What battleground states will be the focus of the 2020 presidential election?

close

Video

What battleground states will be the focus of the 2020 presidential election?

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer says he believes Trump will win Ohio and Iowa again in the 2020 presidential election.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 12, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We might as well do what they always say they want. We will bring the illegal -- really call them illegals. I call them illegals. They came across the border illegally.

We will bring them to sanctuary city areas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, the president putting liberals, Democrats on the spot, but has he put himself on the spot and maybe within illegal territory by advocating that illegals who are piling up at the border be bussed to or however commuted to sanctuary cities in states all across the country?

It is said that it's his idea.

All right, John Roberts at the White House, where all this is going down -- John.

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

Yes, you know, what's interesting is this morning when we came in, this was just an idea that had been kicked around by a few aides and run up the flagpole at DHS. ICE had said we can't do it because it's an illegal sort of thing that we would have to do. It's not allowed under the laws governing the detention and release of illegal migrants in the United States, also runs afoul of appropriation -- also runs afoul of appropriations restrictions, because of the money that it would cost to do it.

But then, suddenly, this afternoon, the president tweets about it. So in the Roosevelt Room a little while ago, as he was talking about installing new 5G systems in the United States, I asked him about it. And here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are giving very strong consideration to having people after a 20 day period, because, again, you are not allowed legally to hold them for more than that, we will move them into sanctuary cities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Now, the reason the president is doing this, as he says, because Democrats have not been cooperating with him on trying to close loopholes in the immigration law and do a more comprehensive immigration reform plan, and, of course, build a wall along the southern border.

How did the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, respond to it? Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don't know anything about it. But, again, it's just another notion that is unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we face, as a country, as a people, to address who we are, a nation of immigrants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Nancy Pelosi happens to live in one of those sanctuary districts.

Now, there was a report earlier this morning in The Washington Post that the president was pressuring the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to adopt this policy, even if it were illegal.

The incoming acting director of ICE, Matt Albence, shot down that notion in a statement, saying -- quote -- "As the acting deputy," which he was before he became the acting director, "I wasn't pressured by anyone at the White House on this issue. I was asked my opinion and provided it. And my advice was heeded. The e-mail exchange is clear. And suggesting that indicates inappropriate pressure is absolutely inaccurate."

The president also saying this afternoon, Neil, that he is going to send more troops to the border. Patrick Shanahan, the acting secretary of defense, said the military stands ready to assist in any way it can. We didn't know, though, the number of troops that the president would be asking the Pentagon for.

And there was an incident just a little while ago. The reason we're inside here in the Briefing Room is a little while ago a man in one of those wheelchair scooters was sitting in front of the White House and ladies jacket on fire.

The Secret Service -- and there's many uniform Secret Service who stand at the ready outside the White House -- came running over to the gentleman to try to help put out the jacket, but he didn't want them to.

There is speculation by law enforcement officials that it might have been the man was trying to take his life in front of the White House by self- immolation. A law enforcement source tells me that there is a mental issue here. The man was injured. He's got first-degree burns, but not badly injured. He has been taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries - - Neil.

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

What John touched on at the beginning there and this idea that the president wants to call the Democrats out on helping him deal with this crisis at the border, something Jeh Johnson, the former homeland security secretary under Barack Obama, admitted on this count this president is right.

Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, GOP strategist Holly Turner.

Holly, the president is arguing here this was his idea. This wasn't something that an aide had tossed around and then they dismissed. And apparently he's still actively considering it. If he still is actively considering it, and it would be deemed illegal to do, where's this going?

HOLLY TURNER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look, the president's not going to implement something that's blatantly illegal. I think they're exploring all of the...

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Say what?

(LAUGHTER)

TURNER: No. Come on, Antjuan. Let me talk now.

The president is exploring different solutions. He's a problem-solver. He wants to solve this problem. I don't see why the Democrats are upset about this. It seems like a win-win to me. Sanctuary cities get what they want, illegal aliens occupying their city borders, and the rest of the country gets what they want, which is these people aren't released into their community.

So I don't really understand what the big problem is. Let the president go through the legal examination and see if it's something that's going to work out for the country. But, all in all, seems like a good solution to me.

CAVUTO: Antjuan?

SEAWRIGHT: Holly, so you're saying you are OK with doing something that Democrats and Republicans agree that's illegal?

What this is...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, technical, so are sanctuary cities. They're technically illegal, but go ahead.

SEAWRIGHT: Cavuto, what this is, is simply a...

CAVUTO: Neil is fine.

SEAWRIGHT: ... red meat throw towards Trump's base, because he knew it would form some type of outrage, anger and frustration, the same thing that Trump thrives off of every single day.

And it's going to throw the news cycle all about this. And so it's going to distract people away from something else.

CAVUTO: But, Antjuan, he can't win or lose no matter what he does.

(CROSSTALK)

SEAWRIGHT: No, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You were the first one to acknowledge we have got some issues at the border to address. You never deemed that they were a crisis.

Would you at least acknowledge we're at the point where the president is raising this as a possible solution in the meantime because Democrats aren't helping him out with anything?

SEAWRIGHT: But, Neil, that's not how you get to solutions in Washington, D.C. You do it by coming together, Democrats and Republicans working out a bipartisan solution, what 60 percent of the American people want.

CAVUTO: But, Antjuan, there was no Democratic support for a wall. It's fine. I get it. All right?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Wait. Wait. Antjuan, please.

Then you then move on to say, all right, when it comes to these crowded facilities, you wanted to put, and Democrats got to agree to a cap on that. So the president is sort of locked in this position, these places are overflowing. It gets to the point where a couple of weekends ago, many had to be let out of a couple of the facilities, with the understanding being we would get a better procedure going forward.

We don't have one. No one is finding one. What do you do?

SEAWRIGHT: What you and I both know is that when the president really wants something, he will go to his caucus and get it done.

So he can instruct his caucus, the legislative branch, to work with House Democrats to come up with a solution that he will sign into law, that he would deal with immigration in a real way.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You didn't answer my question.

On this issue, Antjuan, are you willing to say, all right, maybe the president just threw up his arms? I'm not endorsing his idea. And it is illegal. But that he's really at wit's end. I have got to do something. I have got better than 100,000 such crossings to deal with. And it's out of control and no one's helping me.

SEAWRIGHT: He can do something.

Again, he can go to this caucus, like he did on the tax scam and other legislation that he wanted done.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Antjuan, I love you dearly, but you refuse to answer a basic question.

(CROSSTALK)

SEAWRIGHT: I think I answered your question, Neil.

CAVUTO: No, you didn't.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Holly, the basic question here for Republicans then is you don't fight an illegality and trying to trump the law, no pun intended, by doing something that's even more illegal and more problematic for those communities.

Say what you will of these sanctuary cities and states. Is the president creating a bigger problem advocating this?

TURNER: Of course not, Neil.

He's creating a conversation. And who's to say that these sanctuary cities and the Trump administration can't sit down and work out an agreement where those illegal aliens can be transferred to those areas legally?

But the real point...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, Democrats say that when they have offered that in the past, that there's not much push or return when it comes to dealing with DACA, the kids of illegals who are here in this country or a host of other issues, or even on how you define what you do with the wall.

The president says a wall and a structure, et cetera. They say something else. So they say that he's not budging, that he's not moving.

TURNER: Well, the Democrats have had the House for 100 days now. They have brought nothing of substance for the president to sign on any of these important issues.

SEAWRIGHT: Oh, my goodness, Holly.

TURNER: And there are some critical issues, but they haven't bought anything.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I don't see anyone talking to anyone. You know that? I really don't.

(CROSSTALK)

SEAWRIGHT: Holly, they couldn't anything through the Senate. They passed bills out of the House, whether it's raising wages, whether it's health care. They have passed a number of bills.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Oh, Antjuan, be serious here.

You doth protest too much. And both sides play this game, but in your case, Antjuan, you talked about, yes, we have got to do something on the border, we have got to do something. We have mutual agreement on something.

There was agreement for security at the border, and then Democrats shelved it. Under Barack Obama, there was agreement generally to at least address more border fencing. And then, all of a sudden, they're opposed to it.

SEAWRIGHT: No, Neil, it was the Republicans who...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Republicans are doing it. Democrats are doing it. It is so childish and stupid. It now gets to the point where you have to start doing illegal things to get a solution.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Stop it.

All right, I wish we had more time. Blessedly, we do not.

One good thing that happened today was what was happening at the corner of Wall and Broad, the Dow, 269 points. Not good enough for a winning week, but in the case of the S&P 500, certainly good enough for three straight weeks of gains. Ditto the Nasdaq.

We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, Attorney General Bill Barr is getting a whole lot of heat right now on a host of issues, from how he handled the Mueller report, to whether there was spying going on in the early days that prompted the investigation in the first place. And he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Well, The Wall Street Journal's Sadie Gurman had an opportunity to speak exclusively to the outgoing number two at the Justice Department, Rod Rosenstein. It was a fascinating and intriguing interview with the man who says, at least in this case -- and I will let Sadie answer that better than I -- defends Barr on how he handled the release of key findings of that Mueller probe.

Sadie, good to have you. And congratulations. It was an interesting interview.

SADIE GURMAN, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Thank you.

CAVUTO: So what did he have to say about what has been Democrats' take on this, that the attorney general took leaps that weren't in that report?

GURMAN: Well, I think that he just really wanted to emphasize that the public should have confidence in the attorney general, at least from his point of view.

He said, this idea that -- which Democrats have put forth, that Barr is trying to mislead the public, that he's withholding information or slow- walking the report, he said those criticisms are, in his words, bizarre.

So I think he's just trying to say from his point of view from where he sits, which is very close to the attorney general, people should have faith and just be patient and wait for the report as early as next week.

CAVUTO: All right, so the headline out of the report at least coming from the attorney general's office, no collusion, not enough one way or the other to talk about obstruction.

Was Rod Rosenstein comfortable with that finding?

GURMAN: He wouldn't talk about that at all. He wouldn't say why Mueller team came up -- or failed to come up with a conclusion either way on that. He was offering absolutely no insight into the what the report says, only that we should have faith that the attorney general's handling its release appropriately.

CAVUTO: All right. So I guessed I mischaracterized it.

I assume that he was familiar with what was in that report as well, that Rosenstein was, right?

GURMAN: Oh, absolutely.

I mean, in defending the attorney general's actions, in some ways Rod is also defending his own actions. He's been part of this investigation from its very beginning. He was the one who appointed Mueller. So, of course, he's deeply familiar with its findings.

He has just said nothing publicly about them.

CAVUTO: So, the fact that, if the attorney general might have been way off in his characterizations of that 400-plus page report when it was out and putting out these bullet points, however you want to characterize them, if he had issues with any of those, he probably would have made them clear, wouldn't he have?

GURMAN: You would have to ask him that.

CAVUTO: Yes.

GURMAN: He plays his cards very close to the vest.

CAVUTO: OK.

Now on to the other issue, and that is the spying charge. I'm being a little too black and white about it, where he wants to -- that is, Bill Barr -- go back and look at what led to this investigation in the first place and what the FBI and others were doing at the time.

James Comey was surprised at the characterization of spying on, that he said he wouldn't have characterized it the way the attorney general did. Did Rosenstein talk about that?

GURMAN: No, not at all. He wouldn't talk about the attorney general's review that he announced this week, and it is unclear at this point if that review would include a look at some of the actions that Rod himself took.

But, nevertheless, he said, generally speaking, that he is OK with scrutiny. He's open to it. He's used to it, as long as it's objective.

CAVUTO: Now, it looks like he's in his waning days, I guess, from your article.

What is he going to do? Do we know?

GURMAN: He is saying that he doesn't know what he's going to do next. It's against Justice Department rules to look for a job while you're still within the department.

So all he is saying is that he hopes to have a new job by the end of the summer. And his replacement is awaiting confirmation, so those days are anytime now.

CAVUTO: All right. Sadie, thank you very much, very revealing, Sadie Gurman, the first interview post all of this with Rod Rosenstein.

I want to go right now, right away to Katie Cherkasky, the former federal prosecutor.

Katie, Rod Rosenstein is essentially saying these characterizations of the attorney general overanalyzing things or doing something to cover up for his boss, that doesn't jibe with what I have seen and what I have -- what I have read. I don't want it mischaracterize would Sadie just said, but what do you think of that?

KATIE CHERKASKY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I absolutely agree with that.

I think that Attorney General Barr's summary of the report was more than appropriate for a case where there wasn't a prosecutorial recommendation.

And the release, we haven't seen it yet. We haven't seen what he's going to redact, so people getting up in arms about the reductions that may or may not exist is a little premature.

CAVUTO: It's the redaction part that worried folks like Senator John Kennedy, who had this to say about what is released and when. I want you to react to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Some of my Democratic colleagues say, well, don't show it to the American people, but show it to us unredacted. You can trust us.

Look, this place leaks like the Titanic. It would be -- it would leak at warp speed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: What do you think of that, leaks like the Titanic?

CHERKASKY: I think that's probably very true.

And anybody that's ever seen an investigative report come out of the government knows that there's going to be redactions. Redactions are required in many cases by federal law for different purposes, and can be justified.

Now, the extent of them, we will see if Attorney General Barr can justify each of them. And he has promised that he's going to give an explanation for each redaction that comes out.

But I have never seen a report come out from a law enforcement investigation that doesn't have redactions, even when you're a defense counsel on a case. So, that's just not realistic.

CAVUTO: Now, you have to be careful what is redacted, right, Katie?

Because, obviously, there's justification for people who were not charged with anything, whose names might be brought up. That, I understand. So no matter what comes out of this report, it will be those specific redactions that are going to lead calls to release the whole report, release the whole report.

What do you think of that?

CHERKASKY: I think that there's going to be a question about a lot of the grand jury material. That's going to be the big question about what should or shouldn't be redacted.

There is Supreme Court case law and there's district court case law on the idea that any information from a grand jury can be released if it's kind of related to a judicial proceeding. And the big question then is, is an impeachment proceeding a judicial proceeding?

So some of that could come up with regard to redactions from grand jury material. Some of it isn't really arguable at all. If there's ongoing investigations, if there's sources and methods from the investigation, that's going to be redacted. I think it's just totally a ridiculous talking point to suggest that we're going to see a full report.

Nobody's going to get a full report, nor do I think they should, because there's a lot of sensitive information that can be in there.

CAVUTO: All right, Katie, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.

CHERKASKY: Thank you.

CAVUTO: All remember Herman Cain, Mr. 9-9-9? When it comes to getting on the Federal Reserve, it's increasingly looking like no, no, no.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, Herman Cain might have his back up against the wall, as four Republicans are saying they'd be no-votes if he wanted to make it to the Federal Reserve. The president is already saying he is keen on appointing him there.

The problem seems to be, if you have got four no Republicans, you can't afford to lose one more, assuming that all Democrats vote against him as well. That could mean he's toast.

Blake Burman from the White House with more.

Hey, Blake.

BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.

The math here you laid out, it's pretty simple. Four Republican no-votes, that is one too many for Herman Cain, should he even get nominated to join the Federal Reserve. Remember, just at this point, the president has said he intends to nominate Cain.

As it relates to the White House though, so far, no status in the nomination process for Herman Cain. There are a couple different concerns for Senate Republicans. First off, they wonder if he might be too partisan for the Fed. Remember, he was a presidential candidate at one point.

And also Cain has been faced with accusations of sexual misconduct. Senator Kevin Cramer is one of those four who says he cannot vote for Cain at this point. He joined Stuart Varney earlier today on the FOX Business Network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER, R-N.D.: If I had to vote today, I wouldn't -- I would not vote for him.

I think the allegations of sexual harassment are too serious. And I think, frankly, the time and energy and political capital spent to pull him across the finish line would be squandered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURMAN: Neil, on Wednesday, I asked President Trump if the nomination process for Herman Cain essentially would go forward. I asked him if Cain was safe. And he said to me at this point -- at that point, he said -- quote -- "Herman will make that determination.

It seems as if they are putting the ball in Herman Cain's court at this point, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Blake, thank you very much, Blake Burman at the White House.

Let's go to Gary B. Smith on this, FOX Business Network's Lauren Simonetti, and Stanford University's David Dodson.

I'm looking at this, Lauren, and I'm thinking, for Steve Moore, it opens the way. Certainly, there can't be two rejections of Trump appointees, so does it improve his odds? What do you think?

LAUREN SIMONETTI, CORRESPONDENT: For me, yes, I think that does - - it seems at this point that Herman Cain, Neil, is definitely out, because it's a character question. It's a political question. It's a policy question.

Is he smart? Is he, Herman Cain, an American success story? Yes, but he has those other issues that do go against him. This could be a win for Stephen Moore. We will see. But he has vowed, as you know, to make Chairman Jay Powell the most successful Fed chairman ever.

CAVUTO: I'm wondering, Dave Dodson, your read on this.

I mean, back in the day, with a Franklin Roosevelt, there was criticism that he was trying to stack the U.S. Supreme Court, and even Democrats called him out on it. Was Donald Trump trying to stack the Federal Reserve?

DAVID DODSON, STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Well, of course, it's every Fed's -- or every president's God-given right to stack the Fed or the Supreme Court however they want.

I mean, that -- they get to do that. For me, the real news is not really about Moore. It's about four or five senators, GOP senators. This moderate group of senators that voted for the resolution opposing the emergency act, and now have pushed back on Herman Cain, I think we're looking at maybe the half-a-dozen most powerful senators in America right now, because what senators like Susan Collins and Mitt Romney and Murkowski and others are saying is, they're saying to the president, if you want to get stuff done, you need us.

And, to me, that's the big news. Look, the world's got plenty of highly qualified people to be Fed -- to be on the Fed Board, as Herman Cain was. I mean, look, he was a CEO. He had Fed experience. He had political experience. He understood the economy. He was eminently qualified, which I understand the allegations.

And I'm not -- I'm not reducing them. But, for me, the big news is that there's a handful of senators -- a handful of Republican senators who are now willing to push back against the White House. That's the news, I think.

CAVUTO: Yes. And you're right about that, Professor, if you think about it, because this is among the same group that has challenged the president on that emergency at border thing.

But, Gary B., is it your sense -- I mean, what president wouldn't want someone on the Federal Reserve who has an easy view on monetary policy, not to raise rates and the rest? This was deemed to be more blatant. I don't know it was much more blatant. But what do you think?

GARY B. SMITH, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think Trump was right to try to get Cain. I think he's right to try to get Moore.

I -- he wants free market people. And the Fed almost by design is a little bit anti-free market. It's that they -- the Fed is always -- and people trust them to have this all-seeing, all-knowing ability to be like the Wizard of Oz, pull strings and switches and somehow navigate the economy.

I would almost rather have someone that didn't think so highly of his economic or her economic background that they thought they were so smart they could navigate. Let the market run free. Have lower rates. See what happens.

I always thought, honestly, Neil, the Fed could be just an algorithm in a computer somewhere, and that having people in there muck things up. As we well know, they mess things up as much as they get it right.

CAVUTO: A lot of people want to make me an algorithm.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: But, Lauren, one of things I have noticed -- one the things I seriously have noticed is that the president, maybe just by divine providence or whatever, might have been right that the Federal Reserve overdid it on the rate hikes.

And you even get signals of that from the markets rejoicing even through today on the fact that that's going to not be the case for a while. So they can be wrong. A president can be right. But it does remind folks that they're not necessarily gods.

SIMONETTI: And it's usually not talked about in public...

CAVUTO: Right.

SIMONETTI: ... the relationship between the White House, the executive office, and the Federal Reserve.

There's supposed to be this independence. And it doesn't appear to a lot of people that that's the case right now. And that's where the president can get himself in trouble with everything going on, particularly with these two nominations, because they are being viewed as stacking by the president, as highly political, whether they're the right choice or not.

CAVUTO: Well, Dave, I think you hit on the most cogent point here, that this could be a sign and a preview to coming attractions.

If Republicans, at least a moderate bunch or renegades, however you want to define it -- and, certainly, the president had problems with them, because they won't go along with a lot of stuff.

Even Mitch McConnell surprised in expressing frustration with appointments that are suddenly shelved at the last second, that they don't know what the president is up to or what he's thinking, and they're getting ticked off.

Do you think that's a problem for the president going forward? Dave, can you hear me?

All right, I apologize for that. I will just leave you think what could -- what could happen after that. My apologies to the professor.

In the meantime, I do want to look at the trend among Democratic candidates, as you know, is to bash the rich. But a lot of them are rich. Bernie Sanders is like millionaires rich. There's no problem with that. There's nothing wrong with that.

And say this of Bernie Sanders. He's going to eat his own pudding and take his own high tax punishment. But we're going to get likely years of tax returns from him any moment that will confirm the fact that the man from Vermont is doing quite well, thank you. In fact, he's a pretty good capitalist.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Apparently, Disney isn't Mickey Mouse-ing around. It means it on this streaming thing, $6.99 a month, and, all of a sudden, it's a big player. The stock soared. Netflix tumbled.

More after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, Bernie Sanders talks going after the rich.

On Monday, we will find out the details that prove, well, he's pretty rich himself, 10 years of tax returns. Not many candidates do that. But say this of Bernie Sanders. He is going to take his own medicine here. Some of the higher taxes he calls on the rich would directly affect him. The guy's a millionaire.

The Washington Examiner's Kelly Jane Torrance ahead of that and all the other candidates, a good many of whom who are running for the presidency who are quite rich themselves.

Kelly Jane, you could look at that and say, well, that -- it's not so shocking that they're wealthy. It's the time they spend bashing the wealthy, you know?

(LAUGHTER)

KELLY JANE TORRANCE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes, exactly, Neil.

Bernie Sanders is kind of famous for going out on the campaign trail, and in his speeches talking about millionaires and billionaires, obviously, in a derogatory way. I wonder if he's going to change that now to just billionaires.

Does he have a different view of millionaires now that he's admitted he is one? But, yes, I mean...

CAVUTO: But a lot of people kind of suspected from books, his speeches and all, that he's not doing too poorly and all.

TORRANCE: Yes.

CAVUTO: And you can say that he's willing to take the pain or whatever you want to call it. But it is a reminder that many of these candidates who bash capitalism, capitalism is doing very well for them.

TORRANCE: Exactly.

You know, actually, last year, about half of Senate Democrats were millionaires. That number even surprised me. I know that most people running for office, they have a lot of resources behind them. They tend to be quite richer than average.

But even that surprised me. But, you know, this is actually a great opportunity. Bernie Sanders could use this, this release to talk about what a great system America has, how it provides these opportunities for people.

And he could talk about how he would like it to do better in some areas, or that more people need these opportunities, but I suspect he won't. If you look at what he's told The New York Times when he -- when they asked him and he admitted he was a millionaire, he said, well, I wrote a bestselling book. If you write a bestselling book, you could be a millionaire too.

The ego in that statement. And also does he realize that not everyone has the opportunity to just write a book and become a millionaire? A lot of people, they're trying to do the best they can. They're working hard in various industries. Millionaires are not just one certain group of inherited wealthy people.

A lot of people work hard.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I wonder how far this goes.

I mean, obviously, all of these candidates, almost to a man or woman, they're not all millionaires, but their pitch has been that it is a lopsided society, you have not benefited as much because a lot of these rich folks are not pulling their fair share.

Now, if these candidates all say, yes, we're going to pull our fair share too, I'm wealthy, but I have an obligation -- I think that used to be Barack Obama's sort of take on this. There's no reason why I shouldn't and couldn't and won't pay higher taxes. I think I should. Bill Clinton argued much the same.

Will that work? Because that's kind of trying to thread a needle here.

TORRANCE: Yes, I think it's going to be -- it's going to be tough for the ones that really like the class war rhetoric.

I think Bernie Sanders is in that category. Elizabeth Warren, her tax info shows that she had a -- her and her husband had a combined income of almost a million. So people...

CAVUTO: But she would dodge her asset tax and she would dodge her surtax. So I'm not being cynical enough to say that that might have worked into where those figures for those taxes kick in started, but..

TORRANCE: Exactly, yes.

CAVUTO: ... she wouldn't be impacted by our own tax increases.

TORRANCE: And I do think that one of the other things we need to look at when Bernie releases his taxes is what is charitable giving is.

And you mentioned that, talking about, what are these candidates -- talking about what they have done or what they're going to do with their wealth. But, yes, it's tough for them because they have spent all their time talking about what a terrible system capitalism is, some of them, and, obviously, it's benefited them very well. It's going to be very difficult for them to tell the American people that, hey, the system has been good for me, but I don't think -- I don't want it anymore.

I don't -- I don't think it's going to -- going to help you guys. I think it's very difficult. And when they have spent their time implying that there isn't a path to improve your life in this country through capitalism, they -- they are examples of it themselves. I think it's going to come off very strange if they continue with the kind of attacks they had.

CAVUTO: Well, look at history. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a pauper. John Kennedy wasn't exactly a pauper. So they made it work, maybe because we weren't such a -- so obsessed by that kind of stuff back in those days.

We shall see.

Thank you very much. Good seeing you again.

TORRANCE: Thanks, Neil. Always a pleasure.

CAVUTO: All right, the battleground states, and who is suddenly surging. Beto, you might want to look at this guy Buttigieg -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: That they might now just camp out, both candidates, in states like yours?

SCOTT WALKER, R-WIS., FORMER GOVERNOR: I think there's no doubt about it.

You look at the Midwest, the path to the presidency in 2020 is clearly through states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio. And there's a few other outliers. Florida is certainly going to be in the mix.

But those are going to be the key battleground states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Isn't it ironic?

As I was speaking the former governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, that the Electoral College is supposed to make it such that you spread your wealth, candidates campaign all across the country, even in small states, otherwise, in a popular vote, the argument would be that the Democrat would spend all his or her time in California or New York and the Republican in places like Texas, what have you.

The irony this time could be that it's going to be focused on battleground states like Wisconsin, a state Donald Trump surprised everyone but winning by 23,000 votes, out of about three million cast. In fact, it was a switch of 70,000-plus thousand votes in his direction in those five key industrial states we are going to outline here that proved the difference.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer with us right now.

Ari, we're going to kind of go through a lot of these key states, but they were close. And what Scott Walker was saying is, a lot of time is going to spend -- be spent by a lot of candidates in these key states, the president included and whoever the Democratic nominee is.

Do you agree?

ARI FLEISCHER, CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely.

The states that the governor mentioned, although I think Iowa and Ohio are pretty safely Trump states. He won Iowa by 10. He won Ohio by 7.5.

CAVUTO: Right.

FLEISCHER: Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire, one of the two congressional districts in Maine, which splits its vote. You can't rule out Arizona, Colorado. Those are all close states as well.

So it's not just the Midwest. Certainly, Midwest has some key swing states. And Pennsylvania, I would submit to you, Neil, that's a split state. That's an Eastern state and a Midwestern state and a Southern state between Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh.

And all of that is contested.

CAVUTO: But you know the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she ends up being, is going to learn the lesson of 2016.

Donald Trump just outsmarted us. He spent an enormous amount of time in these key states, when everyone said it was silly and he was wasting his time. It turns out, in retrospect, he didn't at all.

So they're going to avoid that mistake by practically living in these states. Right?

FLEISCHER: Well, it depends on who the candidate is.

I think some candidates have a better chance of competing in some of these states. Others don't. If Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, she's going to have a very harder time, much harder time in the Rust Belt than I think other candidates might.

So, candidates have different strengths in different regions. But what we do know is the closest states in the union last time were Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Florida. All of those are very close states.

CAVUTO: All right, we will watch it closely. Ari, thank you very, very much, Ari Fleischer.

Just a quick peek at the corner of Wall and Broad, if you just joined us. We were up today about 269 points. S&P 500 notched its third straight weekly win.

We're on top of that, also on news up of "Empire" reportedly weighing now what to do with Jussie Smollett and whether he has a role at all -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, well, just what to do with Jussie. What's going to happen right now to the actor and his show?

Let's get the read on this from entrepreneur Michael Parrish DuDell. We got Business Insider's Kate Taylor, my buddy Dion Baia, our audio technician and much more, and Elite Daily's Hannah Orenstein.

Hannah, end it with you.

I guess they're trying to figure out, what do we do not only with him, but with the character. What do you think?

MICHAEL PARRISH DUDELL, ENTREPRENEUR: Well, I mean, honestly, what I think is going to happen is that they're going to have to figure out what the fans want.

People are going to be loud one way or the other. This always happens when there's a controversy. Whatever side seems to be the loudest, whether it's the people that say he's got to go or the people that say we want him to stay on, the executives, they know it's all about ratings.

They're going to listen to the crowd. And they're probably...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So, wouldn't he generate more ratings if he were on?

DION BAIA, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it will be interesting if the studio wants him to go, but then if the writers or the cast revolt, because the writers were sticking by him and being a little snarky with their posts on social media.

And then the stars were backing him. So I don't know if there will be a strike or if there will be -- if money wins or popularity wins.

(CROSSTALK)

DUDELL: In the last hour or two, I think state attorney Foxx has said that she's opening an investigation into this.

So the question is, there might be more legal stuff there. We think he's fine, but he may not be. I think that investigation, whatever results from that, is ultimately going to...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, generally producers eschew controversy, right?

DUDELL: Well, I don't always necessarily know if that is true.

CAVUTO: All right.

KATE TAYLOR, BUSINESS INSIDER: He has personal relationships here too.

As you were saying, kind of, there's the writers. There's the stars of the show. These people came out in support of him originally.

BAIA: Yes.

TAYLOR: And maybe they kind of felt like...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: And afterwards, too, a little bit, too. They were still like, we're still sticking by him. So I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Any of you guys -- switching gears a little bit, are you into like streaming stuff, I mean, downloading and all that?

HANNAH ORENSTEIN, ELITE DAILY: Sure.

CAVUTO: You heard about Disney now has a service that it's going to launch at $6.99 a month, very competitive and then some witness Netflix,

Netflix stock crumbled today on the notion that there is a serious streaming threat here. Do you agree?

ORENSTEIN: I don't.

I mean, it's tough because they're expensive. They do add up if you have Netflix, Hulu, and now Disney.

CAVUTO: They do, don't they? Yes.

ORENSTEIN: I can see Disney being really great for people especially with children or people who love those movies.

But I don't think that everybody is going to be rushing out.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do they have stuff beyond Disney? They have got the stuff they got from us, right, "The Simpsons."

BAIA: Yes, well they're already teasing that they're going to have the entire Disney vault. I don't know if that means the live-action movies, but all that stuff for years that they have hid away and released and then took back.

So that will be very alluring. But that's the joke with people wanting to cut the cord and then you realize you get rid of the cable bill, but then you have the a la carte. You're paying for Netflix. You're paying for Apple TV.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: It will be higher than cable.

DUDELL: It's crazy.

So a 2018 study found that people on average are paying about $250 a month, a little bit less, like $238 a month for these streaming services.

CAVUTO: Sure.

DUDELL: We're talking every single year, e-commerce streaming services, up 100 percent. This is a huge business.

I think we're hitting a saturation.

CAVUTO: But wasn't the idea originally the threat to cable and traditional satellite was that this was going to take that away? And now you get to a price point where people say, I might as well keep what I got.

TAYLOR: The thing is, if they can bundle with Hulu, with ESPN, they kind of have definitely a juggernaut here, where it's not just one more streaming service.

They can kind of have their own really kind of more vast subscription there. So it's almost like Amazon, where you get Amazon Prime not just for the videos. You get that because you want two-day shipping, and the video is a bonus.

BAIA: The biggest problem with cable was that you don't want all those channels. Who wants 50 channels of this, but you're only paying for maybe two sports channels? But you have to -- you couldn't get it a la carte.

Or then you think I can get it a la carte now by just getting what I want, but then you realize $5, $5, $10.

CAVUTO: It adds up.

(CROSSTALK)

DUDELL: Hulu just dropped their prices $2 a month. They went from $8 a month to $6 a month.

I mean, that means supply and demand are meeting up, and there's some shift happening in the market.

BAIA: And it's very interesting too that Disney has been slowly taking off their Marvel...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: And they're slowly getting ready.

CAVUTO: Do millennials read? Do you guys read, or no?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I mention millennials, because there's a poll that shows more than more one out of three of you -- and actually, you're -- not even you -- you're younger than that -- expect to split the bill on their first date.

(CROSSTALK)

ORENSTEIN: Well, no.

(LAUGHTER)

ORENSTEIN: I mean, because of dating apps, people are going on more dates than ever. You can line them up every day -- night of the week. And so that adds up. It gets really expensive.

And so, if you can split that, it feels a little bit more casual.

CAVUTO: Does it have to be a mutual agreement beforehand? Like...

TAYLOR: I would not want to make a mutual agreement beforehand.

ORENSTEIN: No.

TAYLOR: But I think that it's expected to be the polite thing to at least reach for your -- reach for your wallet, pretend like you're going to pay.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Or you could be like Dion with the T-Rex arm.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: Or it like, yes, you offer to pay and then you're like...

(CROSSTALK)

DUDELL: Call me old-fashioned on this one, but I think that the person that asks the other person out is responsible for paying the check.

BAIA: Oh, that's old-fashioned.

DUDELL: It doesn't have to be a male, it doesn't have to be a female. I'm just saying, if you are the person that asks somebody out, it's polite, it's the courtesy thing to do to say, I'm paying for this.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: What's happening now is people are talking so much over social media beforehand. It's not like you're getting to the date and you're like, oh, hi, what's your name? What's your name? You have already have some sort of intimacy by talking.

So then you can say like, I'm not paying for all this. Stop ordering all this stuff.

TAYLOR: Yes. And it's clear you're not like -- not so much one person is doing the asking when you kind of know each other. It's a dating app. Like, it's more of a mutual thing. So it's less, OK, you asked me.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But it's much more egalitarian today than it used to be like when I dated, during the time of the Civil War.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: It was just understood the guy paid, and actually the guy would be offended if you tried.

BAIA: Yes.

ORENSTEIN: Well, on Bumble, women make the first move.

CAVUTO: Is that right?

(CROSSTALK)

ORENSTEIN: So, by that logic...

BAIA: Bumble. Write that down.

DUDELL: Well, they make the first move in the conversation, but they don't necessarily -- I'm on Bumble, by the way.

And I can tell you, they don't necessarily ask out first.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I assume that doesn't refer to tuna.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, I'm learning a lot from you crazy kids.

BAIA: Bumble.

CAVUTO: All right, is that bumblebee?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Yes, indeed.

We have a lot more coming up, including everyone's waiting for this Mueller report that maybe sometime this weekend, maybe sometime tonight, but will it be enough, no matter when it comes out?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the attorney general of the United States is indicating it could be soon, any day now, maybe any hour now, that full Mueller report, or as full as he can make it available.

Catherine Herridge on how all of this is shaping up.

Hey, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thank you, Neil. And good afternoon.

The attorney general's public commitment to review the origins of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation in 2016, which included the securing of a surveillance warrant for a Trump campaign aide, appears to have some former officials on the defensive.

Here's the former FBI Director James Comey last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I don't know what he meant by that term, and, factually, I don't know what he meant because I don't know of any electronics surveillance aimed, court-ordered electronic surveillance aimed at the Trump campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: It's a reference to the attorney general's use of spying when he testified earlier this week, when he talked about his concern that there may have been inappropriate surveillance of the Trump campaign during 2016.

The attorney general went on to clarify that he wants to be clear that's not what happened and whether there was a strong evidentiary basis for opening the investigation, as well as securing the surveillance warrant.

Democrats have seized on this spying language. It appears to be an effort to further undermine the attorney general before the Mueller report is released. Based on our reporting here at FOX News, the process is still ongoing. They were making redactions as recently as yesterday. So we are standing by, Neil, for the imminent release.

CAVUTO: Looking forward to that, as I'm sure you are.

Catherine Herridge, thank you very, very much.

HERRIDGE: I am. You bet.

CAVUTO: By the way, we are live on all of this tomorrow, as we are every Saturday, "Cavuto Live," with the former Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr, who has some musings on this and what will be in and not in that report.

And then, with all the troubles Herman Cain is having, likely not making it to the Federal Reserve, is Steve Moore looking more likely that at least he will? I will ask him, because he's my special guest tomorrow too, among many others, 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

"The Five" is 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.