This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 30, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, ANCHOR: Hey, you think those hockey fans going wild for last night's big win by the Saint Louis Blues? Try an economy that's still making green.

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

And Fox on top of an economy topping expectations, at least for right now, growing at 3.1 percent. That's during the first three months of the year, and giving President Trump something to crow about.

We're going to get the potential impact on the strong economy on the 2020 presidential race in a moment, but first to FOX Business Network's Blake Burman at the White House with the latest -- Blake.

BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Charles.

And, as you know, the president and his economic team have long hailed that first-quarter GDP reading as a sign that they say their economic policies are working. That number was revised downward slightly from 3.2 percent initially down to 3.1 percent, though it wasn't revised as low as some economists had been anticipating.

Within the last 15, 20 minutes or so, I just spoke with a senior White House official to get the White House's view on all of this. And here's what I was told, Charles. Their take on the downward revision described to me as pretty marginal.

The one thing that they take as a positive, when you look under the hood at the numbers from this reading is that personal consumption, those numbers, they think, are going in the right direction, which will bode well, in their estimation, for Q2.

By the way, the White House still believes that, this year, the GDP number for the entire year will be at 3.2 percent. Earlier today, before he left for Colorado to speak at the graduation ceremony there at the Air Force Academy, the president took questions from reporters on the South Lawn.

And this was his take as it relates to the economy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The economy is doing fantastically well, beyond any expectation. Unemployment numbers are just about the best in the history of our country. Employment numbers are the best.

We have close to 160 million people working today, which is more than we have ever had before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURMAN: The president got a bit of an assist today from the vice chair of the Federal Reserve, Richard Clarida saying that the economy is in a -- quote -- "very good place."

But he also suggested that an interest rate cut, which the Street has been expecting for a while now to take place this year, could potentially be on the table.

Here's what Clarida said. This especially caught the attention of the market -- quote -- "If the incoming data were to show a persistent shortfall in inflation, below our 2 percent objective, or were to indicate that global economic and financial developments present a material downside risk to our baseline outlook, then these are developments that the committee would take into account in assessing the appropriate stance for monetary policy."

Charles, as you know, despite the strong growth numbers that the White House the president, his team have been holding up, the president has also been calling for the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

PAYNE: Yes, Blake, he thinks that last rate hike was a mistake.

Thank you very much, my friend.

BURMAN: Yes.

PAYNE: So we know the economy has been improving under President Trump. Does that have to keep up for President Trump to get a leg up on his 2020 challengers?

Let's get reaction now from Turning Point USA's Rob Smith, FBN's Elizabeth MacDonald and Democratic strategist Danielle McLaughlin.

Liz, what do you think?

ELIZABETH MACDONALD, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, here's the history. Five incumbent presidents didn't win reelection. Why? Because the economy went south. That dates back to, I think, to William Taft.

We are on the cusp of the longest U.S. expansion in U.S. history. And it's been 13 years since we have had 3 percent annualized growth. I think that the president is in the catbird seat right now, because in the battleground states, Charles, you seeing pretty much record low unemployment.

We're talking Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio. So I'm not sure what the Democrats can do to combat this, because, across the board, jobless rates are low for all minority groups and for women and including teenagers as well.

PAYNE: Right.

You know, Danielle, and it was really amazing. Liz hit on how long the expansion has been. It's not supposed to get this strong at this long into the game. In other words, it's supposed to be petering out, not 7.5 million job openings, not wages going through the roof, not the kind of things we're seeing.

So that makes it even more remarkable.

DANIELLE MCLAUGHLIN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure.

No, this is great news for the president. The economic forecast, I think, was 2.3. We're at 3.1, revised down from 3.2. This really matters. To Liz's point, a shrinking of the economy, a recession really matters. George H.W. Bush, although he had very high approval ratings, he was a victim of a recession actually that ended before the election, but wasn't announced until after the election of 1992.

But Democrats are going to have to figure out what their economic message is. And it certainly makes life difficult when things are this strong.

PAYNE: You know, Rob, one of the messages, at least from the front-runner, Biden, is to say, hey, let's not fight this. Let's just say to people, how do you feel?

In other words, we know the numbers are great, but do you feel it? I think that's a dangerous gambit. It has worked in the past. It's one of those things where nostalgia, whatever. But it's hard to deny the numbers. And maybe that's the tactic that Democrats take, if it holds up.

ROB SMITH, TURNING POINT USA: Well, I think what's going on right now is that you guys are right. It's really hard for Democrats to run against a economy like this.

So the messaging that you're seeing is a lot of Mueller report drama, is a lot of impeachment talk. It's a lot of things that are destined and they're supposed to get people's attention away from how the economy is doing right now.

And we talk a lot about these unemployment rates. And I was reading a really interesting article on NPR today. Detroit, in particular, unemployment is down to 4.4 percent. That is down from 17 percent in 2009. That is a real number. Real people are working more. And I think that that is what people are focused on.

PAYNE: They are focused on that, Liz, but it's got to keep up too, right?

MACDONALD: Yes.

PAYNE: I mean, it's -- and, listen, President Trump wants the Federal Reserve to play ball. We bring up Bush, senior Bush. They blamed the Federal Reserve for him losing that election, because they actually raised rates right at the wrong time.

So we still have to see this be maintained, although I don't see any signs of recession, at least for this year.

MACDONALD: No.

And we have been talking about this. People keep saying there's recession. We have heard the naysayers, Charles. And you have pointed this out too. They said in the past, we will never see 3 percent growth. Well, we haven't seen that in a historic 13 years.

We're not going to see that. Now the naysayers are saying, well, this is a sugar high. Now they're saying, according to the Congressional Research Service study, that the tax cuts had no impact.

I would -- I would look into the footnotes of the study personally. But you wonder about what the Democrat strategy is, because they're coming into this election like the Walter Mondale Democrats. We're going to raise your taxes, we're going to do impeachment, we're going to do big government plans.

And the American taxpayer is very, very smart. They know, out of their pockets, they got to pay the interest costs on the debt incurred to pay for these big government programs.

PAYNE: Right.

MACDONALD: So, you need growth to pay that.

PAYNE: Although, Danielle, we are hearing that, hey, yes, the economy's doing well. Democrats are acknowledging that.

But they're saying it's uneven. In other words, you have got CEOs who are making $65 million a year, and their workers are making $40,000 a year. So, the politics of envy, if that's what you want to call it, that might be the card to -- I mean, you know better than us.

What do you think?

MCLAUGHLIN: I think that they would call it the politics of inequality and the extent to which our economy works for some and not for others.

I think that they will have to broaden their appeal to more than the economy. And Joe Biden is one example. He's basically taking Trump head on. He's leapfrogging over the primary. And he's basically saying, who are we? This is a battle for the soul of our nation. What about these policies at the border? Who are we?

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Right.

So, there's no real details with that, right?

MCLAUGHLIN: No.

PAYNE: I mean, can you win -- can he win a primary with that?

Says, OK, I will go out on the campaign trail once a week.

MCLAUGHLIN: Right.

PAYNE: I will lob out a few of these grand, macro things. Hey, we don't feel good. Trump's a bad guy.

You think that's enough to get -- propel him to the White House?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, people vote for change, right?

I think people voted for Trump and for Obama, and it's -- part of this is how people feel emotionally and they react to a candidate. So I think there's something there with Biden.

SMITH: And I wanted to say that a lot of this morality play against Trump, this is not who we are, this is the morality play to voters, it's just not working. And it's something that they tried prior in 2016. It didn't work then. I don't see it working in 2020.

MACDONALD: Yes, but the American voters, a lot of people are put off by the president's tweets, about his personal attacks. They don't like it. They find it unseemly.

And, repeatedly, the thinking is, he only demeans himself. And that goes for the other side, too. I think the American people are tired of the D.C. politics of them personally attacking each other, both Democrats and Republicans and the president. They want it to stop.

But what's really important -- and Danielle hit on a key point -- is that they want the facts. We need a baseline agreement of facts. And when it comes to income inequality, that debate is so distorted, Charles. You have pointed us out.

It doesn't include federal -- excuse me -- pensions, 401(k)s, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. That -- even the big government programs that Democrats want is not included in their income inequality...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: And the irony, it's worse in liberal cities and states anyway than it is the most of the country.

MACDONALD: Yes.

PAYNE: We got to leave it there. Thank you all very much.

Folks, I want to alert you to shares of Uber up around 2 percent after- hours, the ride-sharing company beating first-quarter revenue estimates and also matching earnings expectations.

Uber says it booked an average of 17 million rides a day during the quarter, which was up from last year. The stock, this is the first time they posted earnings since the disastrous IPO. We will see how this trades in the morning.

Meanwhile, former special counsel Robert Mueller defending his decision to make no decision on obstruction. Now Attorney General William Barr's weighing. And let's just say there's no question where he stands.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Attorney General William Barr saying former special counsel Robert Mueller could have indeed decided if President Trump obstructed justice.

Our Catherine Herridge has more -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Charles, good afternoon.

Attorney General William Barr has always maintained that it was the special counsel Robert Mueller's mandate and responsibility to decide the obstruction question.

In a new interview with CBS, Barr didn't break new ground on why Mueller could not reach a conclusion. But he said the special cancel had the power to go further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I personally felt he could have reached a decision.

QUESTION: In your view, he could have reached a conclusion?

BARR: Right. He could have reached a conclusion.

The opinion says you can't indict a president while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Before heading to Colorado to address the Air Force Academy, President Trump said special counsel Robert Mueller should have applied the same strategy and rigor to those who opened the Russia investigation in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Why didn't he investigate Strzok and Page and McCabe and Comey and all the lies and Brennan and the lies and Clapper and the lies to Congress and all of the things that happened to start this investigation?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Separately, Fox News has learned a mid-August 2016 counterintelligence briefing for the Trump campaign didn't specifically warn officials about Russian outreach to the Trump team, nor did it warn that two campaign aides were already under FBI investigation.

FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was later removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team for sending the anti-Trump texts, was a central coordinate coordinator for the FBI in the defensive briefing, which included multiple agencies.

Three weeks earlier, Strzok had opened the FBI's counterintelligence case into campaign aide George Papadopoulos. These briefings are called defensive briefings. And they're supposed to be designed to warn the campaign of imminent national security threats.

And, in this case, in 2016, it would have included or should have included the Russian outreach to the campaign, as well as the hacking -- Charles.

PAYNE: Catherine, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

PAYNE: So, the question now is, where does this all go?

Here to discuss, former Justice Department prosecutor Jim Trusty.

Jim...

JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Hey, Charles.

PAYNE: ... you know, a lot of -- a lot of people are in this sort of postmortem, if you will. And it feels like that, even though Mueller doesn't want to talk about this anymore, he still left us with a lot of questions on what went wrong with this investigation and why they didn't, to President Trump's point, began with its origins.

TRUSTY: Well, the origins part is getting looked at just, not by Mueller. That was really not part of the scope of his mandate.

I don't think it ever expanded to look back and look at itself.

PAYNE: Although -- although, to be sure, his mandate did expand.

TRUSTY: Well, it did.

And we don't really even know the full scope, because the way the statute works is that the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, was in a position to kind of approve or disapprove of any expansion to the probe.

But I think it's safe to say it never turned inward on itself. It never got to a point where it said, hey, let's talk about Strzok and Page and FISA abuse and all the things that John Durham is now being appointed to look at.

So I think daylight is coming. I'm not sure it's a postmortem, as much as it's like a new autopsy. But there's -- there's more coming in terms of that probe, and I suspect that will be in weeks or months, not months or years.

PAYNE: Meanwhile, A.G. Barr saying that Mueller could have come to a conclusion. Of course, they didn't have the ability to charge President Trump with a crime on obstruction, but he could have had more of an opinion on this.

He did he punt in that -- yesterday, the statement that he made, maybe saying to Congress, listen, I'm not going to go before you, but I will give you something to chew on and leave the door open if you want to take it from here?

TRUSTY: Well, he certainly left them something to chew on. And that's the hard part.

You have got an exhaustive two-year investigation with a 400-and-something- page report. Any time anybody tries to summarize it, you get accused of leaving things out, as Barr well knows, and now Mueller.

So I question whether Mueller should have been stepping up to the mics or just issuing a written statement and trying to recede into the background.

But the bottom line is, there's all this investigation that goes into obstruction. We now hear that they're saying they felt completely bound to not reach a prosecutorial judgment, based on the OLC opinion.

But I'm not sure that is so clear when you read the report. The report says that there were thorny issues of criminal intent on behalf of the president that would have to be resolved. That's a far cry from saying, we sure would have indicted him but, or that he's exonerated. It's in this great mushy middle ground that leaves everybody pretty frustrated.

So I think there's daylight between Barr and Mueller. But there's not resolution of the underlying facts.

PAYNE: Well, Jim one thing I do find interesting is that, knowing they couldn't bring criminal charges, they went down this path anyway, saying that they wanted to check it out.

What do you make of the fact that no one has been charged with obstruction? After all of the witnesses, after all the interviews, no one has been charged with obstruction? Does that mean something?

TRUSTY: Well, I mean, look, it's certainly mildly good news for the president that nobody -- consistent with the collusion findings, that nobody was really in harm's way for him or his family or his closest associates.

But, obviously, this is an unusual situation, because a prosecution, an investigation leads to the full airing of dirt gathered over a course of years that is certainly damning or hurtful, politically or personally, to the president, although not in a courtroom, where he might have the chance to exonerate himself.

So it's a -- it's an unusual situation for what you would normally see in federal prosecutions, all this daylight, and some of the daylight has some pretty dirty facts in it.

PAYNE: I know it's more of a political than legal chance that Congress may take, but your assessment of whether or not you think they should pick up these impeachment proceedings, or should they just leave it alone?

TRUSTY: Yes.

Well, I mean, the good news for America is, my vote doesn't matter on that. I mean, the reality is, they're going to do what they're going to do. And it seems to me that there's at least an interest in the House of having prolonged airing of some of these facts and accusations and characterizations that may not fit with how a criminal prosecutor would look at it, but do some political damage.

So whether they call it an impeachment proceeding or an inquiry, I suspect this stuff's going to be recycling for a long time over at the House.

PAYNE: All right, Jim Trusty, always appreciate it. Thank you very much.

TRUSTY: All right. Thank you.

PAYNE: Boeing CEO standing by the 737 MAX, saying it's so safe to fly, he would put his own family on one. But are flyers ready to say the same thing?

And a man now suing Delta Air Lines after he allegedly was mauled by an emotional support dog. Does he have a case?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Would you put your family on a 737 MAX?

DENNIS MUILENBURG, CEO, BOEING: Without any hesitation, absolutely.

I have -- I have been up on two of the flight tests myself with the new software, and I would in a heartbeat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAYNE: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg saying he wouldn't think twice about putting his own family on a MAX plane now that safety enhancements have been made.

But what are summer flyers thinking?

Doug McKelway is at Reagan National with that -- Doug.

DOUG MCKELWAY, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Charles, opinion is really mixed on this subject. In some ways, it goes to the heart of the terrible financial toll that is being exacted on Boeing as a result of the grounding of the MAX 8 planes.

We asked a lot of passengers today at Reagan National, will you fly on the MAX 8 plane once it is recertified by the FAA and other foreign regulators?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: Would you fly on one after the software fixes that have been made now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the FAA said it was safe to fly, I think they're kind of on notice now. So they're not going to let them back up until they're ready. So, I flew on one last year, before any of the problems, and it seemed like a nice aircraft.

But, at this point, once all the regulators say it's good to go, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

MCKELWAY: Would you fly on the Boeing 737 MAX planes if they're certified by the FAA again?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably not, no.

MCKELWAY: Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I just don't have enough confidence in them yet. There are other options available, fortunately. And I'm just not ready.

MCKELWAY: And so that would go into your decision-making when you purchase a ticket to fly?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: That highly unscientific sampling follows the remarks of Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg earlier today, where he told CBS News that he apologized to the families of the victims.

He also said that Boeing engineers made bad mistakes in the implementation of the MCAS system, and in which he also said that he would let his family fly, as you just noted.

It's an important reminder that, even at its peak usage, there were 8,600 MAX flights every week across the world. That boils down to about 1,978,000 passengers who flew without incident on MAX 8 planes every week.

Your chances of being in a MAX 8 crash were roughly the same as your chances of winning the Mega Millions lottery. All of that said, once the plane is recertified, Charles, Boeing is going to face an uphill battle in regaining the public's confidence, at least in total -- back to you.

PAYNE: Yes, it's going to be a tough P.R. act certainly out of the gate.

Thanks a lot, Doug. Appreciate it.

MCKELWAY: Absolutely. Yes.

PAYNE: And to more trouble in the skies, a man suing Delta and one of its passengers after an emotional support dog allegedly attacked him on a flight in 2017.

So, does he have a case?

Let's ask our legal guests, attorneys Natalie Elisha Gold and Janell Weinstein.

Janell, let me start with you.

It's kind of frightening to think that an emotional support dog might have attacked someone unprovoked. But where does it stand legally?

JANELL WEINSTEIN, ATTORNEY: Well, it's a tough case for the airlines.

But at the end of the day, as a practical matter, the case is going to settle. There's a bigger issue here, which is really the regulations that are in place to protect passengers and the airlines.

The airlines acknowledge that there's a problem. The question in this case is, what...

PAYNE: They acknowledge there is a problem with the...

WEINSTEIN: There is a problem with these emotional support dogs and the regulations.

The question in this case is whether or not the airline was negligent. And there's no indication at this point that they were aware that this particular animal was a danger.

PAYNE: So, Natalie, walk us through how this all went down.

NATALIE ELISHA GOLD, ATTORNEY: So there was a very large dog in the middle aisle.

And as the man gone onto his window seat, he was mauled and attacked by this huge dog. And then the dog was stopped. And the dog then came back and started biting his face to the point of 28 stitches. If you think that's not negligent, what is?

WEINSTEIN: And the question is, who's -- and who is responsible for the negligence, right?

Certainly, the owner who had this dog on his lap and did not make...

PAYNE: Well, it's a large dog, and it was on the owner's lap?

WEINSTEIN: That's correct, on the owner's lap.

It was actually a 50-pound dog.

The problem here...

PAYNE: That's a big dog.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINSTEIN: Yes, Charles, the problem is the regulations. The Department of Transportation has regulations that accommodate service animals, which include these emotional support dogs.

ELISHA GOLD: However, it is up to the discretion of all these different airlines to implement certain rules.

PAYNE: Right, because we have seen where some are saying, hey, this is an emotional support animal. Some will take a peacock. Some will take whatever. But they do have discretion there. And they have been exercising it.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINSTEIN: Only to a certain extent.

They don't have the -- they don't have the right to refuse an animal to come on, an emotional support animal, if some passenger is uncomfortable, or if the crew is uncomfortable, if there isn't any risk to their safety.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: What about the certification process for these animals? Who does that? And are they liable?

ELISHA GOLD: Yes. It's completely bogus.

I mean, I looked up on my way here, can I certify my animal for an emotional support certification? Yes. For $79.99, so can you. And people are getting away with this. And they're taking free flights with their pets, and, quite frankly, to the detriment of the other people on the flight. And it's not OK.

WEINSTEIN: And that's why Congress has come in. They passed -- they are making the DOT, the Department of Transportation, look at this very carefully.

And they're looking out for comments. What the airlines want, and are asking the Department of Transportation to do, is to put the regulations in line what the Department of Justice has, which is, the Department of Justice is not required to accommodate emotional support animals.

You don't see them on buses and trains. You don't see them in stadiums. That's what the airlines would like as well, because the problem is, those people that have a disability...

PAYNE: Right.

WEINSTEIN: ...with a service animal that is trained and is able to behave properly in those environments, that's what you want on a plane.

ELISHA GOLD: And they're really losing it, because the thing is, the people who really need it, the deaf person who needs an animal to help them, is now -- they're -- the people are just taking advantage.

PAYNE: So, the system is being abused?

ELISHA GOLD: Absolutely. And it's really disgraceful.

PAYNE: When it's all said and done, do you agree with Janell that there will be some sort of settlement?

And -- but the bottom line is, this passenger who was mauled, he will get a financial -- some kind of a financial settlement?

ELISHA GOLD: I -- if I was advising Delta, I would say, pay as much as possible, keep it discreet, and make sure that you have the guidelines in place so that this doesn't happen again.

PAYNE: All right, ladies, thank you both very, very much.

ELISHA GOLD: Thank you.

WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Charles.

PAYNE: Appreciate it.

Hey, remember those oil pipeline and tanker attacks in the Middle East? Something tells me these guys do. An emergency summit in Saudi Arabia under way right now, it's meant to be a message for Iran.

We will meet the military colonel who's worried what it means for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: President Trump running a little behind schedule this afternoon, after giving the commencement address at the Air Force Academy in Colorado.

And here's why. He shook hands with everyone in the graduating class. We're talking 1,000 cadets.

We're back, 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: A coordinated campaign to attack the U.S., a top general spelling out exactly what Iran had planned for us.

To our Trace Gallagher with more -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Charles, in his most detailed public remarks yet, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that threats from Iran are nothing new.

What is new, he says, is the U.S. intelligence is showing concerning signs on two fronts, first, that Iran was questioning both the will and the capability of the U.S. to respond, and, second, that Iran was conducting a much more coordinated effort. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOSEPH DUNFORD, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: We saw something that looked more like a campaign than individual threat.

And it was the geographic span and the -- and the perception that that activity would be tried to be synchronized in time that caused us to look at that threat differently than 40 years, by the way, of malign activity by the Iranians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: And, of course, that prompted the U.S. to send an aircraft carrier strike force and a bomber task force to the Middle East.

But, today, President Trump tried to take the tension with Iran down a notch, saying he doesn't want military escalation and would be willing to talk.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I want to get along with everybody if it's possible. I even want to get along with Iran. And Iran wants to talk. And if they want to talk, I'm available.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: And, initially, an emergency summit convened today in Saudi Arabia was thought to be aimed at cooling tensions in the region. That was until Saudi Arabia's foreign minister urged other Muslim nations to confront Iran over its recent attacks on oil tankers and pipelines in the Persian Gulf.

And, finally, Charles, we should note that, today, National Security Adviser John Bolton said there is no doubt Iran attacked those tankers and still wants nuclear weapons -- Charles.

PAYNE: Trace, thank you very much.

So, with the Saudis asking the U.S. to be prepared with all options to face the threat from Iran, can we trust them?

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis joins us now.

Colonel, thanks for joining us.

LT. COL. BOB MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Hey, Charles.

PAYNE: It's certainly a quagmire, at the very least. We have shown strength here recently. We have sided with the Saudis. But are we on a different page? Do you think they are seeking a military confrontation that we should avoid?

MAGINNIS: Well, I think we should avoid it, if we can.

The Saudis would like us to be in the middle, Charles. They have always wanted us to do the fighting for them. That's why we have hundreds of personnel that are supporting them logistically and training them in- country.

And they're a good customer that we -- they have bought hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades from us. The fact is that the president, President Trump, is correct that President Rouhani has indicated he wants to talk.

But the problem is, is that the supreme leader, Khamenei, indicates that he doesn't want to talk, he doesn't trust the Americans. So you have got mixed messages from them.

But, obviously from us, because John Bolton has, I think, been very pragmatic and very forthright, yes, the Iranians are likely behind the minds and the drones and the threats that we're seeing.

PAYNE: Right.

MAGINNIS: And what General Dunford said, I think, is most concerning, in that there appears to be a campaign -- and he doesn't say that lightly -- with coordinated, widespread activities, having alerted militia and the like around the region.

So we do need to pay attention to what the chairman is saying.

PAYNE: Now, there are lots of reports that the economic sanctions are really beginning to bite. By the same token, though, their use of proxy terror in the region has not really abated. In fact, you can argue it's gotten worse in recent weeks.

So how do we reconcile those two things? Does it mean that the more their economy crumbles, the more desperate they will become, the more havoc they can wreak in the region? And, if so, what does that mean for us militarily?

MAGINNIS: No, I think that they will become more desperate.

The regime doesn't want to face a Green Revolution, like they did in 2009. It was a bloody mess in Tehran. Yes, the Houthis in Yemen will continue to fire rockets at Riyadh. The Hezbollah will become more active. Hamas will become more active.

And, of course, the IRGC, which is already in Syria and Iraq, will continue to target us, much like they did, it looks, two weeks ago there in the Green Zone against our embassy.

So, Iran will become more erratic. We just saw the Chinese, interestingly, are going to allow one of their own freighters to come in with Iranian oil. Unfortunately, Beijing's not helping us. And, obviously, neither is Russia.

PAYNE: Right.

MAGINNIS: So their back has been stiffened to a certain degree. Now, they're willing to take it, I think, long-term, because they know and they question our will to stick to it.

PAYNE: Well, and I just read where -- in the Moscow media, where Russia says they will back Iran.

But these oil tankers that are at the center of the most recent controversy, do you think that Iran was responsible for the attack on those?

MAGINNIS: Well, I can only go with what John Bolton has said.

If he said -- he obviously has a lot of resources that he's reading into it. The Iranians have a lot of mines. They could close the Strait of Hormuz if they wanted to. We know that. They couldn't keep it closed for a long period of time. It would be a bloody mess.

But the reality is, they have been practicing that with small fast boats for a long time. We know their technologies. They are very capable.

PAYNE: Colonel, thank you very much. Really, really appreciate it.

MAGINNIS: Thank you.

PAYNE: And new worries from China that you're not hearing about. FOX has new details on the impact China might have on your medicine cabinet and maybe your safety.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: The growing threat from China that you're not hearing about.

New details emerging that the U.S. has become dependent on China for medicine. And experts warn, that's a national security threat.

FOX News correspondent Bryan Llenas has more -- Bryan.

BRYAN LLENAS, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Charles.

Well, look, over the last 20 years, the pursuit of more affordable prescription drugs has now left America too dependent on China for our meds. That's what experts are warning. Our painkillers, antibiotics, vitamins, even aspirin can mostly be sourced to a country the Department of Defense recognizes as an adversary.

Now, according to Food and Drug Administration estimates, at least 80 percent of the active ingredients found in all of America's medicines come from abroad, primarily China. And it's not just the ingredients. China wants to become the world's dominant generic drugmaker. Ninety percent of America's prescriptions are for generic versions.

So far, Chinese companies are manufacturing generics for everything from high blood pressure meds to cancer drugs.

Now, the author of "China Rx," Rosemary Gibson, says this is all part of China's plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSEMARY GIBSON, AUTHOR, "CHINA RX": In five to 10 years, when China has a complete choke hold over the United States and its supply of medicine, it's going to be telling us how much to pay for our medicine.

We will lose control over how much we pay. We will be the price taker, not the price setter. And that's devastating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LLENAS: Escalating the trade war, China is now threatening to weaponize rare earth minerals.

So what happens in a worst-case scenario if China wants to cut the supply for our medicines or alter its quality?

Another threat? Medicines used on our troops and veterans can also be sourced to China. And providers may not even know it, because pharmaceutical manufacturers are not required to disclose where they get their ingredients.

Now, in a statement to Fox News, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio says this -- quote -- "American consumers have a right to know where their ingredients and their medications are coming from, regardless of whether they are brand or generic."

Charles, the U.S. Commission on China is holding a hearing on this very threat on July 31.

PAYNE: Bryan, thank you very much. Very disturbing stuff. Appreciate it.

LLENAS: Yes.

PAYNE: Hey, some Bernie Sanders supporters fearing the DNC is out to burn them again. This time, they claim it's favoring Joe Biden. Where's this going?

Well, to the reporter they spoke to -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: The Democratic primaries are still six months away, but, according to The Washington Times, some Bernie Sanders supporters are already fearing the DNC could be backing Joe Biden over their candidate.

Washington Times reporter S.A. Miller joins me now.

We have reached out to the DNC for a statement, and we are waiting for a response.

S.A., what exactly are they seeing to make them -- for them to make this accusation?

S.A. MILLER, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, they see Biden coming in and immediately dominating the race.

And they see what -- I talked to a lot of these activists across the country, and they see kind of a link between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which they see as one in the same. They think the polls are rigged. They think they're pushing Biden and giving him much more coverage and kind of promoting him as the inevitable candidate.

PAYNE: I mean, there's an interesting relationship, right? If you're leading in the polls, you get most of the coverage. And if you get most of the coverage, you might be leading in the polls.

But Bernie Sanders certainly seemed like he had a big wind in his sails. And as soon as Biden announced, it was it. That was it. I hardly ever see or hear about him anymore.

MILLER: You sound just like his supporters, who feel the same way.

They're -- they're looking for more coverage and him to get his fair shake there. And they're very leery of a lot of these polls. I'm not exactly sure why, but they seem to think that they're not reflective of what's really going on.

PAYNE: The DNC did make some changes since the last election, I think, with some of the superdelegates and things like that.

Can you go through some of the perhaps safeguards that they might have put in place to ensure that this is a little bit fairer? Because it really is hard to argue that Hillary Clinton had a major advantage with her relationship with the DNC over Biden -- I mean, over Sanders last time.

MILLER: That's right.

I mean, the DNC has all -- has pretty much admitted that they were trying to sabotage Sanders in 2016 to help Hillary. This -- and to his credit, DNC Chairman Tom Perez came in and took a lot of steps, went out of his way to try and build unity. And that was his number one job when he got there.

They adopted new rules for the balloting. The super delegates are not voting in the first ballot at that convention. They opened up the debates now with a criteria to kind of encourage a lot of grassroots involvement and fund-raising to qualify with a pretty low bar.

You already got almost 20 people qualified for the first debate.

PAYNE: Right.

MILLER: So, they have -- they have done a lot to try and get rid of this impression and put that ugly 2016 primary race behind them.

PAYNE: What does the Sanders -- what does his supporters say, then, that he's going to have to do? If the DNC is not going to make this a fair race, in his opinion, what will he do? Will he go on the attack?

Because, right now, I got to be honest with you. It feels like most of these candidates are running for a second spot on the ticket.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: Yes.

So, Sanders, these are his die-hard supporters. These are people who have remained organized since 2016 in kind of a network of grassroots groups out there. And they are confident that, given an opportunity in a free or a fair race, that Sanders will prevail, because they think he's got the winning message.

PAYNE: Right.

MILLER: They're looking for him to put away Biden in the debates.

They're looking for these types of moves and the groundswell of support actually to carry Bernie there...

PAYNE: Right. Well...

MILLER: ... provided that the party doesn't somehow get involved and stop that from happening.

PAYNE: Right.

I mean, Biden -- I mean, Sanders certainly has the most passion, I think, with all these candidates. We will see, though.

S.A., thanks a lot. We appreciate it.

MILLER: Thank you.

PAYNE: Now, we have heard of Uber banning drivers with low ratings, but riders? Uh-oh.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Uber kicking disrespectful passengers to the curb.

The ride-hailing giant unveiling a new policy that would ban riders with low ratings.

So, is this fair, and is it smart?

Let's ask Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman and Fox News Headlines 24/7 reporter Carley Shimkus.

Carley, let me start with you.

I don't know that they need to -- I don't know if you guys follow the stock, but it's been an unmitigated disaster. I don't know that they need to be kicking any passengers to the curb.

CARLEY SHIMKUS, CORRESPONDENT: But good news today, right?

PAYNE: After the bell, it's up a couple bucks. They got a long way to go, though.

SHIMKUS: OK.

Well, an Uber executive, in my opinion, put it best when she said, respect is a two-way street. If you think about it, Uber is strange. What's the one thing that every parent would be horrified that their child does? Get in the back of a stranger's car.

And that literally is what Uber does.

PAYNE: Right.

SHIMKUS: So anything to increase safety for passengers and riders is a great idea.

But you are right. By kicking passengers out, they are losing business. So this may not be a great business strategy, but they're putting safety first.

PAYNE: Have they said -- laid out exactly all the things that they can give you a low rating for or stop taking you on?

MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: No, that's the thing.

So there is -- the problem is, there's no checks and balances. So, for example, that you don't know why you're getting a low rating, especially from a passenger, because obviously the drivers have a rating. If they're loud or obnoxious, you can rate them low.

They're like, all right, well, we will do this to the passengers. Now the difference is that if you have below 4.6 rating, which, by the way, I would like a 4.62. And I don't know what I did wrong.

PAYNE: You're on the cusp. You're on the cusp.

GUNZELMAN: Then you can get banned now from using an Uber.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: No. No, it's not -- they never actually released -- 4.6 is the average for a driver to get potentially kicked off the app.

For the passenger, it's interesting, it's actually city by city. So they take the average score.

PAYNE: So, you can be more obnoxious in New York than...

SHIMKUS: Absolutely.

PAYNE: And let's grade by the curve.

SHIMKUS: Lots of wiggle room in New York.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

SHIMKUS: And they did release a couple pointers, clean up after yourself, be on time, don't be nasty, all those obvious things.

GUNZELMAN: The thing is, though, when you are -- say, for example, I get dropped off here, and the Uber driver pulls up and sees a FOX logo. And he might not like FOX.

So that -- does that mean I get a low rating? Or perhaps I have a Yankee jersey on and the guy is a Red Sox fan.

PAYNE: Right.

GUNZELMAN: You don't know what's going to happen or what the -- why...

SHIMKUS: I think that the chances of that happening are very slim.

GUNZELMAN: But it still could happen, though.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: It could happen. There's no -- you don't know exactly why.

SHIMKUS: Yes, but think about the flip side of that.

If you have all these passengers that are -- they're disasters, and they're mean, and they could be potentially dangerous to drivers, you don't want them in the back of your car either.

So I think Uber is really looking out for their drivers. And on the flip side, they're looking out for the riders as well and have really increased things in terms of safety on that side as well.

GUNZELMAN: I think what's interesting is that Uber -- and you should stop doing this, by the way -- they're making so many changes. Now they have that silent mode, that you can now -- you have to pay more in order to tell your driver to be silent, which is kind of rude, because they -- to tell them, oh, I don't want to talk to you.

I think it should be mandatory that they have air fresheners in every Uber, personally, because that's the problem.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: If I'm Lyft, I'm sitting there thinking OK, tomorrow, I'm going to advertise, bring a boom box. You know what? If your Gunz, you don't have to put on deodorant. We will take you anyway.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: That's -- if you want to know why Uber didn't take you, it doesn't matter. We will take you anyway.

SHIMKUS: Yes.

PAYNE: If I'm Lyft, I'm like, come, talk, have fun. We will get you from point A to point B.

SHIMKUS: Yes, that's right.

There are other ride-shares too. Like, Via is pretty big in the city. And that's actually a ride-share, so it's not just like a ride-hailing service.

And so there are -- there are few reasons really to take the subway anymore, because when you think about the price of Via, it's pretty good.

GUNZELMAN: But traffic is big, though.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: I mean, driving -- yes, so...

PAYNE: My problem with Uber, because I drive in every day, is -- and I'm all for the gig economy. I'm all for people with a side hustle.

I think they need a one-day class, because they make traffic. I mean, they stop every five seconds. They're looking at their phone. And when they drop passengers off, they don't pull over.

What the heck is going on? One day -- we got one-day training. That's all I'm asking.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: The best part is when they ask me, how do I want to get there? I'm like, no, you're the driver, man. Don't ask me. I'm a passenger. I'm in the back seat.

SHIMKUS: No, that's them being courteous.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: I take an Uber every single day to work. And I have a special route.

PAYNE: Do you really?

SHIMKUS: What is your Uber rating?

GUNZELMAN: I am 4.62.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: Gunz, that's low

PAYNE: What is yours? What's the range?

SHIMKUS: Five is the highest. Five is the highest.

GUNZELMAN: Yes.

PAYNE: OK, so that's not too bad. That doesn't sound bad.

GUNZELMAN: Yes.

But for anybody to physically rate you low as a passenger, I don't know what I have done on Friday nights. I'm sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

GUNZELMAN: I don't know what I have said or drank.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: My Achilles' heel is that I'm always late. And then I'm always so apologetic. Like, oh, don't ruin my rating. I'm so sorry.

PAYNE: What is your rating?

SHIMKUS: Well, 4.74, which I was pretty surprised at. I thought that was low. I promise I'm a nice person.

GUNZELMAN: You're better than me.

PAYNE: One of our producers is at 4.86. That's impressive.

SHIMKUS: That's good.

GUNZELMAN: That's gold medal right there.

PAYNE: That's a polite person.

SHIMKUS: I want pointers from them.

PAYNE: That's a person that bathes and uses deodorant.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: That's really impressive.

I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

SHIMKUS: That producer is going places.

PAYNE: I think they have to grade on a curve system, though. In New York City, you're going to have some pretty rude people. And they're going to be like, yes, my man, get off the phone, turn the music down. You know, take this route, take that route.

I think New York is going to be a little bit different than the rest of the country. That's all I'm saying.

SHIMKUS: Yes. Uber's low rating is probably in the 2's for New York City.

GUNZELMAN: We're safe.

PAYNE: I bet you Wyoming -- I bet you Casper, Wyoming has the best average, right? The nicest people in the world. Everyone's at a 5.

Thank you both very much.

SHIMKUS: Thank you. Appreciate it.

PAYNE: All right, folks, I'm back tomorrow on the FOX Business Network at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. I will be trying to make you some money in this rough market.

In the meantime, "The Five" starts 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.