behind President Trump. And I think the Republicans that are turned off by President Trump and may vote for Mark Cuban are the ones that also may vote for a Democrat or a Howard Schultz.

So, Republicans, really, the base has remained united against -- or for Trump, as a matter...

C. PAYNE: Yes, I mean, he's got record approval ratings amongst Republican voters. No doubt about that.

COLLINS: He does.

C. PAYNE: Also, the cost. I mean, there's no doubt running as an independent requires spending a lot of money.

And Mark Cuban has always come across to me as someone who counts the pennies and the nickels and dimes. And he makes practical, real pragmatic business decisions. He could actually have to spend a lot of his own money.

COLLINS: Right.

And I'm sure that's something he's thinking about. Remember, Mark Cuban has brought this up before. Cuban and Trump have this long on-and-off- again relationship, where they feud.

Trump -- or Cuban has threatened to run for president before, and he hasn't done it. But, again, this is a whole different ball game. And we're seeing that everybody kind of feels like they can be president now.

C. PAYNE: Yes, everyone's kicking the tires.

I want to ask you about breaking news we had this hour. Mike Bloomberg has decided not to run for president, of course, a billionaire. If he had run, he would have run as a Democrat.

But a scathing op-ed he just released on his own Web site, what do you think? What does that mean now for the Democratic Party?

COLLINS: Well, it means they will get lots of money towards certain issues.

He floated climate, guns in that op-ed, when basically he said he didn't think -- or he didn't know if he could win a Democratic primary, though he thought he could win a general election.

C. PAYNE: And we're running out of time, so I do want to ask you, will that make Democratic candidates perhaps beholden to him?

COLLINS: I'm not sure yet. I mean, I think there's money pouring in.

He jumped into that 2018 midterms and poured lots and lots of money, and candidates didn't necessarily -- weren't beholden to him then. So I think that the issues he's talking about, these candidates are already talking about.

C. PAYNE: Right. All right. Well, everyone wants that cash, though.

Eliza, thank you very much.

Folks, catch me tomorrow on the FOX Business Network, 2:00 p.m., "Making Money." The market is in an interesting position right now. Wants to take off. Needs a catalyst.

Meanwhile, here's "The Five" now.

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