Tom Brady says he plans to play football until age 45

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," October 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Let the impeachment process begin.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

We're learning now the guidelines for an impeachment inquiry that are now coming out. Democrats say this is as close as you get to an outright inquiry vote, which will happen probably by Thursday.

Republicans, though, not pleased, including New York Representative Lee Zeldin, who's speaking with reporters right now.

Let's go to Capitol Hill.


REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y.: ... information that they don't want us to touch, they're going to block the question.

It's -- these are not legitimate objections. By the way, whenever there's an objection, guess how Adam Schiff rules every time? Does he rule for himself or against himself every single time?

I'm sure you're all smart people. You can guess exactly what he does.

Every single time, behind closed doors, that there is any type of a disagreement as all on process or substance or questions, Adam Schiff is ruling on his own behalf.

But what the problem is for him is that we're asking -- we're asking questions that might get anywhere near a potential topic where something that might come across as both -- exculpatory, and Adam Schiff is ruling in his favor and preventing that question from asked.

It's pretty outrageous.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) identity of the whistle-blower? Is that one of the things that (INAUDIBLE) denied you or blocked you from (OFF-MIKE)

ZELDIN: No, it is -- it is -- it's unreal, their take on reality behind closed doors.

You can ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with that allegation, and they will come out to the mic and say that it was.

But here's the problem. When the transcripts get released, when the transcripts get released from today's deposition, you will see just how much you were misled. You will see just how much you have been misled on so many different depositions on so many different days.

And I hope you're frustrated by that, because you have a job to do. You want facts. You want information. I'm sure you want to read all these transcripts for yourself.

CAVUTO: All right, you are hearing Lee Zeldin, a very angry Republican representative who doesn't like this process, where Democrats have coalesced around a plan that would begin an impeachment process, not a formal inquiry.

There could be a big difference there, but Republicans still thinking it is a staged process and one they will not support. A vote on that could come as early as Thursday.

But there are a lot of details left out as to what they will be voting on.

Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill what we're learning right now.

Hey, Mike. What's going on?


Yes, you're hearing a whole lot of passion here on Capitol Hill now that text of the resolution is now public.

About that resolution, the chairs are for relevant House committees are saying about it -- they are Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Eliot Engel -- quote -- "The House impeachment inquiry has collected extensive evidence and testimony. And soon the American people will hear from witnesses in an open setting. The resolution introduced today in the House Rules Committee will provide that pathway forward."

Then, moments after that, the House Republican whip, Steve Scalise, came out swinging


REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: Pelosi needs to declare a mistrial. This has been a tainted process from the start.

What happened today confirms, even worse, just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process and denying the ability for Republicans to even ask basic questions.


EMANUEL: Also today, a leading House Democrat trying to drive a wedge between President Trump and House Republicans.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: And my colleagues in the House Republican cover-up caucus will ultimately have to decide, when will they put the Constitution ahead of corruption?

That's not clear. And it's unfortunate that they continue to do the bidding of Donald Trump and behave like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration.


EMANUEL: This new resolution doesn't put a timeline on this impeachment inquiry, but it does lay out the next steps, as this probe becomes more public -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend, Mike Emanuel.

Concurrently with all of this, the Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council top Ukraine expert, has been testifying on Capitol Hill today.

Republicans said they have not been able to question him or participate in the process. Don't know how true that is. But it comes as the administration has made veiled attacks on Mr. Vindman and questioning even his loyalty to country.

Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill with more on the story that's evolving in a number of different directions -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Yes, it's been hard to keep up here the past couple of hours here.

And what I'm holding right now is this resolution that just popped about 40 to 50 minutes ago here, Neil. Here is the process of what's going to happen.

Tomorrow, at 3:00, the House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures to come to the House floor, will meet to actually prep that resolution.

And then, come Thursday morning, they will debate this impeachment-related resolution the House floor, with a vote by midday.

Now, I'm struck by a couple of things in the resolution that we have just gotten the text of here in the past hour. There is no timeline as to when they have to wrap this up. There's also an important provision here where they give some rights to the minority.

And I should underscore some. They say that the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, Republican of California, can call witnesses, with the concurrence of the chair. They can also ask for certain pieces of information and documents and so on and so forth.

Republicans are probably going to come back to that point again and again.

The other thing I should point out is that you still enroll six committees here. So you have the Intelligence Committee, which has been driving the train for most of this, alongside the Oversight Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

And what they would do eventually is punt this over to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee historically has had the aegis over impeachment in the history of the United States.

But also here -- and I was struck by this -- is that the Ways and Means Committee, which deals with taxes, and the Financial Services Committee is also part of that. So it's rare to have these six committees involved.

The other thing to watch for, Neil, is this vote on Thursday morning or midday on Thursday. How many Republicans, if any, would vote for this? How many Democrats would jump ship?

There's about 225, 226 Democrats who are on the record going forth with this impeachment inquiry. But when you put the rubber to the road here and people actually have to vote up or down, that's a problem.

There are 31 Democrats who represent districts represented by President Trump. And I talked to Anthony Brindisi yesterday. He's a freshman Democrat from Upstate New York who flipped a district from red to blue. And he was saying -- was kind of noncommittal.

He has been skeptical of the impeachment process from the beginning. And he said, I have to see the resolution.

Mark Amodei, who's a Republican from rural Nevada, a huge district in Nevada, swing state, said he wants to see the resolution as well.

Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, said that they wouldn't have any Republicans vote for this.

And I spoke to somebody here on the Republican side earlier today who's very good at the vote-counting, and they said, would any Republicans vote for this? And they said, not if they wanted to run for reelection.

The idea, Neil, is that they could lower a primary challenge or draw the ire of President Trump.

CAVUTO: So, this issue they're deciding on will really set up the parameters of an impeachment probe. Is that the same as formalizing an inquiry? Could you describe the difference, if there is one?

PERGRAM: Well, this is kind of in the eye of the beholder.

There were resolutions approved in 1998 with President Clinton, in 1974 with Richard Nixon. And this is what Republicans had been harping on for several weeks, saying there wasn't any sort of resolution codifying this.

But there is some in internal debate inside the Democratic Caucus whether or not they're getting too far out on a limb. Last night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked just a simple question in the hallway, saying, can you talk about the impeachment resolution?

And she said -- quote -- "This is not an impeachment resolution."

This morning, I posed a question to the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, and I just colloquially used the term impeachment inquiry, and he's -- or impeachment resolution. And he said, it's not that.

And I said, well, what would you call it exactly? And he gave me about a six-paragraph answer there.

This is reflective of the skittishness inside the Democratic Caucus of wanting to have impeachment, but maybe not go too far.

And the other remarkable thing here is just the fact that there's no timeline on this. Hoyer said this morning -- I'm going to read you a quote from Steny Hoyer here. I have it in my notes here.

"We want this -- to do this expeditiously. But we are not bound by any timeline."

That means this could bleed over into next year, certainly, with the Senate trial, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend, very much.

Just to echo, again, what Chad was already saying, and the Democrats of the various powerful committees involved, including the Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the acting chair of the Oversight Committee, a joint statement saying to this effect: "The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levels of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election."

They were trying to get to the bottom of that today in an ongoing query with Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a key player in the Ukraine situation, who voiced his concerns to superiors about what the president was pressing his counterpart in Ukraine to look into regarding Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Let's go to Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott, what he makes of all of this.

Senator, it looks like this inquiry or process is leaving the House for a vote on Thursday. The votes might be there, might not be, but it doesn't look like a single Republican vote.

What do you make of that?

SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA.: Well, I think this continues to be a three-ring circus.

I mean, if they believe, if they know exactly what they have accused President Trump doing, then they ought to write that up, and this is what we're doing. We -- this is -- you know, we have impeachment process for the president doing this.

Now, let's remember, the only person that's been transparent in this is President Trump. They said it was based on this telephone call to Ukraine. Well, guess what? He put the transcript out.

Now, I have read the transcript. That's the only thing we have -- we for sure know , is his transcript. And as far as I could tell, I don't see high crimes and misdemeanors there.

So -- but this is -- this is just -- this is what the Democrats have been doing.

CAVUTO: But did anything in that call or transcript disturb you, Senator?



SCOTT: I mean, I don't know -- I keep saying, tell me -- tell me what he violated.

He's -- this is the only thing that he's been -- that's been transparent is this -- what he did.

The Democrats, they have wanted to impeach him since the day he got elected. This is just the latest iteration. So, why would they do this behind closed doors? Why wouldn't they want -- why wouldn't they want to say exactly what they're doing? Why wouldn't they want to make sure the Republicans has -- and the president has the opportunity to ask questions, make it easy?

I -- it's so -- it's all for one purpose. They want a narrative that the president did something wrong.

If he did, say it. This is what he did. This is the law. And, by the way, we're absolutely committed to going forward.

But they can't, because this is just -- this is just a fishing expedition so far.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, when Vindman, serving in this role in the Ukraine, and he had a chance to listen in on the phone call between the president and the Ukrainian president, and he was disturbed enough to tell higher-ups about it, or the way it sounded, petitioning a president of another sovereign nation to essentially interfere or take a role in an upcoming presidential election, on that level alone, if it concerned a career diplomat like that, does it concern you?

SCOTT: What -- what I would expect is, his testimony should be public.

We should have the -- you know, we -- and the Republicans ought to be able to ask him, so they get the details of exactly what he's saying, so we understand it.

So, just -- just, you know, what -- what the Democrats would have put out, that's not -- how can I make -- how could I make a decision on that? If it gets to the Senate, I'm going to take in all the evidence. I'm going to be listening.

I mean, I -- I believe everybody, including the president, needs to be held accountable. But this is -- this is just a charade, what they're doing right now.

Be transparent. I mean, if you -- if the Democrats are absolutely convinced this president did the wrong thing, then what in the living daylights are they doing this behind closed doors for? Put it out in the public, say, boy, this guy did the wrong thing, and here's what we can do to prove it.

But they're not.

CAVUTO: No, it's a fair argument. It's a fair argument, Senator.

But if it comes to light -- and this is where you do get disputing reports, mainly because it is behind closed doors. So we don't know for sure what's been said behind those closed doors.

But if there was a delay in military payments due to Ukraine as this was being decided -- or potentially decided by Ukrainian authorities, with this being dangled over their heads, if they didn't participate, that delay might not come, would that trouble you, if that proves to be the case?

SCOTT: I'm -- I'm not going to get into conjecture.

I want -- I want the facts. They -- if he did something wrong, tell me exactly what he did wrong. What was the law? And give me all the information.

CAVUTO: Is that wrong to you, Senator? Is that wrong to you? If aid was held up to a country waiting for participation or cooperation on this matter, would that bother you?


SCOTT: Neil, I -- I read the transcript. That's not what I saw.

And so I'm going to -- everybody wants to talk about this telephone call where there's a transcript.

CAVUTO: Right.

SCOTT: You -- we can all read it.

All this other stuff, the behind closed doors, I'm never going to comment on that, because I want all the facts.

CAVUTO: All right, so Republicans who might get a second chance at this as this process is formalized, Senator, to question all the key players, including Mr. Vindman, would you say then that that is something you want to know unequivocally, that there was no, again...

SCOTT: Absolutely.

CAVUTO: ... quid pro quo, that there was no promise of aid delayed if there wasn't cooperation on the part of the government?

SCOTT: Neil, I think we all would like to know what -- exactly what happened.

And, if we do, then it would be -- it'll be easy to make a decision whether there was -- there was high crimes and misdemeanors. That's -- let's remember, that's what the standard is here.

So let's do it. Let's get all it public. I can -- I can -- if it gets to the Senate, I will be a responsible juror. I will listen to all the facts presented by both sides and make a decision.

But this idea that the Democrats are the only ones that get to put out the facts, when the only person that's been transparent so far is President Trump, is wrong.

Be transparent.

CAVUTO: All right.

SCOTT: Let -- and let everybody ask questions.

What do you -- why -- why -- what are the Democrats trying to hide? That's -- they're -- they're killing their process. Why wouldn't you do it the right way?

CAVUTO: All right.

We will watch it very closely, Senator.

And that process, they might be cobbling together now, again, along party lines. What we do know is that, by Thursday, they hope to have that process in place, and one that will be open to all and accepted by all.

That is all but, so far, Republicans.

Stay with us.


CAVUTO: All right, a process, but one that Republicans still say is very unfair when it comes to this impeachment matter.

John Roberts at the White House with the latest from there -- John.


I know that the president is huddling with a couple of members of his communications team and some others. They could be going through the resolution to try to formulate a response. I'm sure that we will hear from the president soon.

But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, seemed to indicate that the Democrats had given into pressure from the president and Republicans. Listen here.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: Obviously, they have responded to the pressure that we put on them to try to handle this in a more transparent way that meets basic standards of due process that every American would be entitled to.


ROBERTS: They may have given into some pressure from the president and Republicans, but certainly, as you saw with Senator Rick Scott of Florida a moment ago, Republicans are saying that this doesn't change the process at all from what it was in the very beginning up until now, which they say is a sham.

Listen to the House minority later, Kevin McCarthy, and Congressman Jim Jordan here.


REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: I applaud the speaker for finally admitting it is an entire sham, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

A due process starts at the beginning.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: The speaker is going to try to dress it up a little bit, put a little lipstick on the pig, as they say, and have this vote on Thursday, but it's not going to change anything. And I think you're going to see every single Republican vote against it.


ROBERTS: But the ground does appear to be shifting for the president in some measure here, Neil, particularly since one of the provisions of this resolution is that the process, at least in the Judiciary Committee, would include such procedures as to allow for the participation of the president and his counsel.

The White House has long complained the president is being denied due process by the current investigation, the way it's being carried out in the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Another big piece of the puzzle today was when Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman showed up on Capitol Hill. The White House had tried to keep him away from Capitol Hill, had tried to limit his testimony.

But he is the first person who was actually listening to that call on July 25 between the president and the president of Ukraine to go before investigators up there on the Hill.

Here's what the House -- the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said about all of this just a short time ago.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: They realize that their defenses are declining. And so, first, it was procedural. And now Speaker Pelosi has met their major procedural objections. They're having a vote today.

It's a vote to continue the investigation, the impeachment investigation. And they're also having public hearings.


ROBERTS: We will likely continue to hear Republicans say, though, that this process continues to be a sham.

The president may react to the resolution at some point in the next few minutes. If he does, we will get that out to you as soon as possible -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Now, has the White House talked much about what Vindman's planned testimony would be about, John, that he was concerned, having listened in on that call the president had with the leader of Ukraine, enough to tell higher-ups, and to sort of validate what we have been hearing from others?

What do you make of that?

ROBERTS: Well, a lot of people have been saying that, that they were so concerned, that they brought it to the attention of superiors.

CAVUTO: Right.

ROBERTS: But the bottom line -- and this is the point that the White House keeps making, as well as Republicans in Congress -- is that the transcript is out there for everyone to see.

So the Republicans in the White House are saying, you can haul as many witnesses up to Capitol Hill as you want, but there's the transcript, and you can decide for yourself if there was there or wasn't anything wrong with that phone call.

CAVUTO: All right, John Roberts, thank you very, very much.

Again, we don't know the details of what Mr. Vindman was and is saying to committee members, just that he was concerned enough to say what he said, and to tell those above him.

That doesn't mean it's a high crime or misdemeanor or an impeachable offense or what he heard was what happened. But there is a legal fallout from all of this.

And a top lawyer who's worked on a number of investigations when it comes to impeachment, Democrats and Republicans, on the fallout -- after this.


CAVUTO: All right, this matter they're voting on in the House on Thursday is a resolution, but I'm told it is not formally an impeachment resolution.

Democrats have repeatedly been pushing back on the phrasing. That's according to our Chad Pergram.

Hillary Vaughn covering this on Capitol Hill.

It's technically a resolution crafting the parameters of the ongoing impeachment investigation, an impeachment-related resolution, to use Chad Pergram's wording.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that's not even English. So I really can't understand what's going on today.

But, fortunately, we have a very good lawyer with us right now, attorney Sam Dewey. He's worked on both House and Senate investigations when it comes to these matters.

Sir, thank you for joining us.

What would you call this that they're voting on, on Thursday, what you know of it?

SAMUEL DEWEY, ATTORNEY: Neil, thank you for having me.

I would call this, first and foremost, a recognition by Speaker Pelosi and others that the process that has been run has not been following formal precedents of historical fairness, and actually a recognition that Chairman Schiff's process is probably illegal under House rules.

CAVUTO: So what is illegal is what, the secret of nature, which is one party running everything, the secret testimony, the others -- the other party not involved in that?

Explain what is illegal here, or potentially?

DEWEY: Absolutely.

What is illegal here is that Chairman Schiff doesn't have jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment inquiry. And because of that, he can't be engaged in the formal impeachment process.

And that's a point of House jurisdiction. And that's actually the very arguments that Speaker Pelosi and others were making in the case related to grand jury materials supported that fact.

If there's any committee that arguably has jurisdiction, it's the Judiciary Committee, not Mr. Schiff's committee. So I think, first and foremost...

CAVUTO: And that's been the history, right? I mean, in the past, that's where all things impeachment-related have gone through, that committee.

Now, Nancy Pelosi made the decision to move House Intelligence, and Schiff in this case over Jerry Nadler, to this point position.

But Nadler himself is famous for saying, we better make sure -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- we have got everything together to present to a skeptical public. That was months ago.

How do you feel things have advanced since then?

DEWEY: I don't think things have advanced much at all, both as a matter of law and as a matter of the procedure.

There's a reason that, in every other presidential impeachment, there's been a formal authorization and there's been an open process, because that was the right thing to do. And that's what Speaker Albert Chairman Rodino concluded.

And that's what Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Hyde concluded at the start of the Clinton impeachment.

CAVUTO: So, Sam, what would happen, then, if this resolution also calls for depositions conducted by the Intel Committee, for transcripts of those depositions to be made publicly available?

How far would that advance the fairness argument that this isn't sort of like a loaded cabal against the president and, for that matter, Republicans?

DEWEY: I actually think it's very interesting, because I don't think it advances it at all.

And I think that particular part of the resolution actually decreases fairness. Under the existing deposition rules, Chairman Schiff has authority to release the transcripts. But he needs the concurrence of the ranking member to do so.

And if the ranking member doesn't concur, it goes to a public vote. These new resolutions give Chairman Schiff not only unilateral power to release deposition transcripts as he sees fit, when he sees fit, but they give him the right to edit those transcripts to remove other sensitive matters.

So we have had a process that's been closed-door, marked with leaks that violate the rules, and now this resolution will give Chairman Schiff unilateral power to release edited transcripts.

CAVUTO: Hence the concern of Republicans that that is what they're voting on, and they don't like it.

Samuel Dewey, you actually got through my thick skull. I understood a lot of that. Thank you very, very much, Samuel Dewey.

DEWEY: Thank you.

CAVUTO: He knows of what he speaks.

Meanwhile, markets know what not to worry, right, because, today, they were barely budging.

Why is that? Why, in the middle of what you hear Democrats call a constitutional crisis, are they not acting like we're in the middle of one?

After this.


CAVUTO: So, Tom Brady is 42 and wants to play until he's 45. Are you kidding me?

Roger Staubach on chasing Father Time. I'm talking about you, Mr. Brady.


CAVUTO: All right, a very quiet market today, but look at that Dow, a little over 27000 points.

Ninety years ago today, we were in a freefall. The Dow had finished the day at a little bit north of 240 -- 2-4-0 -- and the great crash was on, and a 12-year depression was just starting.

That was then. Do you ever think it could happen again?

Let's go to market pros Ted Weisberg, who was there that famous day and covered it adroitly.


CAVUTO: And Chris Hogan as well, who's read books about it.

Ted, always fun having you, my friend.

I mean, we always talk at these anniversaries, whether it's '87 crash or what have you.


CAVUTO: Could it happen again? Each one is different, but a little bit of giddiness prior is a consistent theme.

Do you see any giddiness today?

WEISBERG: No, no, Neil.

In fact, bull markets are born in periods of despair and pessimism, and they end in periods of euphoria...

CAVUTO: Right.

WEISBERG: ... when everybody is bullish.

Clearly, this is a market where not a lot of people are bullish and there's still a lot of skepticism out there. I'm not -- I'm not saying we're at the beginning, but I suspect we're not anywhere close to the end, at least not yet.

CAVUTO: Chris Hogan, you always espouse, stick with the market over time.

But the fact of the matter was, I mean, it took that market a very, very long time that recoup. From the 1932 lows, when we got down to 41, you would have to wait almost 25 years to recoup what was lost, a big exception, not usual. But what do you make of that?

What do you tell folks when they hear something like that?

CHRIS HOGAN, PERSONAL FINANCE EXPERT: Well, I think, Neil, we look at this, and we have to learn from history.

That was definitely an anomaly in 1929. And, yes, it took an above-average period of time to be able to recoup. But we're not who we were then. As you look at what we have, as a capitalist country, with options and the ability to be able to invest and grow our money, I think it's important for us to learn from this, meaning that, when you're leveraged up to your eyebrows, that brings danger, the importance of having an emergency fund, the importance of being in control of your money.

It helps us to take care of our individual homes, let alone what's going on in the White House.

CAVUTO: You know, Teddy, looking at these disruptions -- and you're quite right, both of you, to take a look at a chart of the Dow from its very beginning. And when you're looking at it, it invariably goes up.

The closer you get to that chart and you see the jagged moves, it's a little bit scary. But what do you tell people now, Ted, who say, you know what, I have been hearing all this exciting talk about the markets, S&P just hit a record, the Dow and Nasdaq aren't far from one, I got to jump in?

What do you tell them?

WEISBERG: Well, I think -- I think, no matter where you are in terms of coming to the stock market, listen, it is a risky business, whatever level we're at.

And so people, quite frankly, need to do their homework. But it's a market of stocks, not necessarily a stock market. And so there are always values and there are always interesting companies.

And I think you can't get in over your head. I don't think people should use margin. And I think, if folks invest wisely and judiciously, over the longer term, they're going to do quite well.

CAVUTO: All right, margin is just essentially borrowing to buy still more stock in your portfolio.

But, Chris, looking at the mood of investors today -- and he's quite right to talk about there's a good deal of cash still sitting out there, a lot of people who are very leery, which is a healthy indicator. You don't want everyone to be sort of devil may care.

What do you tell young people in particular then, to just ride through waves that come up invariably? I mean, you would be richly rewarded if you dove in last December, when the market was freefalling. What do you tell them?

HOGAN: Well, I think the most important thing is to understand, Neil, that compound interest is your best friend.

That's how you grow money. And so what you don't want to do is to dip in and take unnecessary risks, but have a long-term view of investing. And so understanding what you're investing in, understanding your time frame, your goals, and how it works, it's the best thing you can do for yourself.

CAVUTO: But what is long term to you?

For me, long term at my age is lunch tomorrow.


CAVUTO: What is long term?

HOGAN: I think five years or more, Neil, is long term.

CAVUTO: All right.

Teddy, what do you tell people?

WEISBERG: Well, I mean, I have the same view. But I also agree with you, Neil.

I'm running out of runway.


CAVUTO: Don't say that, young man.

WEISBERG: So, long term for me is going to be different than it would be for long term for somebody who's 20, 30, 40 or 50.

But the proof is in the pudding. And I can just see it with the clients that are at Seaport and our own assets that, over the long term, a buy-and- hold strategy.

CAVUTO: All right.

WEISBERG: Now, listen, you're going to make mistakes, no question about it. There are no guarantees.

But, overall, buy and hold, whether it's five years and in some cases 10 or 15 years.

CAVUTO: Got it.

WEISBERG: You get the right horses, they carry the heavy water.

CAVUTO: Right. We might extend it to the next day, breakfast.

Ted, wise words.

Chris, I won't argue with you, because your voice is so deep and terrifying. Whatever you tell me to do, I'm going to do.


CAVUTO: Guys, thank you very, very much.

HOGAN: Thank you.

CAVUTO: All right, by now, you have heard that ISIS' top two guys, they're dead, and they're still, they're still hoping to fight back.


CAVUTO: President Trump tweeting today that al-Baghdadi's number one replacement has also been killed in a separate raid by U.S. troops.

Has this created a leadership vacuum for ISIS and what to make of it?

One of my favorite guests on this show, the former SEAL Team Six member and the man who helped kill Usama bin Laden, Rob O'Neill.

Rob, good to have you back.

ROB O'NEILL, FORMER U.S. NAVY SEAL: Thanks again, Neil. It's always good to be here.

CAVUTO: It's always good.

And I usually can ask you tougher questions on remote, but you're here.

O'NEILL: Yes. Yes.


CAVUTO: I can't do that.

Let me ask you about this double killing. This is a big deal.

O'NEILL: This is a huge deal.

The raid itself was incredible. The fact that they brought that many helicopters, eight Chinooks onto the X, just tells you that they were ready to fight. They're going to do what Delta Force does, and that's win.

And they expected to lose some people, but they did. That's how good they are. And then they got a guy in line, based on probably the intelligence they found. They kill him the next day with a drone strike. So that's one and two.

I would hate to be number three right now.

CAVUTO: Really?


CAVUTO: I mean, you don't want to announce that you're a successor to these guys. You got a target.

O'NEILL: No, not anymore.

And even with -- I mean, a couple months ago, with Hamza bin Laden. He was groomed to be the successor of Al Qaeda. Got him.

CAVUTO: Right.

O'NEILL: And this just shows you what our intelligence, the men and women who work 24 hours a day for years.


CAVUTO: Oh, they're incredible.

But how -- obviously, they get the intelligence. They find out where al- Baghdadi is, very similar intelligence you guys had to find out where Usama bin Laden is.

What is the difference between how these guys went down? In bin Laden's case, he didn't kill himself or blow himself up, right?

O'NEILL: No. No.

Well, we snuck into that one. And I think -- I mean, I don't know. I was the last one to see him alive. And I -- just based on rules of engagement and how he was acting, I needed to shoot him in the face. I assumed he was a suicide bomber.

He might -- he was either afraid or he thought maybe he gets captured and then we put him on trial for 10 years and he gets to preach.

CAVUTO: So, he had no suicide vest, unlike Baghdadi, right?

O'NEILL: No, he didn't. But I assumed he did.

And just like with al-Baghdadi, though, he's -- again, he's the caliph, so he's in charge of the caliphate. And he had a suicide vest on all the time, knowing that, if it comes to it, he's going to martyr himself.


CAVUTO: And his kids, some of his kids.

O'NEILL: Three of his kids were with him in the tunnel.

And I'm thinking that they're -- the tunnels were either -- they're a couple head fakes in there, one real way out. Delta had that guarded. He was backed up. The dog came in, is becoming famous now.

CAVUTO: Yes, yes, right.

O'NEILL: Just awesome.


CAVUTO: Just awesome.

O'NEILL: And then the -- he set off his vest. And the dog was -- I don't think the dog was even hurt in that. It was hurt with something else.


CAVUTO: But I'm told the dog will be OK.

O'NEILL: I can't wait to read the dog's book.

CAVUTO: Cute pooch.

You know what I don't understand is, ISIS isn't gone, as you have always reminded me, that it's always a threat. It's always out there.


CAVUTO: But how does it evolve? If it had run out of land and options -- I have always likened it to cockroaches. One appears somewhere else.

O'NEILL: It's an ideology that's being taught at a very young age.

It's a radical version of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism. And it comes out of Saudi Arabia. Surprise, surprise. And they're indoctrinating the kids at a very young age. You see kids doing fake beheadings on dolls and things like that. That's horrible.

But the good news is, a lot of the more liberal Muslims, the younger guys, are seeing that. Look at Syria. It's a pile of ashes, a bunch of bodies. Maybe we don't need to do this.

And they like the Internet. They actually like music, you know?

CAVUTO: Is that right?

O'NEILL: Yes. And that's my hope.

I mean, it's going to spread again. I mean, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was basically living in an Al Qaeda neighborhood. And that -- it's the same ideology. That's where he was living. And that's where they found him.

And there's different versions. They call them different names. It's all the same thing from Wahhabism. And it's in Africa. It spreads. We're trying to hit Jell-O to the wall, hammer it to the wall.

But hopefully -- I mean, we're not going to win it by raid -- the raid was incredible. The raid my team and I did was incredible. We're going to win it with education.

CAVUTO: You guys are amazing.

O'NEILL: Oh, they're amazing. I'm so proud.

CAVUTO: What makes you afraid?

O'NEILL: Well, I'm a football fan, a Redskins fan, so opening day.

CAVUTO: Well, that would do it.


CAVUTO: Yes, that would do it.


CAVUTO: But you just deal with this, right? It just...

O'NEILL: Yes, deal with everything.

And if there's stuff out there that worrying about is not going to affect, stop worrying about it. Stress is a choice, and the bag of bricks is by your bed. You can pick it up and ruin your day off the start.

You can check Twitter right away and be in a bad mood, or you cannot.

CAVUTO: I don't like to read stuff people send me. I'm very vulnerable to it.

O'NEILL: I have a good time with it.


CAVUTO: You do?

O'NEILL: It's not someone yelling at me. It's someone yelling at their phone about me.

So, I'm kind of optimistic.


CAVUTO: Rob O'Neill, former SEAL Team Six member, former Navy SEAL, the man who brought down Usama bin Laden.

All right, we all know that football is a violent game, but one Hall of Fame quarterback is trying to make it a safer game.

I wonder what Roger Staubach thinks of what's happening on the football front these days and what a certain player named Brady, well, what he means, trying to keep playing until he's 80 years old?

After this.


CAVUTO: All right, Tom Brady is all of 42. He's coming off his sixth Super Bowl wins, says he plans to play until he's at least 45.

Is that doable in today's NFL?

Let us ask the Hall of Fame quarterback, Dallas Cowboys legend. They say legend, but, as a Redskins fan, quasi-legend, I guess.


CAVUTO: He's a VICIS Coalition member as well, Roger Staubach.

Roger, very good to see you.


CAVUTO: You left the game when you were, what, 38, 39?

STAUBACH: I was going on 38.

I was 27 when I started. And I had 11 years. So I was going...


CAVUTO: All with the Cowboys, right?

STAUBACH: All with the Cowboys. Yes.

CAVUTO: Right. Yes, I remember that all too well.


CAVUTO: So you're hearing all this stuff about Tom Brady, who seems to defy age, as did you.

Is it wise for him to keep pushing it?

STAUBACH: Well, he's a fierce competitor.

And if you believe you can continue to do it -- and he's the best at what he does. He just doesn't want to -- he doesn't want to quit and he feels he can still -- he would -- I think he would retire if he knew he could not be the great Tom Brady that he is.

So he feels he can. He stays in shape and...

CAVUTO: Doing all the physical staying in shape stuff in the world doesn't save you from concussions, doesn't save you from really bad hits and all of that.

You're trying to address that, right?

STAUBACH: Well, mine was -- yes.

I had some problems with concussions. I had more than I should. And actually a Dr. Fred Plum with Cornell Medical School, when I was tested my last year, he told me I should retire, I had too many of them. He said -- he said, you're OK, he said, but your next one could be your problem.


CAVUTO: Took some big hits. Yes.

STAUBACH: So, that can be a factor.

And I have. I have got involved. They started to redo the helmets. I didn't have the inside strapping and everything. They put padding in there.

And VICIS has taken it to another level with the padding and the tightness, so your brain doesn't get knocked around. So, helmets are important.

CAVUTO: So, how do players like it?

Does it limit their mobility? Or do they feel uncomfortable?

STAUBACH: No, it really doesn't.

The weight of it is -- if you have enough protection, you don't want it to be too heavy. And so it's -- they want to a good helmet.

CAVUTO: In other words, if you had been wearing this when you were playing, would it have gotten in the way or how would you describe it?

STAUBACH: It would have been a big help.

Actually, when I was in high school, I had a leather helmet.


STAUBACH: Our high school emulated Notre Dame, so I had a concussion in high school. I had a couple at the Naval Academy.

And the helmets were the inside, that straps inside. And it wasn't the -- the padding is a lot better today too. Most helmets have the padding inside.

So when your head gets hit, I guess the brain doesn't bounce around or whatever -- whatever causes the concussion.

CAVUTO: How did you keep doing it for so long, though? I mean, your body takes a lot of punishment with that.


CAVUTO: But you were at the top of your game until you left the game. And I say the same about what Tom Brady's doing, still on top of his game. The Patriots are undefeated. They cheat like crazy to get there, but they're undefeated.



CAVUTO: How do you maintain that?

STAUBACH: Well, I think one thing that's taking place is the rules on you can't use a helmet as a weapon anymore.

Back in the old days, I mean, you could spear. If I was on the ground...

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

STAUBACH: If I was on the ground, they could still spear you with the helmet.

And if they hit you in the helmet -- that's how I got knocked out, was helmet helmet a number of times. And so today the -- that's really good, not -- it's illegal to use the helmet as a weapon.

CAVUTO: Well, that's a good thing.

STAUBACH: That's very good.

CAVUTO: But what do you think of the state of football today, these eye- popping salaries?


STAUBACH: I still love football. I love watching.

CAVUTO: Do you wish you had arrived 10 years later?

STAUBACH: Well, I definitely wanted to win. I was very fortunate I got onto a great team with the Dallas Cowboys.

When I came out of the Navy, Don Meredith retired. He was a great quarterback. So, I always say, I quarterbacked his team for a while.

CAVUTO: But you served. You went to Vietnam.

You impressed a lot of people.



STAUBACH: But I was 27 when I got out.

So, I figured, if I was -- I could play at 23, I can play at 27. And it worked. And I also went with a great team and with a great coach in coach Landry.

And just like Tom -- Tom has got a phenomenal coach, Bill Belichick.

CAVUTO: But you weren't destined for success. You weren't some first round pick.


CAVUTO: Much like Brady, you just emerged on the scene.

STAUBACH: Well, yes, I had some good college years.

But the four years in the service, they -- but if you're 23 and you're good, you got to be good at 27.

Brady's looking at it and saying, I'm going to be good at 45.

I mean, Brady's really an exception. And he's one heck of a football player.

CAVUTO: But you weren't so bad yourself.

STAUBACH: And God love him, I'll tell you. He's taken his hits.

But I think the helmet-to-helmet -- the preventing of really trying to intentionally get a concussion of a player, is not in the league. It's illegal now.

CAVUTO: Yes, that's a good thing. You're bringing good attention to it.

Roger Staubach, so good seeing you.

STAUBACH: Great. Thanks.

CAVUTO: Thank you very, very much.

We will have a lot a lot more after this, including the Boeing CEO on Capitol Hill today. He probably could have used a helmet today -- after this.


CAVUTO: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Capitol Hill today, facing some angry lawmakers over those 737 MAX jets.

Grady Trimble with the latest -- Grady.

GRADY TRIMBLE, CORRESPONDENT: Neil, lawmakers grilled Dennis Muilenburg for two-and-a-half-hours, questioning primarily whether Boeing put profits over safety in a rush to get the 737 MAX into the air.

Of course, Muilenburg denied that. While he was testifying, family members of victims watched on holding photos of loved ones. They told me after the hearing they weren't satisfied with Muilenburg's answers or his apology.


ADNAAN STUMO, BROTHER OF CRASH VICTIM: I don't care for Mr. Muilenburg's remarks. I don't know what he feels inside.

I get my solace from my friends and my family, not from the people who caused the death of my sister.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: These loved ones never had a chance. They were in flying coffins.

SEN. JON TESTER, D-MT: I would walk before I was to get on a 737 MAX.


TRIMBLE: Muilenburg says that plane is in the final stages of recertification, still has to do a critical FAA certification flight.

The question, Neil, is whether people will have confidence in Boeing to get back on that plane.

CAVUTO: Judging from today, not anytime soon.

Grady Trimble, thank you very, very much, Grady in Washington, D.C., on all this.

Speaking of Washington, D.C., tomorrow's the day we're going to find out whether the Federal Reserve is going to cut interest rates again. It would be the third time this year. Markets on tenterhooks waiting for that.

Here's "The Five."

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