Published August 06, 2019
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," August 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Thank you, Shepard.
Indeed, the mayor will soon be out there to talk to those who want to know a little bit more about the nine killed and the 27 injured in Dayton.
Let's go directly to the mayor, who is not a fan of the president coming to her city. Let's listen in.
NAN WHALEY, MAYOR OF DAYTON, OHIO: All right. OK.
Good afternoon, everyone. I wanted to just give a couple of updates that we have, and then we will have some more detailed updates about the investigation.
We have received several media inquiries to attend our National Night Out event. To make it easier for you to join us, we have arranged for an RTA bus to transport interested media to the multiple neighborhood sites in tonight's program.
The bus will be at the convention center at 4:15 and depart around 4:30. I ask, if you're going to National Night Out, to use this, because I don't want our neighborhoods to have a ton of cars moving in, that we're trying to just be as succinct as possible.
I will be on National Night Out.
Chief Biehl, are you going? Yes.
So, yes, we're all -- yes, we're all going. And we will be will be on a bus as well. So that's -- that's our offer to you.
All right, next, I'm going to turn it over to Chief Biehl to provide an update on the investigation.
RICHARD BIEHL, DAYTON, OHIO, POLICE CHIEF: Thank you, Mayor.
I'm joined this afternoon with Todd Wickerham, the special agent in charge for the Cincinnati FBI office. We will provide a brief, but important update on the progress of the investigation of the mass shooting that occurred in the city of Dayton on August 4.
While we do not have true clarity of motive of the assailant, based upon the evidence obtained, we do have a more developed picture of the evolving mind-set of the assailant.
The materials reviewed thus far reveal that the individual had a history of obsession with violent ideations, to include mass shootings, and had expressed a desire to commit a mass shooting.
Subsequent material has revealed an orientation toward violent ideologies, which elevate this case to one of federal interest. Thus, the FBI will be taking the central role in certain aspects of this case, while the Dayton Police Department continues to focus on the homicide investigation.
So I now ask Agent Wickerham to provide more information about the shift in investigative focus.
However, I will clarify that the information provided will be very limited and not likely to be expanded upon what is already being shared.
TODD WICKERHAM, FBI AGENT: So thank you, Mayor. Thank you, chief.
My name is Todd Wickerham. I'm the special agent in charge for the FBI Cincinnati field office.
So the Dayton police and the FBI have a long history of working together side-by-side in this community, including very, very important Joint Terrorism Task Force assignments that Dayton police officers have, as well as our Safe Streets Task Force. So working together is nothing new for us.
And FBI agents showed up in the early morning hours in the Oregon District after this horrific mass attack. So our investigation with Dayton police is ongoing. We have not made any final investigative conclusions into the motive of the shooter or if he was assisted by any other people in this attack.
However, we have uncovered evidence throughout the course of our investigation that the shooter was exploring violent ideologies. And based upon this evidence, we're initiating an FBI investigation side-by-side with the Dayton police homicide investigation to make sure we get to the bottom and we explore everything and we try to understand the best we can why this horrific attack happened.
So, as we continue to conduct this investigation, we're striving to do three things, what -- to figure out three things -- what, if any, ideology influenced the attacker to conduct this attack, who, if anyone, helped him or had any advance knowledge of his intentions to conduct this attack, and why he committed this specific act of violence.
One piece of evidence does not necessarily constitute a motive, hence the need for a thorough, methodical investigation.
The case is ongoing, so we cannot provide any detailed information into our investigative activities at this time. It's absolutely critical that we do this investigation the right way. This community and our country deserves an answer as to why this happened.
So we ask anybody with additional information regarding this investigation to provide that information to the FBI tip line. It's a tip line that is available 24/7 for somebody to give information.
That tip line is 1-800-CALL-FBI. If you call there and ask to give information about the Dayton shooting, somebody will take that information and provide it both to the Dayton Police Department and to the FBI.
There is another outlet in which people can provide any type of digital evidence that they may have collected, whether on that night or any social media evidence that they may feel is relevant to why this attack happened, and that can be provided at www.FBI.gov/DaytonShooting.
Now, I also want to thank all of the organizations in this community that have stepped up to help the grieving process and the healing process begin here in Dayton.
I will take a couple of questions.
QUESTION: Agent, can you explain the violent ideology and what violent ideology is it that you're interested in?
WICKERHAM: So, I'm not going to get into specifics as to what we found, because we're so early in this investigation. There is so much more material to go through and evidence to obtain in this investigation.
But we have found very specific violent ideologies that the shooter we know followed and was interested in. So that has given us enough information to open up an FBI investigation to make sure we have every single tool, every investigative capability to figure out why this happened and to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
QUESTION: To be clear, there is a predicate for a federal investigation. And that would be something having to do with either politics, religion, race, that sort of thing, right?
WICKERHAM: So anybody that wants to do violence, that is part of what has to be shown to a federal investigation of this type.
And so, yes, we have found very specific -- and one thing I will point out, that we have not found any indication that it is a racial motivation. That is not any -- we have not found anything that indicates that it is a racial motivation at this time.
I'm not -- again, we have a lot to go through. So, but different violent ideologies will cause an investigation to be initiated. And we have found evidence of a violent ideology. But I'm not going to get into the specifics.
QUESTION: Did you discover this off his computer?
WICKERHAM: We did not discover it off his computer. We're still going through a lot of digital evidence, but I'm not going to tell you exactly where we found this, because we still have a lot more to go through.
WICKERHAM: We do not have that information at this time. We don't know.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) preexisting ideology that exists that he subscribes to? Or what does it mean specifically?
WICKERHAM: So what we saw is, this individual, the attacker in this case, very specifically seeking out information that promotes violence.
QUESTION: How far back (OFF-MIKE)
WICKERHAM: We're going back as far as we need to find -- try to find out why he did this and also if anybody else knew about this or was involved with this.
QUESTION: ... planning this event or that he was planning to do a different type of event or how premeditated was this event?
WICKERHAM: We don't know at this time.
QUESTION: Do you have any knowledge of him having any mental illness?
WICKERHAM: I don't have that information at this time. I'm not going to give any more specifics about what we do or what we do not know.
QUESTION: Did the events in El Paso affect the timeline of this at all?
WICKERHAM: We have not seen any evidence that the events in El Paso influenced him at this point. Again, we have lots of evidence to go through.
WICKERHAM: No, we have no evidence that the shooter was on the FBI's radar prior to this event.
That's it. Thank you.
NAN WHALEY, MAYOR OF DAYTON, OHIO: Thank you, Special Agent.
Next, I'm going invite Assistant Chief Matt Carper to the podium to discuss the president of the United States' visit tomorrow.
MATT CARPER, ASSISTANT DAYTON POLICE CHIEF: Thank you, Mayor.
I know there has been a lot of interest in the potential visit from the president into the Miami Valley area tomorrow. We don't have the specifics yet. As soon as we can get more additional information as it unfolds, we will release what we're able to release to the public.
I know any closures or inconveniences or interruptions would be minimal, so we do understand that. So we will share more information as it becomes available and as we're able to.
That is all I'm able to offer right now.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) ... meeting with the president privately?
CARPER: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Will the family of the victims be meeting with the president privately?
CARPER: I will give you more information as the details are confirmed.
QUESTION: What about protests? (OFF-MIKE)
CARPER: I'm not aware of any organized protests tomorrow.
QUESTION: Can you talk about manpower? Is there going to be extra police on the scene, at the routes? What is that going to look like?
CARPER: With any presidential visit or motorcade going back decades, that is the case.
QUESTION: Sir, at the White House today, Kellyanne Conway suggested that Secret Service had communicated to the president that both Dayton and El Paso are safe and ready for the president's visit.
Would you agree with that characterization, that assessment? Is Dayton ready at this moment?
CARPER: We are always ready for any kind of dignitary protection assignment. Like I said, going back decades we have provided those and sometimes multiple occasions per year.
QUESTION: Given the circumstances that happened here?
CARPER: That is correct. We are ready. Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I ask one more question of the agent, just one more?
You said that he wasn't influenced by events in El Paso, correct?
WICKERHAM: I didn't say that, no. I said we don't have -- not developed any evidence at this point that says that he's influenced by El Paso.
QUESTION: Do you have any evidence developed that he was influenced by other events? We have had several recently.
WICKERHAM: We still have a lot of evidence to go through, so I'm not going to say anything else about that.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) shooter's history (OFF-MIKE)
WHALEY: I think we have discussed everything we're going to discuss about the investigation. So are there any other questions?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) homicide investigation. As you continue to look into that gun and the ammunition, have you found any evidence that there was any violation of current gun laws by the shooter?
BIEHL: No, we have not.
QUESTION: Could you speak from the podium?
WHALEY: Yes. They want to get that on their digital.
BIEHL: That will be easy. No, we have not.
QUESTION: Any new information leading up to why they may split up the brother and sister?
BIEHL: I don't know that that is clear. We just -- we don't have any specific information to really understand it at this time. We just know it happened.
QUESTION: What is your take on the governor's proposal that he laid out today, 17-point plan?
BIEHL: You know, actually, I have been a little too busy to read the governor's proposal. So until I have a chance to read and evaluate it, I really can't comment.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) tomorrow for the president coming in and what people should do?
WHALEY: Well, you were all there. So I don't need to -- I don't want to keep on going. But I don't know what you're really asking, frankly, actually.
WHALEY: Oh, yes, I will welcome him in an official capacity as mayor, since he is in the office of the president.
QUESTION: The search warrant of the house, did they find any other guns? (OFF-MIKE)
BIEHL: We're not going to get into the evidence that was seized in that search warrant. That is all part of the investigation. And we haven't had a chance to even evaluate some of the evidence at this point. So...
QUESTION: Any update on the person who was driving in the car with them, brother and sister?
WHALEY: So we're done talking about the investigation. So I think we're done with questions today. We appreciate -- and I will see some of you at National Night Out.
CAVUTO: All right, short and sweet.
The mayor and other officials from Dayton, Ohio, offering very little new information on the shooter or what was behind the timing of this only hours after the El Paso killings.
What they do know is, they're preparing for the president's arrival tomorrow. And even though the mayor had said that it wasn't a good idea, that she. in her capacity of mayor of that city, will be there to officially greet him, as will other authorities, but still so much they do not know to get to the bottom of a killing that occurred, again, within hours of the El Paso killings.
Better than 31 people, between the two cities, their lives were snuffed out in unexplainable, still unexplainable attacks.
In the meantime, getting back to what was going on today in the news and the markets' attempt at a comeback, after everything that transpired yesterday in the worst single selling day of the year. That was then, a bit of a different market today.
Susan Li at the New York Stock Exchange with more on that.
SUSAN LI, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.
I would describe the mood here at the New York Stock Exchange as what we call constructive, meaning things aren't terrible, things aren't great, but there has been buying in names that investors think still has value.
In fact, I think the market action has actually been encouraging, since you saw this lift in stocks at midday, at around 2:00 p.m., and accelerated into the close. And that's a positive sign that stockholders think that their stock holdings won't be losing value the next day.
Now, what's promoting this bargain buying? Well, the idea that things aren't getting worse, so meaning that the Chinese currency didn't weaken further last night, and China and Beijing didn't retaliate more after being labeled as a currency manipulator.
Also clear signs that the Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, will be cutting interest rates again in September. So we saw the names that were badly hit yesterday lead the advance today, the names like Apple, Visa, Nike and McDonald's accounting for more than half of the Dow's rally.
And it's probably not coincidence that these -- these companies actually get a lot of their sales from the Chinese market. But the main takeaway here, talking to investors, is that they think things will actually get worse before they get better in this U.S.-China trade dispute, but see the Central Bank and the Federal Reserve as their backstop to any market slide.
And that's encouraging for a lot of buyers. We have 100 percent of the market expecting an interest rate cut in September and over 80 percent expect at least one more before the year is done. And that's enough probably to sustain the rally that we have seen this year -- Neil, back to you.
CAVUTO: Thank you, Susan, very, very much.
So enough about investors. What about shoppers? What about you?
To Fox's Bryan Llenas at a Macy's flagship store in Manhattan on that -- Bryan.
BRYAN LLENAS, CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon.
Well, President Trump threatening to institute a 10 percent tariff on some $300 billion worth of Chinese-made goods come September 1.
Well, that essentially means most products that Americans use on a daily basis. If those tariffs go into effect, take a look at this. Here are just some of the food products that would be affected. That's tariffs on coffee, beef, sugar, candy, chocolate.
As for other products, well, you name it, school supplies, toys, underwear, TVs, electronic devices, footwear, coats, linens. We spoke to shoppers who weren't too happy about the prospect of having to pay more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It absolutely is affecting our pocketbook. I think it's affecting in what we're paying. And we don't see it because it's so tiny and incremental. But, ultimately, it's not going to come out of corporate profits. It's going to come out of what consumers are paying.
I'm pretty convinced of that, number one. Number two, the Chinese that, as we have seen this week, they're just going to drop their currency so they can compete in manufacturing wars.
At the end of the day, we're fighting a battle we can't win.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not happy about it. I think anything that's going to add to the -- our expenses is not a good thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it would benefit the United States, then, yes, I'm fine with that, yes, 10, 20 -- yes, like, if it helps the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he's going to throw the economy into turmoil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LLENAS: Now, experts say consumers haven't been seeing those widespread price increases just yet. But if this new tariff is instituted, the fear is, well, people are going to start filling in their pocketbook -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Bryan Llenas, thank you very, very much.
To market watchers Art Hogan and Sam Stovall, Hitha Herzog and Kathryn Rooney Vera.
Art Hogan, we retraced a little bit of ground, not all the ground. What do you think?
ART HOGAN, MARKET STRATEGIST: No, it's interesting.
This news kind of started last Thursday. So we had a full day Friday, and certainly the worst day of the year on Monday, to try to recalibrate where we are on the U.S.-China trade war. Today was one of those days where we got very little news on that front.
I think enough damage had been done in the short term. I think there's probably more damage to do. But I think that's going to come with new news, and if the new news seems worse than what we know already, but for the time being, I think it was good to claw back a little of yesterday's gains and get a little bit little more stable ground, at least in the near term.
CAVUTO: You know, Hitha, it really comes down to the consumer, doesn't it? I mean, if he or she is still predisposed to buy, and not rattled by the likelihood of higher prices certainly come September 1.
What do you think?
HITHA HERZOG, RETAIL WATCHER: I think that's definitely a concern.
And while the reporter was doing the interview with one of the consumers out there on the street, I definitely can feel the anxiety that's out on the shopper beat out there.
But what people don't understand is that a lot of these companies will not pass that uptick in price to the consumer just yet. If there is a price increase, it's probably going to go first to the vendor, and then to consumer.
And if we're looking at prices into Q4, which is anywhere between September and December, those prices are already fixed. So these retailers have already anticipated that there might be some sort of issue with the trade war and tariffs being imposed.
So the prices that we're going to see going into the end of 2019 are pretty much set.
CAVUTO: Kathryn Rooney Vera, Goldman Sachs, among other firms of light, said, this is not going to resolve anytime soon, in fact, not even before the 2020 election.
If that were the case, then what?
KATHRYN ROONEY VERA, BULLTICK CAPITAL MARKETS HOLDINGS: Well, Neil, let's face. I can help assuage the concerns of your man on the street, the consumer.
The fact is, Neil, that we have had 25 percent tariffs for months now. And we have not seen an impact on import prices or any inflation metric whatsoever, Neil. In fact, inflation has been decelerating. It's been declining.
On top of that, every time the yuan weakens more, that makes imports cheaper. On top of that, let me add one more point I think it's very critical for the audience to realize, is that everything that we consume in this country is not imported, and everything we import doesn't come from China.
It's actually 20 percent come -- 20 percent of what we consume is imported, of which 17 percent comes from China. So I think we need to really think long and hard about the impact, not be panicked, and the consumer doesn't have to fear an astronomical increase in inflation.
Inflation is currently falling. We're at 1.4 percent. We're below the Fed's inflation target.
CAVUTO: Now, we should point out, because of that, Sam, the expectation is that the Federal Reserve, if it certainly looks like this won't be resolved even before the election, is going to be there as a backstop cutting rates. Do you agree with that?
SAM STOVALL, CFRA INVESTMENT STRATEGIST: Well, I think that's what the president is hoping for, is that he can create an uptick, if you will, in the tension with China, so that he can force another rate cut.
Before this additional 10 percent, our expectation was that the Fed would skip September, and then cut by another 25 basis points in October, and then wait to see what the data show for December. But now it seems as if that's been accelerated.
CAVUTO: So, Art Hogan, when you talk to your clients, some of whom, I imagine, get a little nervous after days like yesterday, which do you tell is more realistic of the environment, yesterday or maybe today?
HOGAN: Well, I think they're both part of the environment.
It's part of the risk that's natural in the market. We talk about the fact that we have had 35 percent drawdowns since 2009. It's a natural happenstance of the market. We just had one in May. We have had two this year now. We average about three a year.
And just stick to your long-term plan. Don't get -- don't let the volatility shake you out of the plan. That's why stocks over the long haul get you 8 percent of year vs. bonds that get you 2 percent a year. That's the price of admission. These are going to be -- there's going to be times like this.
But at the end of this, we're going to find an exit and things will get better. And I think that overreacting to days like yesterday miss days like today.
CAVUTO: You know, Hitha, there had been concern even prior to the China thing that we were seeing signs that -- of slowing economic growth, not reversing, but increases were getting smaller.
A key gauge of the services sector, like some in the manufacturing sector, showing slowing momentum, not recessionary, by any means, does that worry you? Is that the kind of drip, drips up that, apart from what's going on in Asia, could be something that we have to look at here?
HERZOG: I think we have had about nine years of growth. We have been looking at when we had the last recession, which was in 2008.
And if you think about what we have seen in the last even -- this has been almost 10 years now, more than 10 years of growth, I think when we look at the markets, and its ebbs and flows, this is probably going to happen.
I mean, we are destined to have a little bit -- a little bit of a pullback. With that said, I think that that is certainly a concern. But we're not looking at something that is going to be so impending that the consumer is going to pull back completely.
For the most part, jobs have been looking really great. I think that is one of the indicators that people feel great about the economy. And when you look at some of the retail earnings, those have been pretty strong, especially on the sales.
So people are definitely going out there and purchasing.
CAVUTO: Kathryn Rooney Vera, investors have been richly rewarded shaking off these trade-related jitters, because almost every time we have had them -- yesterday was a unique case, I grant you -- the markets have come back.
Now, that's been a winning formula for investors. Will it continue to be?
ROONEY VERA: Look, Neil, I think that's one of the primary reasons why I don't think that this is going to run into the 2020 elections, because, as equities fall -- we saw it in December, Neil.
I remember coming on your program, and the market had dropped 20 percent. And guys were calling for recession. It could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not worried the trade war is going to launch the U.S. or the globe into recession.
What I would be concerned about is that a prolonged period of time, markets continue to fall, and that leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy within the United States.
But incentives are aligned both for the U.S., President Trump, and China, which, by the way, China's in a far inferior position in terms of its economic growth than the United States, which is going above potential, above trend, record low unemployment, and no inflation whatsoever.
So I think the ball is in the Chinese court. Both have incentives to -- both sides have incentives to come to a deal. But the fact is, is that the U.S., Neil, is in a far better position than China, and we have a lot of chips on the table to bargain with.
CAVUTO: The chips that we bargain with, Sam, to her point, were that we are under the understanding China needs this deal a lot more than we do. Do you subscribe to that?
STOVALL: Oh, yes, I would say that would be the case.
Certainly, what we have been seeing with the most recent earnings reports are that the companies are able to get through this. Beginning of the second quarter reporting period, expectations were for a 2 percent decline. Now it looks like we're going to get a 2 percent gain.
And it's also taken off the table the threat of an earnings recession, and three out of every four earnings recessions have morphed into economic recessions.
So it seems that, for right now, we are in sort of a safer spot.
CAVUTO: All right, Art, do you agree with that? You have been around many a cycle, even though you don't look that old.
CAVUTO: But I'm wondering if you concur, I mean, that people are very sanguine on this and buying on these dips. That is standard behavior, and it's richly rewarded people.
HOGAN: Yes, it certainly has.
I think when we think about this, it's not necessarily the math, right?
HOGAN: The math is, we know what 25 percent on $250 billion is. We know what 10 percent. It's the uncertainty.
And I think the longer this drags out, if this is actually going to go to the 2020 election cycle, the more damage it does, because of uncertainty for the global economy. That has to at some point in time wash up on our shores.
For the time being, I think we're OK. We haven't escalated to that entire package. But I would love to see September be better in terms of negotiations, and to get back to that place where we say, OK, at least we're talking and things aren't getting worse, because I think that's where were a week ago. We need to get back there to make this better.
CAVUTO: Yes, hope springs eternal. Final word.
Guys, thank you all very much for taking time out of your busy day to talk about where we go from here.
Meanwhile, the White House is insisting that American farmers will be OK after China slaps back and stops buying farming goods, period.
The president tweeting about farmers this morning, amid the trade tensions with China, saying: "As they have learned in the last two years, our great American farmers know that China will not be able to hurt them, and that their president has stood with them and done what no other president would do. And I will do it again next year, if necessary."
So do farmers agree? Let's ask one.
Brian Duncan owns a hog farm in Polo, Illinois, joins us right now.
Brian, good to have you back.
BRIAN DUNCAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU: Hi, Neil. Nice to be with you. Welcome to the farm again. And some of those hogs are being a little noisy behind me. So I hope you can hear me.
CAVUTO: That's OK. They're big fans of mine.
CAVUTO: But I will say is -- the president, a big fan of farmers like you, he has your back, says he will continue to have your back. He uses a lot of the money we get off tariffs to compensate or provide credit to farmers to ease the blow.
Is that enough?
DUNCAN: Well, while farmers Neil, I think, were grateful for the assistance, the MFP, the most recent round that came out, and we're thankful for it, when we in agriculture look at this trade war, we're looking at something bigger.
We're looking at possible redirection of international supply lines. We're looking at perhaps China making investment in agriculture in South America or in Africa, and that would be competitors of American agriculture for generations to come.
And so while the MFP payment is appreciated, I don't think it comes close to making us whole on what we have got at risk here in this trade war, Neil.
CAVUTO: So what happens if we strike a deal?
Now, you have heard the skeptics, including Goldman Sachs, one of the firms that says, we don't think there will be a deal at all.
But leaving that aside, what is he going to be like after we do? I hope we do. I'm sure you do as well. But a lot of people say the landscape has changed, that China has found alternative markets for the stuff that you provide, and that a lot of American manufacturers have found a lot of the alternatives to China and how they get their goods, so that it will be a changed world.
The world has gone on without us in a lot of ways, Neil. We have seen other countries forge trade agreements, whether it's with TPP or with Japan and Europe. And we're still on the sidelines and a lot of places. We can't even get yet USMCA through Congress, which is -- which is necessary for the American farmer.
I think the world has changed. And I think farmers worked really hard to see a rules-based approach to trade put in place over these last 20 or 30 years that increased our exports markedly.
And I think we wonder about what a rules-based approach looks like going forward and the stability and the sensibility that has provided.
CAVUTO: I wonder if you, regardless of the battles back and forth, trust the Chinese.
They had committed to the president that they were going to buy a lot more agricultural goods. It turns out that they didn't. And now they're sending the word out that they don't want to buy any agricultural goods from the United States.
I don't know if there are markets that could give them the same number of pork and beef and wheat, barley, soybeans, shipments that American farmers can provide, but they seem to be looking at that.
What do you think?
DUNCAN: Well, again, it is concerning for us, and especially, Neil, as you look at these hogs behind me.
The American pig farmer sits in a really advantageous position to help China with the tremendous needs they have right now for pork, given what the disease African swine fever has done in their -- to their own hog herd.
And so we would like to be a supplier. But, Neil, when we are under a 62 percent, and buyers from China become comfortable with other suppliers, be they Canada, Brazil, Spain, the E.U., once they have those relationships forged, I'm sure you're well aware that it gets harder to crack in that -- crack that door open.
But the American pig farmer sits here ready to help narrow the trade deficit up significantly, if we could get these trade wars behind us.
And, Neil, we have been seeing and hearing promise of an end of these and an exit ramp for almost a year-and-a-half, since the first time you were on my farm. And it seems to be further in the distance than closer to me right now.
CAVUTO: Yes. And I remember you saying you weren't so confident that the talk was matching the action, or that it would be resolved as quickly.
Brian, just hang in there. That's all I can say. Remarkable patience and grit, which I guess is typical of American farmers such as yourself.
Brian, thank you very much.
DUNCAN: Thank you, Neil.
Always a pleasure.
CAVUTO: Same here, my friend.
All right, a Walmart worker now is urging employees to go on strike, because Walmart will not stop selling guns. Never mind they don't sell the automatic weapons that were the issue in these multiple shootings, but they will not stop selling guns. And there's a reason for that.
The former Walmart USA CEO Bill Simon on that -- after this.
CAVUTO: All right, never mind that Walmart doesn't sell the semiautomatic weapons that were involved in the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio.
A worker there is urging a nationwide strike against the retailer.
Its former CEO on that.
CAVUTO: All right, less than 24 hours after a Walmart employee was urging it stop selling guns, a corporate Walmart employee is now urging all workers to strike until it does just that.
Walmart putting out a statement in response to this that: "There are many more constructive avenues for associates to offer feedback, such as e-mail or leader compensation," that "the vast majority of associates who want to share their views are taking advantage of those options."
The former Walmart USA CEO Bill Simon with us right now.
Bill, one guy, just one employee. Obviously, this doesn't represent the pervasive view of all employees. But this pressure that is suddenly on retailers that sell guns -- and Walmart is among the largest -- never mind you don't sell any of the semiautomatic or automatic weapons involved in these shootings.
How do you feel about Walmart's official response?
BILL SIMON, FORMER WALMART CEO: What -- Neil, first of all, it's good to be with you.
CAVUTO: Same to you.
SIMON: And the events this weekend were just horrifying. And like -- like every American, I personally am very saddened and am praying for all those that were impacted.
The answer is one that's going to have to be delivered by the country and by Congress. Retailers simply stopping selling guns won't solve the problem.
By most accounts, there's about 200 million guns in civilian hands in this country and about five million AR-type weapons in circulation. So simply just stopping the sale of them really won't -- won't accomplish what everybody's after.
And, in Walmart's defense, they haven't sold handguns in a long, long time. And they haven't sold these AR-type weapons since about 2015 or 2014. So they have they have moved on to them. Their firearm selection is primarily rifles and shotguns used for sportsmen and hunting.
CAVUTO: Do you wonder -- these shootings are so arbitrary and crazy.
And I -- and we're now learning that the assailant in this case might have just stopped by that particular Walmart. It was -- it was just random. He was hungry. And that might have been it. We don't know a lot of the details.
But do you think that the time has come, because other retailers have looked into this same sort of issue? Do we need to beef up security at stores? Do we need to start screening those who visit our stores? What do you think?
SIMON: wow. You know, after this weekend, it's hard to not really look at that seriously.
It's not as practical as you would think it would be. To add a security element to each and every store would fundamentally change the operation. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done. And I think -- I know the folks at Walmart. And they're looking at everything that they can do to try to make it -- make it safe, as is really every retailer.
Honestly, it's every retailers nightmare, what happened to Walmart last weekend, and really what happened in Dayton. Just a -- just a random act of violence is awfully hard to predict and to stop, even with -- even with security.
CAVUTO: Bill Simon, I wish we had more time.
With all the breaking news, we did want to get to you. And I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this, Bill Simon, the former Walmart USA CEO.
We're following these developments, as Bill was saying, on the reaction to the shooting, but also investor reaction to just the craziness, period, in and outside the markets.
How do you stay calm through any and all of this? Ken Fisher -- after this.
CAVUTO: All right, we came back a little bit today, the Dow up about 311 points, as we pointed out.
It didn't come near to wiping out the 767-point hit we experienced yesterday. But I remember early this morning talking to my staff on this. Someone put a call out to Ken Fisher, get his read on this up. He's an investment icon. He sort of steps back, looks at the big picture, might zig when others are zagging.
But he will certainly put this in some historical perspective. That's the pressure I have added.
Ken Fisher joins me right now.
Good to have you, Ken. Thanks for coming.
KEN FISHER, FOUNDER, FISHER INVESTMENTS: Always fun to be with you, Neil. Thanks for having me.
CAVUTO: Which is real, yesterday or today?
FISHER: I don't know that either is real.
In my "Only Three Questions" book, I once said that 2 percent is what the stock market thinks of as Tuesday.
FISHER: And the fact of the matter is, stocks bounce around a lot in the short term.
I think a bigger and better way to see this is the legendary phrase that goes back so far that you can't actually figure out who first uttered it, which is that bull markets end with a whimper, not with a bang.
And the reason that's true is that, if there were an announcement effect or kind of a notification effect, the market wouldn't be able to trap as many people on the downside as when it rolls over relatively quietly, and starts to go down slowly, which has too many people thinking about it as an opportunity to get in before the next big up leg.
Bull markets end with a whimper, not with a bang. When you remember that, what we have seen in the last little bit has been a bang, and therefore actually something that you should look forward to, appreciate and kind of think of that as a good thing, not a bad thing.
CAVUTO: All right, but there's also market lore to the thought that bull markets don't die, as much as they're murdered. I'm playing off the words that it's not a natural death.
So, to that end, is there...
FISHER: I agree with that.
CAVUTO: How would you describe what's happening now?
FISHER: So, what I would say, again, is bull markets end with a whimper, not with a bang, and the murder shows up later on.
The fact is, they start off gently. Categorically, from peak to trough, the average decline of a bull market -- a bear market -- excuse me -- is 2 to 3 percent a month, and never outside of that range.
There's one exception you can find to that, but it's the exception that proves the rule, which is 1987.
And other than that, these things take a long time. The murder comes later in the process, not in the beginning. In the beginning, it's a gentle decline.
If we think about what's been talked about, which is China, China is really a multifaceted issue right now that's been complicated by what's going on with Hong Kong, which helps our side, hurts the Chinese side, but is still complicated further by what's going on with North Korea right now, which hurts our side and helps the Chinese side.
And these conversations are convoluted, complicated and not going to end soon. And in some ways, as I said to you when we talked about Mexico the last time that I was on, these China discussions don't really want to end in a hurry.
They really want to end next year for President Trump's benefit. Ending them here and now in the short term doesn't really provide maximum benefit.
CAVUTO: What if we don't resolve them before the 2020 election?
Goldman, some other firms, I believe S&P, they all have varying statements to that degree, that they don't think -- not that they're prescient -- that they are resolved before the election. What do you think?
FISHER: So, what I think is that what we have seen over and over again from President Trump, and I believe we will see again -- I may be wrong -- is that if he has to settle for a little benefit, he will do it.
If he can get a bigger benefit, he will try for it. But if you take, for example, as was the case when I was on the last time, we were in the throes of looking at the potential Mexican tariffs. We saw him settle for a relatively small benefit.
That's a fairly standard thing. He's going to want a benefit. He's going to want to claim a victory. And if he has to claim a small one, it's better than nothing, if -- from his viewpoint, for the election.
And I seriously doubt that it will be impossible for him to do that.
CAVUTO: You know, he had said -- and you and I have talked about this before -- that, if he is not reelected, expect a market crash, and that almost all of the Democratic candidates are either going to wipe out the tax cuts that he put into effect or significantly adjust them.
And I think Joe Biden wants to take the corporate rate from 21 percent and 28 percent, below the 35 percent it was at when President Trump came into office.
But do you concur with that -- forget about political alliances -- that the markets would sort of get jolted by that?
FISHER: So, nobody likes whatever I have to say on this topic. Nobody likes this.
The fact of the mark -- the fact of the matter is, markets pre-price actions. They don't post-price them. And if you actually look at the effect after tax cuts and hikes, there is simply no positive correlation.
If you want to actually extrapolate your ideological views, liberal or conservative, post-tax cut or hike, there's no information there. The fact of the matter is, if we're to see that effect as we move toward 2020 and, if in fact, a Democrat is to be elected, the fear of that will be in the market next year.
After you move into the realm where something might actually happen, it'll be over. Markets move on. Markets don't wait.
CAVUTO: But they're not always prescient, right? They sometimes get it wrong.
Their knee-jerk reaction to what looked like Trump's election last time, they sold off, and then within hours were rebounding.
FISHER: Let's go back to that again.
The fear of Trump was in the market beforehand.
FISHER: Markets pre-priced that almost perfectly.
The fact of the matter is, if you look at that fear, it was beforehand.
I'm not saying that markets are perfectly prescient. What I'm saying is, there is no predictable outcome from a tax cut or hike that you can rely on in pricing securities. We have a very long history of tax cuts and hikes that go back a very long time, with market data in parallel.
FISHER: And there's no real thing you can learn from that.
People don't actually check data enough.
FISHER: The fact is the data don't lie, and they don't tell you what to do next with a long history. You can go back and check all the tax cuts and hikes of every type, in capital gains, income tax.
You can do them all, death tax. There's no information there.
CAVUTO: Ken, you ought to stick with this market stuff. You seem to know what you're talking about.
Ken Fisher, always good having you. Thank you very, very much.
FISHER: Thanks for having me, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right. I think we all just needed that big picture perspective.
Stay with us.
CAVUTO: Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok's political bias well-documented, of course. Now he is suing the bureau, claiming that his firing was politically motivated.
Doug McKelway has more from D.C. -- Doug.
DOUG MCKELWAY, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.
And Peter Strzok is firing back. In that lawsuit that was filed just this afternoon, Strzok maintains that unrelenting pressure from the Trump administration forced his firing last August, and that other federal employees who openly expressed raw political opinions or violated the Hatch Act were spared punishment or even reprimand.
Quoting from the suit now: "The Trump administration has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries."
Strzok adds that his firing was done over an official recommendation that he only be demoted and suspended. The suit names Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray as defendants. In the suit, Strzok seeks to get his job back. He asks for back pay and for the government to acknowledge that his rights were violated.
Strzok's name infamous after DOJ's inspector general launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails and uncovered Strzok's text messages with his then lover FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Strzok has long maintained that the texts were personal and did not color nor influence his professional work.
And neither the FBI and nor the Department of Justice has yet commented on the suit -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Doug McKelway, thank you very much, my friend.
Now, in the wake of these horrible tragedies, do lawmakers on both sides need to stop blaming, well, the other side?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TIM RYAN, D-OH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm talking about him creating an environment of intolerance in the United States.
Instead of out of many, one, he divides us. And you know it. And everybody else who pays a little bit of attention understands that this is his M.O. This is what he does.
And it -- like I said, it's not everybody who goes to his rallies or everybody...
CAVUTO: M.O.s work two ways, Congressman. M.O.s work two ways. You can seize on that -- on that view.
RYAN: But you are talking about politics.
CAVUTO: You are talking about politics.
RYAN: You're talking about politics, Neil.
CAVUTO: You just did. I don't have any interest in politics.
RYAN: No, I'm not. I'm not talking about politics.
I'm not. There are school shootings. You can't blame school shootings on somebody that are happening out there.
CAVUTO: You just blamed them on the president of the United States, Congressman.
RYAN: But when the president is...
CAVUTO: You just blamed them on the president of the United States.
RYAN: I was talking about...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, I apologize for being rude.
But, in retrospect, I probably could have been a little bit more rude here.
The idea that you can blame a president and all but say his language creates the kind of killings that we saw over the last couple of days, that says nothing about similar killings that occurred in the same fashion under a variety of presidents, Barack Obama, President Bush, Bill Clinton.
We can go back as far as you want.
To Fox News contributor theologian Jonathan Morris.
Jonathan, that was my only point. I mean, this has got to stop, whether it's a right thing, a left thing. The killer in Dayton had left-wing sympathies and extremist views, the killer in El Paso right-wing.
But stop already.
JONATHAN MORRIS, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, exactly.
And thank God we live in a country where neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party have as a platform mass murderers. Thank God we live in a country in which both parties say, that's wrong.
And so for politicians to come on and jump the gun -- and this is exactly what happened with -- the presidential candidates that I saw do it most egregiously were Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke.
They blamed very directly the president of the United States for these murders, saying that this was a right-wing conspiracy or ideology. And we found out 13 hours later that the shooter in Dayton, Ohio, had very different ideologies. He called himself a leftist.
He said, I'm a leftist, and I'm going to hell and I'm not coming back.
In the end, we're talking about hatred and anger that takes over a soul that has no love and purpose. And we have a great responsibility people who have a voice, especially politicians, in heated moments like a presidential election to tone it down and to say, yes, I disagree with the president, yes, I disagree with this congressman or congresswoman, but I'm not going to blame them for promoting mass murder.
CAVUTO: But it happens all the time, right, Jonathan?
MORRIS: Because nobody does it.
CAVUTO: I mean, we saw it in the case of the guy who was shooting up Republican congressmen at a baseball game on a field in the Capitol was a big Bernie Sanders supporter.
CAVUTO: Now, no one in his right mind blamed Bernie Sanders for this.
But that's where we have devolved on this. And I think it does no one any good resolving it.
MORRIS: Yes, you're absolutely right.
And language does matter. I have been plenty critical of plenty of people, including the president, on language that does not help the dialogue and the conversation our country needs.
We're living in chaotic times. And people are upset. We need to tone it down, speak truth, be strong, but be civil.
CAVUTO: All right, Jonathan, wise words. Thank you very, very much, my friend.
MORRIS: Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: Jonathan Morris.
All right, we are going to continue looking at this issue on all the shows here, and just sort out the reasoning. Regardless of your politics, you got to just bring it down a notch here on the left or the right. It's just wrong. It's just idiotic. And it's just not right.
Here comes "The Five."
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.