Trump: Mexico is doing more for the US on illegal immigration than Democrats are
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," June 12, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Well, China might want to ignore us, but it cannot ignore this, trouble in its own backyard, where protesters are not backing down, Hong Kong, where, for decades, residents there have been deemed separate but equal, but these days more like shaken and very much stirred, and all because China is suddenly tightening its fist on what had been a hands-off policy with regard to Hong Kong, not anymore.
China imposing a new extradition law that would force suspected criminals in Hong Kong to be sent to the mainland China for trial. Now, Beijing isn't saying exactly what constitutes a criminal or signaling just how many could be rounded up, just that China decides, and Hong Kong better except.
But as these protests clearly show, Hong Kong is not accepting, and, not surprisingly, China is not relenting, flinging tear gas and rubber bullets into crowds, trying, trying to storm Hong Kong's legislative council, to no avail, to force authorities to ease up.
Now, all of this might be rekindling memories of China's crackdown 30 years ago last week in Tiananmen Square. That resulted in the deaths of hundreds, some say thousands of protesters. We still don't know.
Growing fears that history could be repeating itself, as China vows not to budge and protesters promise not to yield. Fears as well that this complicates any hope of getting a trade deal done with China, amid fears of a potential capital collapse in China if things get out of hand, which they already are, in one of the most vibrant economies on the planet.
So, again, that's where we stand. President Trump is already on record saying he is in no rush to resume talks, and that was before any of this, which is why we are all over this with Connell McShane on the latest on protests that won't stop, and John Roberts on trade talks that might take a lot longer now to restart.
We begin with Connell in Hong Kong, where authorities are now saying cease and desist, but protesters are doing anything but -- Connell.
CONNELL MCSHANE, CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thousands of protesters clashed with police and blocked access to Hong Kong's legislature, so debate on a controversial extradition bill was delayed.
In something of a role reversal, police in riot gear were at the ready, but the protesters use their barricades against them, closing off a large section of the city.
(on camera): So many of the people that we have met here in the streets of Hong Kong today are young people, telling us that they're worried that the city that they have known and loved for their entire lives is changing, and not for the better.
(voice-over): That's because the amendments being debated to city law include possible extraditions to mainland China for those accused of crimes here in Hong Kong.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They can have any of the reasons to make us into a criminal and then send me back, send us to China or some other places that we cannot imagine, like -- so it is a very serious situation.
MCSHANE (on camera): And what do you think will change about your home if this extradition bill passes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: China can do whatever they want. And they can -- they can just extradite people from Hong Kong for -- no matter what.
MCSHANE (voice-over): The government has been arguing these changes are necessary, so Hong Kong doesn't become a haven for fugitives, but many in the business community, they side with the protesters, saying Beijing could detain people here, then try them across the border under a much different legal system.
In Hong Kong, Connell McShane, Fox News.
CAVUTO: President Trump addressing these massive protests going on in Hong Kong.
John Roberts at the White House with more on that.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey. Good afternoon to you, Neil.
The president saying that this is a matter for China to deal with, and that he thinks that China will be able to deal with it, and that it will work out well for China. That's kind of like a 30,000-foot view and maybe doesn't exactly reflect what's going on, on the ground there in Hong Kong.
It looks like things could get out of control at some point, unless the Chinese authorities are able to get those protesters to calm down. Who knows what will happen? Because Hong Kong, as you know, is a much different place than Beijing, given its long history of British rule.
But one thing that the president did appear to confirm today was that he will be meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, on the sidelines of the upcoming G20 summit in Osaka, Japan. Yesterday, the president said he thinks he will be meeting with Xi. The Chinese have not confirmed the meeting. But the president seemed to suggest today that it will happen.
You mentioned at the top that the president doesn't appear to be in any hurry to get a trade deal with China. He's kind of letting them twist in the wind, feeling the pressure from these tariffs. And, of course, there is the threat of tariffs on another $325 billion in Chinese goods out there.
The president says he has no deadline as to when he might pull the trigger on those. But he does believe that a deal will get done. Listen to what he said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We had China opened up to trade. That's a big thing. They have never done that before. We had intellectual property theft taken care of and taken care of beautifully.
And all of a sudden, those things started to disappear at the end after they were fully negotiated. But that's -- that's their decision.
No, I have no deadline. My deadline is what's up here. We will figure out the deadline.
TRUMP: Nobody can quite figure it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So the president doesn't quite have a deadline, at least not one that he's willing to articulate on China.
But he does apparently have a deadline when it comes to Mexico and what they have to do to crack down on the number of Central American migrants that are going through Mexico to the United States border.
Yesterday, the president teased the media by pulling a letter out of his breast pocket, which he said was an agreement with Mexico. A shrewd photographer from The Washington Post got a closeup of that, and a time period of 45 days seemed to figure very prominently in the last paragraph of that agreement, saying that if Mexico doesn't make significant changes within 45 days, then the United States will act.
The president believes that Mexico will do the right thing. But he says he's got an option out there if they don't. Listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now, Mexico is moving 6,000 troops to their southern border. That's a lot of troops. That's a lot more than -- we never even heard of a number like that. That's a lot of troops. But that's what they want to do, because they want to produce.
I think Mexico really wants to produce. If Mexico does a great job, then you're not going to have very many people coming up. If they don't, then we have phase two. Phase two is very tough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: President Trump says there is phase two. He has not articulated what phase two is, though he was talking leading up to the beginning of this past week that he would slap tariffs of 5 percent, increasing 5 percent per month on Mexico, if they didn't do more.
There's also talk of an agreement for Mexico to become what's called a safe third country for asylum seekers. And even Mexico's foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said that if Mexico doesn't make significant changes to the migrant flows within 45 days, that it may have to consider doing that.
So we will see, Neil. I think the president is taking a wait-and-see attitude right now with both of those nations. But I think -- I think China is looking at 2020 and a lot of the poll numbers that they're seeing in terms of President Trump's reelection and saying, maybe we could wait this guy out.
That may be a mistake, though, because he could win in 2020.
CAVUTO: Yes. Yes. You're rolling the dice on that one.
John Roberts, thank you very, very much.
Back to this China-Hong Kong tiff right now that seems to be accelerating, everyone seems to be confident that, eventually, a trade deal can be worked out. But this could get in the way, big time, if not forestall any deal any time soon.
Charles Payne, the host of "Making Money." We also have Axios White House reporter Alayna Treene.
Charles, how likely is it these latest developments in Hong Kong that just erupted into one of these black swan events that people fear just throw everything off course?
CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: It can throw everything off course.
But, also, it might actually help things get on course. Remember, China's ultimate goal to dominate the world. Now, they have got a lot of sympathetic people in this country and around the world think maybe President Trump's hitting them back too hard.
PAYNE: And if you want to have the world's currency -- world's reserve currency, if you want to sort of go around the world and say, hey, we want to do debt diplomacy, if you want to do all those things, and at the same time, you have these folks in Hong Kong who are deathly afraid of having to deal with their justice system, a system, by the way, which is on the verge of making the "1984" predictions come true, where they can check anyone.
I mean, I saw Connell interviewing these kids with the mask over their face. It doesn't matter. China's got technology that can just look at their eyebrows and figure out who they are. So it's really interesting, because this is a fight that they're having with the United States in front of the world.
And if they're going to have one million Muslims locked up, if they're going to have debt diplomacy, where they actually can take countries from them -- their own sovereignty, and then they're going to have Hong Kong this afraid of dealing with the justice system, it puts a lot of pressure on them.
CAVUTO: Yes. And it puts them in a bad light as well, right, Alayna?
I mean, this is not the kind of thing you need the world to see to show that you're an economic power that is delicately balancing capitalism with communism, and you got it just right. This shows, in the case of Hong Kong, you don't have it just right.
ALAYNA TREENE, AXIOS: Right.
And I think that it's episodes like these that create the -- create the potential to awaken the West, I would say, to join with the U.S. in pushing back against China and these abuses. And I think that it's hard to say how much an effect this will have on the trade deal, but it does really shine a bad light on China to look at Hong Kong, which is supposed to have the freedom to have these protests.
You have never seen anything like this happening in mainland China, in like Beijing or in Shanghai, and to be going against that, and really creating the conditions for a big protest like this to happen, it is awakening the world to seeing this.
And it could potentially help the U.S., in the sense of having other countries, like Europe, joining with the U.S. in pushing back against them.
CAVUTO: Well, it could also feed a narrative that the White House has raised about China. They're not what they appear to be. They're not the straight shooters they say they are, and this sudden surprise, this extradition thing that they unleashed on Hong Kong, we're told by Hong Kong authorities this came kind of out of nowhere, is illustrative of that.
What do you think, Charles?
PAYNE: You're absolutely right, Neil.
In fact, probably, the main issue with the White House with respect to China returning that 150-page, seven-chapter trade deal was the fact that they X'ed out the ability to keep them honest. I mean, they have done the bait and switch with the world, and particularly America, on so many occasions, we must keep them honest.
And then we're reminded of that by these scenes that we're looking at right now.
CAVUTO: You know, Alayna, I did notice that Nintendo, Foxconn, very big manufacturers in China who are now looking to manufacture elsewhere.
Foxconn even laid out the possibility all those iPhones made in China can be made somewhere else. Nintendo pretty much saying the same. China must be looking at that and saying, even if we get a deal, it might be too late.
Well, I think -- I think the thing here is, as much Chinese investment in the U.S. -- or as much as U.S. investment in China and these tariffs are infecting China, it's also a reciprocal thing. So I think both countries are hurting here by this trade war and by the tariffs.
But I think another really interesting point to make is, if you look at businesses, the biggest thing they fear -- or they hate, really -- is uncertainty. And that's what we have with the Street, where we had John Roberts just before saying there really is no real timetable here.
It looks like they're -- the U.S. does want some sort of deal and trade agreement with China. But it's unclear when that will happen after the plans on which they got scrapped last month. And so I think the uncertainty is what a lot of businesses are worrying about right now.
CAVUTO: Yes. What a lot of people worry about, guys, is if those in Hong Kong don't follow Chinese orders to cease and desist, and stop these rallies, then all bets are off.
Thank you both very, very much.
Meanwhile, the House just made it easier for Democrats to enforce subpoenas in court -- why the House Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Doug Collins, says that's a problem for future Congresses too.
CAVUTO: If you can force it, go to court.
The House just gave itself the ability to essentially go to court in order to enforce subpoenas.
House Judiciary Ranking Member Doug Collins says this sets a dangerous precedent for future Congresses under either party's control.
Congressman, very good to have you back with us.
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Neil, it's always good to be with you.
CAVUTO: What's your fear here?
COLLINS: Well, my fear is that we're getting -- we're getting into such a habit of rushing to judgment with this Democratic majority that they don't want to wait for anything.
They don't want to go through the procedures that are institutionally functional for this House. There are proper ways to go about things. And one of the ways is, is, if you have a subpoena that it's not being complied with, the question is, have you used all constitutional remedies that are afforded to us to find out how we can actually get the information?
And that's not happening now. And especially yesterday, whether it be with Bill Barr, where the chairman asked for something that he has admitted was illegal for him to ask for, or Don McGahn, who actually is being asked for stuff that is not under his -- his papers are not under his control. They're under the White House' control.
What we did yesterday wasn't make it necessarily easier. We let it -- we let them hide their moderate members and other members who didn't want to continue to vote on contempt because they felt that these investigations were going too far and voters wasn't with them.
That's all we did yesterday was make it easier to go to court, but also made it easier for them to bypass rules that in the future may undercut our legal arguments in court.
CAVUTO: What I also wonder about, Congressman, is, if you help a little bit, you don't get any credit for that.
So when they were bemoaning the fact that Attorney General Barr wasn't being cooperative, yet the Justice Department did provide a number of documents that they had requested pertaining to obstruction issues that they sorely wanted to get their hands on, it was ignored.
It was, oh, yes, yes, you cooperated there, but that doesn't matter.
I think that is a slippery slope too.
COLLINS: Well, it's a very slippery slope.
When you're desperately saying you got to have this information, these papers to do your congressional oversight, which I value congressional oversight, the problem is, though, is if you won't accept what they're giving, then really what you're doing to the process is saying, no, we're going to pitch a temper tantrum in the middle of the hallway and say, until you give us everything, we're not going to take anything.
And, Neil, it should be noted, your viewers should know that my chairman still has not read the unredacted portions of the Mueller report that he screamed that he needs so much for his investigation. He's never...
CAVUTO: No, I wondered about that too. And we have tried to reach out. No answers and all of that.
But if that was such a big thing to you, then why hasn't he read it? Has he ever explained to you why not? Because it's out of principle, he's got to get everything or nothing?
COLLINS: It's because the Democrats have stuck together and said that we want it all or nothing.
But he's in a very bad spot here, because what he's asking...
CAVUTO: But he's got 98 percent of what he wants, right?
COLLINS: Oh, exactly.
Look, it just undercuts his argument. When he goes to court and the judge asks them, how did you actually go about the business of trying to get some of this information, and when the other attorneys, when the Department of Justice says -- says, look, here's what we offered, here's what we have given, the judge is going to look back and say, why are you in my courtroom?
They're going to go back and say, go do your due diligence and work with each other, because you're wasting my time. And that's what I mean by the long-term implications of how it could hurt the House, even no matter who is in the majority. We have got to do things the proper way. That's what the legal system is based on.
CAVUTO: All right, but I don't know if you're a lawyer. I'm not.
COLLINS: I am.
CAVUTO: OK, there you go. So I'm talking to an expert.
But grand jury testimony and stuff like that cannot be released by law.
COLLINS: That's exactly right.
CAVUTO: So if among the 2 percent of material that's not there includes this grand jury testimony, you're just shooting in the dark. You know you're never going to get it.
COLLINS: Well, but -- yes, but as long as he can go in front of a camera somewhere in maybe a friendlier venue and say that I need this information, and they don't ask him the question, is it legal for you to get, then he can make the smokescreen, say, well, oh, no, we're fighting for you.
The truth and reality is, he has admitted and his own witnesses at a hearing we had earlier admitted, you cannot ask for the grand jury information that you're asking from Bill Barr. It is illegal for him to answer your subpoena.
Now, what is interesting is that our majority can put forth a bill and change the law to where the Congress could actually access in certain circumstances 6(e) information. The majority has not went there. They know that people don't want to see that.
They would rather skirt the edges and make this assumption that the president is getting impeached, while at the same time they know they're not.
CAVUTO: Do we know -- I'm switching gears a little bit, Congressman -- about when the inspector general's report is coming out on all this and how it was handled? That obviously could be the latest volcano here, but what are you hearing?
COLLINS: We're hearing probably a little bit later in the next few weeks. We're hoping to hear that come out.
There's no set date. But we -- from the attorney -- the inspector general's office, we have heard that it will be this summer, hopefully within the next few weeks. And, yes, this will change the narrative, because it goes back to the narrative many of us have talked about, is while we got here to start with.
And it's going to show that the abuses in the FISA system, the FISA court, we believe, that was used by the corrupt cabal of Comey, McCabe and Page and Strzok and these folks to actually start going after American citizens and using the court in a way that shouldn't be used. And that should bother everyone, I don't care what political affiliation.
CAVUTO: But what if the general's report ultimately doesn't say that? I mean, that's what a lot of people expect it will say, but we don't know, right?
COLLINS: Well, I think there's a little more than not expecting.
And I think when you look at the evidence that many of us have seen, we have followed this now for two years.
COLLINS: There's some issues.
I mean, when James Comey went on and said that -- later on said these were salacious and unverified, he actually attested that they were verified. I mean, that right there is in and of itself a problem. And that's just one minor detail of this.
So, as we get into this, we believe that there will be things that comes out of the Horowitz report. But remember that Durham, the U.S. attorney Durham, who's been assigned by the attorney general to look into this, has full plenary powers to go after everything that he needs to find out what was happening with these investigators.
How did it get started? That's why I believe you're seeing a lot of these who originally started this are out telling new stories now, because they want to try and rehabilitate themselves before some of this actually gets shed light on.
CAVUTO: I am thoroughly confused.
Congressman, thank you very, very much.
CAVUTO: It's always good chatting with you.
COLLINS: Always good to talk with you.
CAVUTO: But, as you say, it is a mess. All right, Congressman.
Meanwhile, Wall Street is already placing its early bets on 2020.
Now, four years ago, the financial community was betting on this candidate to win it all. How did that work out?
CAVUTO: All right, they like to say follow the money if you're looking at a race.
And the money on Wall Street for 2020 seems to be betting on President Trump. A recent survey by RBC showing 71 percent of institutional investors think that the president will indeed win reelection.
Now, a similar survey for the 2016 presidential contest had Wall Street betting big on a Hillary Clinton victory. So, in retrospect, not exactly 20/20 or on 2020.
Tom Bevan from RealClearPolitics on what to make of this.
As you remind me, Tom, so often -- I'm glad you do -- it's early.
CAVUTO: But it's telling that...
TOM BEVAN, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM: Seventeen months, what's -- give or take.
CAVUTO: Right. Right. Right.
And I'm wondering what this could be signaling. Wall Street -- people always think the markets never fail. Well, they actually do quite often. But, in this case, they don't jibe with Main Street polls and Quinnipiac polls and others that are out that show quite a different race going on. What do you think?
Look, I think part of the central question right now is, historically speaking, candidates that run for reelection with this kind of an economy are shoo-ins for reelection.
BEVAN: But we don't know what the economy's going to be like 17 months from now, number one.
And, number two, more importantly, Trump is not a traditional candidate. He is unlike anything we have ever seen. And so while people generally like his policies, they don't like him personally. So he's not getting credit for the economy in a way that a traditional candidate might at this point in the cycle and at this point in the economy.
CAVUTO: Do you think there is a quiet, understated, underadmitted, for want of a better term, vote for the president that doesn't materialize, for whatever reason?
People like what he's doing on the economy. They most certainly like, for those who have money in the stock market, what he's done for the markets. But maybe, to be hip with their friends and all, they don't want to admit that. So the poll support doesn't show up. What do you think of that?
BEVAN: I think there is -- there's something to that shy Trump effect.
We saw a little bit of it in 2016. I think we might be seeing a little bit of it again. And, again, look, his approval rating in our RealClearPolitics average overall is about 42, 43 percent. On the economy, it's 10 points higher.
BEVAN: So he's getting -- people approve of the way he's handling the economy. But they're not willing to give him approval overall.
And so part of that is -- it's almost the exact opposite, by the way, of Barack Obama. People didn't like his policies, generally speaking, but they liked him as a person. They liked him as a president. They thought he had the characteristics that a president should have.
It's the exact opposite with President Trump. And the other piece of the equation, obviously, Neil, is, what's the choice? I mean, November -- when people go into the voting box...
CAVUTO: Right. We don't know.
BEVAN: They have a -- it's a binary choice. It's either Trump or someone else. And what is that someone else? And how easy would it be someone -- for someone who may be sort of marginally they like Trump, they like his policies, don't like him personally, how easy will it be for them to make that switch?
We don't know the answer to those questions. So it's really tough to predict.
CAVUTO: Yes, it is confusing with the economy doing what it's doing, the markets doing what they're doing, that he isn't in better stead here, but it is, to your point, still early.
Now, I'm interested too to get your quick take on Joe Biden and some of these about-faces he's done on the Hyde Amendment, which wouldn't allow federally funded abortions. He was for that, until all of a sudden this week he wasn't, to say China wasn't a competitive threat. Then this week, it is.
Is that going to come back to bite him?
I mean, look, all the folks who rushed to say that this race was in the bag for Joe Biden, he's the prohibitive front-runner, I think, are being proven wrong.
Look, Joe Biden has a lot of work to do. He's trying to run a general election campaign in the Democratic primary. And, right now, it's only working to a certain degree. And then, obviously, there's a lot of race left. We have these debates coming up in just a couple of weeks.
So I think this race is still wide open. I think Joe Biden still has to prove himself to Democratic primary voters, because, in many respects, on some issues, given his past, he is not where the base of the party is right now.
And so he's going to have to earn this. And we will see whether he can do it or not.
CAVUTO: Yes, we shall see.
Thank you, Tom. Always good chatting.
BEVAN: Good to see you, Neil.
CAVUTO: Tom Bevan.
All right, you know, he preaches socialism. Republicans say that's an anathema to capitalism, everything Americans stand for.
All right, then riddle me this. Why is Bernie Sanders enjoying a double- digit lead over the president of the United States in a rip-roaring economy? What's going on with that?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That is the difference between Donald Trump and me. He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful. I believe in a Democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: A total of five people now detained in the Dominican Republic in the David Ortiz shooting, including the alleged gunman. One suspect is still outstanding, but they're trying to get to the bottom of it all.
We will have more after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDERS: We must recognize that, in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: And that is what I mean by Democratic socialism.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: That's 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders making his pitch today for Democratic socialism.
On the surface, you would say, well, that's not selling, right? Well, it is. Nationally, he has kind of the same double-digit lead that right now the former Vice President Joe Biden enjoys over the president.
As we always say here, it's very, very early, but that alone is very, very telling.
Let's get the read on the significance of all of that at this early stage with FOX News political analyst Gianno Caldwell. We have also got political analyst Rashad Richey and The Washington Examiner's Emily Larsen.
Gianno, that doesn't jibe with what everything you hear in the past about socialists, go run for office in Russia. It's not going to work out here.
But the way maybe Bernie Sanders is presenting it or the pitch he's making that endears it, maybe it is. What do you think?
GIANNO CALDWELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, make no doubt about it. Bernie Sanders did create a revolution from the 2016 campaign on forward.
If we look at simple poll numbers, 61 percent of individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 now view socialism in a positive light. Here's the issue though, Neil. A lot of these individuals haven't had the independence of living outside of their parents' health insurance.
They haven't had the independence of paying in some cases their own college loans. So when you think about some of the policy proposals that we see coming forth from people like Elizabeth Warren that says free college for everybody, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who says, hey, you can -- you will work only if you want to, people have a different view of socialism, which we know is total, complete, and government control.
Me coming from the South Side of Chicago and being an individual that was raised in extreme poverty, I recognize that government control is what keeps people in poverty. And that's what socialism is.
CAVUTO: Well, you know what's odd about it, Rashad?
He is -- that is, Bernie Sanders is using the socialism term. And then he is using the alluring features that Gianno pointed out, free college, or having help with your medical bills or whatever. And that is sort of, like, apparently, a powerful one-two punch.
Now, it could get punched out in a matter of weeks or months, and it could fade, and some of these other candidates like him could also fade, but they're not now.
RASHAD RICHEY, PROGRESSIVE COMMENTATOR: They're not fading.
And Bernie Sanders has done a remarkable -- remarkable job articulating exactly what socialism means for him. Remember, he came out branding himself as a Democratic socialist, and now he is providing context for that.
But let's look at what the average American thinks -- 43 percent, according to a Gallup poll in May, 43 percent of the average Americans, they believe that there's -- there is a form of socialism that we must embrace.
If you go beyond that, over 60 percent of Americans are for free college tuition. The overwhelming majority of America is also for Medicare for all. So it's not as if Bernie Sanders represents some far-out socialist ideology that cannot connect with the common man.
And that's why he's leading also in head-to-head matchups against the president, who is the A-1 capitalistic president we have ever had.
CAVUTO: No, no, there's something to what you say.
Emily, the one thing I think that might be going on here is, I don't know if you have ever gone out to eat, and someone else is picking up the tab. Well, I usually order a couple of appetizers, a couple of desserts, I really pile on the liquor, because I'm not paying.
CAVUTO: And, certainly -- certainly, it sounds -- see, I caught you guys. You actually thought I did that. Well, I do, do that.
CAVUTO: But you know what? I mean, I think that it sounds alluring if you don't have to foot the bill.
And the details are scant here in all these plans, how you're going to pay for all of this, and I'm wondering, when people do connect the numbers, it's a very different reaction. What do you think?
EMILY LARSEN, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, Senator -- Senator Sanders' team says that they're going to be releasing more details in the coming weeks about some of these bigger plans, like a federal jobs guarantee that he was mentioning in his speech today.
But I think the biggest takeaway here is that he is trying to cement himself as the original candidate who embraced Democratic socialism in 2016, because now in this race there are so many other candidates.
CAVUTO: And he is. He is that. He is that. He's the original article, right.
LARSEN: There are so many other candidates now.
RICHEY: But, Neil -- Neil, let me interject.
CALDWELL: This is so troubling.
RICHEY: If we're going to talk about numbers, Neil, let's be clear about the current numbers.
The current numbers are this. Under President Trump, we have a record debt. We're at $22 trillion.
CAVUTO: Are you kidding me?
CAVUTO: Are you saying, as a Democrat, now you're worried about the debt?
CALDWELL: We have a record unemployment rate and more jobs than there are the people to apply for them.
The proof of this is in the government...
CAVUTO: By the way, neither Republican or Democrat should be bemoaning the debt, because it piles up under both of you.
But what -- Gianno, let me ask you about that.
CAVUTO: If you're going to talk and demand that Democrats come up with a way to pay for what they're talking about, you're kind of in a big old glass house, aren't you?
CALDWELL: Well, the truth of the matter is, Neil, Bernie Sanders has figured out a way to pay for it. And he says he wants to come to your house and he wants to eat off your table and pay for it.
CALDWELL: He wants to eat on mine. He wants to eat on everybody on the screen.
CAVUTO: He has at least extended beyond just the rich. He's now looking at, well, I need a middle-class tax hike of some sort.
And God bless him. I mean, he's gone beyond the traditional sort of, let's target the rich fat debts and corporations, because he knows that going after them alone isn't going to solve that.
So what I'm just curious about what's going on here, Rashad, which is, when people do realize that they're going to pay for this, more than just the rich, is it going to backfire on the Bernie Sanders, on the Elizabeth Warrens, on the Kamala Harrises? What do you think?
RICHEY: I give people more credit than that, Neil, because, right now, I feel as if most individuals know that if we're talking about moving to a space of free college tuition, Medicare for all, that that is a tax hike.
RICHEY: As a matter of fact, in the plans that have been presented by some of the major candidates, they have talked about -- Bernie Sanders especially, he has talked about the fact, yes, you're going to pay a little bit more in taxes, period.
And guess what? You still have an increase of Americans saying, Medicare for all is still a good thing.
CAVUTO: All right, until you have to pick up the tab.
Emily Larsen, the last prominent Democrat to promise tax hikes when he was running was Walter Mondale. And it didn't work out well for him.
RICHEY: Didn't work out well for him.
CAVUTO: What do you think? What do you think, Emily? Where is this going?
CALDWELL: It seems like hard work means nothing anymore to these Democratic socialists. Hard work means nothing.
LARSEN: Well, I think that this is going to be very difficult for Sanders to embrace all of these ideas, when there are so many -- so much other competition in the field.
And we're seeing it's probably going to be a battle between him and Vice President Joe Biden, because Biden's trying to take a middle ground approach, which is also risky for him. He's betting that most Democratic voters are more moderate.
And there was actually a poll a couple months ago, I think a YouGov poll, that said about half of Democratic voters consider themselves moderate or conservative. And so that is going to be risky for...
CAVUTO: That's a moving target. That's a moving target.
CALDWELL: And most individuals are -- most voters are independent. So that makes sense.
But it's going to be a tough road, I think, for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, because they're depending on a lot of young folks to come out to the polls and vote for them. And that may not happen.
CAVUTO: A lot of things may or may not happen.
RICHEY: The reason why Biden is polling at number one is because of his record numbers in places like Texas.
CAVUTO: OK, we will watch this. Now, it's still early, as you all warn me.
CALDWELL: Polls don't vote. People do.
CAVUTO: I like that. I'm going to put that on a bumper sticker.
CAVUTO: All right, guys, thank you all very, very much.
We're just learning right now that the House Oversight Committee has gone ahead and approved a contempt resolution for Attorney General William Barr, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross over this census question that asks, are you a legal resident of the United States? They wanted information on that about how they came to put that question back in a census survey that was in it for decades.
These are the same folks who didn't call for this when it was taken out. But now that it's back in, it's a big hullabaloo. We're on it after this.
CAVUTO: All right, Donald Trump Jr. returning to Capitol Hill today to testify behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee.
This is the second time again on the Mueller probe.
Catherine Herridge with how that all went down.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thanks, Neil. And good afternoon.
The president's son was behind closed doors for about two hours, taking questions from Senate investigators, who are trying to deconflict testimony from Donald Trump Jr. and other witnesses.
Afterwards, he addressed reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP JR., SON OF DONALD TRUMP: I don't think I changed anything of what I said, because there was nothing to change. I'm glad that this is finally over. We're able to put some final clarity on that.
And I think the committee understands that.
Thank you very much, guys. I appreciate it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: The president's son was asked about a number of issues, including a 2016 Moscow Trump Tower real estate project that never materialized.
The president's son has said he was only peripherally aware of the project, as well as the controversial 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where a Russian lawyer promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. He said that this information wasn't widely shared.
Investigators were trying to deconflict that with the testimony of the president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, who said he kept the president's son deeply briefed on the Trump Tower real estate project, and another witness who said that the Trump Tower meeting was shared beforehand with other members of the campaign team.
Meantime, over on the House side, we had another vote on a resolution late yesterday which authorizes Democratic lawmakers to sue in court to enforce a subpoena against the attorney general, William Barr, and the former White House counsel Don McGahn.
The leadership took to the House floor yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: Democrats we're at a constitutional crisis. And they're right, but not because of Attorney General Barr.
The true constitutional crisis is this. When Democrats can't win, they change the rules.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: No one is above the law. Everyone will be held accountable, including the president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: Just to be clear, this resolution is not strictly a contempt resolution, because that key word wasn't in the text -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Catherine, thank you very, very much.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
CAVUTO: On to other matters right now.
The president is calling for Democrats to simply step up and address the immigration crisis by sitting down with him.
Meet the Democrat who says: I'm here. I have always been here -- after this.
CAVUTO: All right, the president slamming Democrats for being unwilling to work with him, even though he's done much of the mother lode here by threatening these tariffs, which got the Mexicans to get to the southern border, their southern border, try to police that, try to stop Central Americans from walking through Mexico, getting into our country.
So he's done his part. What are the Democrats doing?
Texas Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar, he is here to say, plenty.
Congressman, he's saying, not enough and you and your colleagues aren't doing nearly enough.
What do you say?
REP. HENRY CUELLAR, D-TX: Well, in 2014, when the surge of unaccompanied kids came in, Kay Granger, a Republican from Texas, myself, we actually were able to transfer $80 million to the southern part of Mexico, so they can secure their border with Guatemala.
We should have kept that up for a while, so we could help Mexico secure their border, because less people that are coming over to us, the better it is for the United States, less people we have to address here in the U.S.
CAVUTO: All right, now, he's talking about 45 days, that maybe we will see how this is going, and if the numbers have come down dramatically, give it another 45 days. If not, all bets are off, tariffs again.
What do you think of that?
CUELLAR: Well, again, I'm one of those we shouldn't use the tariffs to threaten Mexico.
We ought to get them to the table. They are at the table.
CAVUTO: But this brought them to the table, right? I mean, I agree with you. It's a novel way to go about enforcing a policy here. And it's dangerous. I get that.
But he's arguing it worked and it got the Mexicans to blink.
CUELLAR: Well, and, again, if you look at the internal politics in Mexico, they're having a big debate, because they feel that President Trump got them to do some things that should have been done under other circumstances.
But regardless of that...
CAVUTO: But they did it, right? They did it. Stuff that was talked about, they have now implemented and hopefully will implement, right?
CUELLAR: And they're -- they're going to be sending 6,000 National Guard.
The question is going to be this, very important question. Will their National Guard be able to enforce immigration laws? Because we know that, when our military go to our southern border, they cannot enforce immigration law.
So it will be interesting to see what powers they give their National Guard to see if they have powers to enforce immigration law. Otherwise -- Mexican law -- otherwise, they're going to be doing the same thing that our military is doing in the southern border, which is, again, provide support services, but not enforce immigration law.
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman, I apologize, with breaking news.
But thank you for joining us again.
As the congressman and I were talking, we're getting a report now from The New York Post. Our own Charlie Gasparino has indicated this as well, that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is ready to suspend his 2020 independent presidential bid.
It might have something to do with the emergence of Joe Biden to be a prohibitive favorite for the nomination. Still too early to tell that, of course. But he was impressed with the moderating stances of Joe Biden. And that might be among the reasons -- money could be as well -- for him to say, this 2020 independent bid for now suspended.
More after this.
CAVUTO: What's that they say about no good deed goes unpunished?
You might think it's a reason to cheer, but doing that now has the U.S. women's national soccer team taking some major heat. They celebrated all 13 goals against Thailand in the first round of the World Cup yesterday, some say to excess.
Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman, the host of -- is it "PARK'D" or just "Parked"?
ABBY HORNACEK, "PARK'D" HOST: "PARK'D."
CAVUTO: "PARK'D," OK.
Of course, I'm talking about Fox Nation star Abby Hornacek.
Abby, what they're saying is, they kind of spiked the ball, they overdid it. Did they?
I think it's an interesting controversy here, because goal differential is the tiebreaker when it comes to group play. So, that being said, they had to score as many goals as possible.
And I was an athlete in college. And at every single level, they tell you, never play down to your competition, because you might build bad habits. In this case, maybe they build bad habits when they play Chile in match two.
All of that being said, I think the celebration was a little bit excessive.
CAVUTO: What did they do? They were whooping it up with every goal?
HORNACEK: Well, the score was 13-0, right?
So maybe when it's one through four, you can celebrate. And the women's national team is probably excited and celebrating more because they're fighting for women's rights, equal pay, all of that.
HORNACEK: So they should be celebrating. I'm a little old-school, don't love the celebrations anyway.
But when it becomes 11-0, 12-0, 13-0...
CAVUTO: Actually you wouldn't have them score fewer goals, just don't overdo it.
HORNACEK: No. Just tone down the celebration.
MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: See.
Yes, my argument is the fact that, listen, all right, was it a little excessive? Maybe a little, because it's like, act like you have been there before. But the thing is, a lot of them haven't been there before. It's the World Cup. They worked their whole entire lives for this moment.
GUNZELMAN: And, listen, I don't care. Let's go, USA.
When it comes down to it, they didn't choose to play Thailand. It just so happens they played Thailand. They can't choose their opponents. All right? And the argument that I have, though, also, people are like, oh, well, maybe they should have went easy on them.
No, because this it's almost like being sympathetic. I think that would have been worse.
CAVUTO: And then some of them take it lightly, then all of a sudden, that big goal lead is down to just a couple of goals.
GUNZELMAN: Right. Yes, you play to win the game. You play to win the game.
HORNACEK: You have to build momentum. That 13-0 victory was so important in their momentum.
But Thailand has never...
CAVUTO: How does the score -- when you advance, is it the size of the victories too that matter?
HORNACEK: Well, it's just that the goal differential is the tiebreaker. So if they were head to head with someone else, and they say, OK, we have more goals than you, they advance.
So you have to play that way. But Thailand has never made it to the World Cup. So they, of course...
GUNZELMAN: Right. But we didn't really beat up -- beat up on them. I mean, I'm sure they were happy to be there.
HORNACEK: Well, 13-0?
GUNZELMAN: It's Thailand.
CAVUTO: Doesn't that happen at the Olympics, though...
GUNZELMAN: Well, 13. It could been 14.
GUNZELMAN: I hope we bat Chile 15-0 next.
HORNACEK: I will say Alex Morgan did go over and soothe the goalkeeper, the Thai goalkeeper, after her victory, which is nice.
CAVUTO: That's nice.
HORNACEK: It's good sportsmanship.
CAVUTO: But in these international arenas, you notice that the Americans are more gung-ho and in your face, which is fine, but that is not well- received internationally. Like, the French frown on it.
GUNZELMAN: But what I would say to that is, right, but people are like, oh, well, now the rest of the world's going to hate us.
Who cares? I mean, that's the whole point of being the best.
HORNACEK: The rest of the world already hates us.
GUNZELMAN: Yes, they already hate us to begin with.
CAVUTO: You want to be liked, don't you? You don't want to rub it in someone's face.
GUNZELMAN: Listen, everyone should strive to be like America in everything, all right?
HORNACEK: But I like your point. Act like you have been there before.
GUNZELMAN: Right, to an extent, yes.
HORNACEK: Maybe when it's 11 through 13, act like you have been there before.
But I think it's also part of this like...
CAVUTO: Who are they playing next?
GUNZELMAN: They play Chile on Sunday.
CAVUTO: And the men are nowhere to be found, right?
HORNACEK: They didn't make it to the World Cup this year.
GUNZELMAN: That's not ideal right now to be a men's soccer player in America.
CAVUTO: Not ideal, yes. It's a tough time.
CAVUTO: Guys, thank you very, very much.
HORNACEK: Thank you.
CAVUTO: Soccer, this is the one that, like, you kick?
HORNACEK: With the ball. You can't touch it with your hands, unless you're the goalie.
CAVUTO: Got it. Got it. Guys, thank you very, very much.
All right, a Fox first for us. And we're happy to have her come by, Valerie Jarrett.
She's got a bestseller out, the former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, her take on the race, the politics, the discourse in our nation, good or bad. She is very, very riveting to listen to, whether you're on the right or the left. And she is here, our special guest on FOX Business and this fine show.
Until then, "The Five" right now.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.