This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have called on the House to initiate impeachment proceedings.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think he's made it pretty clear that he deserves impeachment.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Without question within the realm of impeachable offenses.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: To move forward with impeachment on this president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right, you see what we did there?

Impeachment is all the talk among the prominent Democrats in Washington, especially those who want to become the next president of the United States, but, as for investors on Wall Street, not so much.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

And my thanks to my friend Charles Payne for filling in yesterday.

What in the world is going on with investments and investors today? Buoyed by a strong economy and stronger-than-expected earnings, two of the major market averages hit record territory today, the S&P 500, a good read of corporate America, perhaps the best read we have, and the NASDAQ, technology-laden though it may be, a good cross-section of medium to large businesses that are the very pulse of the economy.

FOX Business Network's Deirdre Bolton on what happened -- Deirdre.

DEIRDRE BOLTON, CORRESPONDENT: That is right, Neil.

Well, you hit it right on the head, as usual. It is all about earnings. And if you really look at this broad swathe, there were so many different companies that we heard from, from so many different parts of the economy.

So, for example, Lockheed Martin, right, a defense company, that exceeded Wall Street's expectations. Twitter, and a lot of people saying, has the social media company finally found its footing? That proves a very strong stock performance for the stock, also carrying a bit of the other social media companies up with it.

And then just some of the staples that we think of, United Technologies, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, all of these. So, so far, we are still, let's say, relatively early in this earning season. That is to say, only about 21 percent of the S&P 500 -- 500 companies have reported earnings.

But of that group, Neil, 78 percent have exceeded Wall Street's expectations, coming in stronger, posting stronger-than-expected earnings results. So that is part of what is buoying it.

We also had new home sales, a little bit of a surprise uptick in the data. We have to assume that the Fed keeping that benchmark rate low has encouraged more potential homebuyers to come in, take advantage of low mortgage rates, but that is certainly helping out as well.

So, as you said, bringing the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ very close. We have to wait two more minutes to get these final numbers, but near record highs -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much, Deirdre Bolton.

BOLTON: Sure.

CAVUTO: By the way, the Dow Jones industrial still about 170 points or so from record territory reached last fall. So we will see if that completes the trifecta maybe tomorrow.

Meanwhile, a lot of the 2020 Democrats still talking up impeachment, as leaders on the Hill are trying to say, let's pull this back a little bit, guys.

Mike Emanuel in Washington with the very latest on all of that.

Hey, Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

It's clear Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to hold off those on the left pushing for impeachment. A source on a conference call says Speaker Nancy Pelosi told House Democrats late yesterday -- quote -- "We have to save our democracy. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about saving our democracy."

She went on to say: "We don't have to go to articles of impeachment to obtain the facts, the presentation of facts."

But there is pressure coming from some of the candidates for president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice.

I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn late yesterday. And sources say Nadler told his colleagues McGahn will be the first in a series of public hearings based on the Mueller report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOGAN GIDLEY, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: It's pretty clear what Jerry Nadler and others are trying to do here. They don't want to get to the truth. They want to get to this president. At this point, I don't know what Jerry Nadler thinks he's going to get that Robert Mueller didn't, except for some political points with the base.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL: It is not clear how long Speaker Pelosi will be able to keep her most liberal members in check on impeachment -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Mike, thank you very much, Mike Emanuel on Capitol Hill.

All right, so where does this all stand? The markets are telling you one thing, investors betting on the fact that this is a relief, the Mueller report, it's not such a big deal, and certainly impeachment is a stretch.

But then there are those who follow what these politicians are yapping about. And could it be sort of, well, an oddity going forward?

Let's go to Democratic strategist Scott Levenson, market manager David Bahnsen, and FOX News contributor Kat Timpf.

Kat, you look at this here, the markets are betting that this is a relief, that this is as far as the Mueller report went, and not buying the impeachment talk. What do you think?

KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not buying the impeachment talk either.

I think it's mostly for political points, because if you really look at what that would do, it could maybe not even get through the House, and it would certainly not get through the Senate. And just like it did when Republicans did this to Bill Clinton, I think it would make President Trump more popular.

It would make them look petty, and it would make President Trump look more like a victim and a sympathetic figure. So I -- and I think that they know that. They must know that. I don't think they're complete morons. I think that they are able to realize simple facts and history.

So I really think that they're just trying to drum up support among their base, which I think it is effective in that way. I think that other Democrats, especially people who are further left, do like to hear that.

CAVUTO: Well, if you look at it, Dave, right now, the markets don't seem to think this is going to be a worry. Now, they could be wrong. And markets sometimes miss something here, but what do you say?

DAVID BAHNSEN, THE BAHNSEN GROUP: Well, look what the markets did in 1998, when they did impeach the president. The markets shrugged that off as well.

I think -- I agree with everything Kat said. I would just add, I think it's worse, because remember Bill Clinton had already been reelected. So it hurt the Republicans with that Senate of action in 1998. But the fact of matter is that this ridiculous idea of impeachment going into Trump's reelection, they could not possibly do a bigger favor for him.

CAVUTO: I do think too as well -- I don't know if you feel this.

I think the economic environment, market environment does count for something. And I think the markets...

BAHNSEN: Sure.

CAVUTO: ... Republican bastion though they are, they didn't like it when Bill Clinton was in trouble and the possibility that he might go. The environment is similarly strong today, right?

SCOTT LEVENSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The fact is, it's not strong. It's strong for investors. It's strong for corporations. It's strong for those that have real money, for the elites.

If you look at...

CAVUTO: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: ... who benefited with Bill Clinton? Were they just the elites back then?

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: Well, I mean, the fact is, right now, what you have is a real loss of buying power among the people who he's looking to gain votes from.

When you have a...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Are you saying that the rally that Bill Clinton was -- experienced was any different than the rally that this one...

LEVENSON: I'm saying that real wages haven't increased and buying power in 40 years.

CAVUTO: That's not what I asked. Is the environment good enough to sustain this president?

LEVENSON: No, the environment is not good enough to sustain this president, which is exactly my point.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do you agree with that, Kat?

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: I don't. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that.

I think that people care a lot more about what's in their pockets than they care about this Russia...

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: What they have left.

TIMPF: The Russia investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: The bottom line, you have wage stagnation.

TIMPF: It's a fact that we have very, very low unemployment as well.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do you think that we have the same kind of stagnation or even worse than when Barack Obama was president? Because I can tell you, statistically, it's better.

LEVENSON: But when you consistently talk too about the unemployment numbers, it's important to look at what kind of jobs are going up.

And when you consistently see that minimum wage jobs are going up, and the people that are really getting wage increases are at the top 1 and 2 percent, we know who this economy is benefiting.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: ... see record low unemployment levels with every key demographic. What do you say?

BAHNSEN: I would like to agree with him, if it were factually true.

This isn't a disagreement of opinion. It's a disagreement of fact.

(CROSSTALK)

BAHNSEN: All 10 deciles have experienced wage growth.

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: Wage stagnation is...

(CROSSTALK)

BAHNSEN: You have 3.4 percent wage growth, the highest we have had...

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: And it's all among the 1 percent.

BAHNSEN: No, that isn't true.

LEVENSON: It is actually.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: African-Americans, Latinos, women, all demographics, record low unemployment levels.

BAHNSEN: That's right.

CAVUTO: Now, I'm not here to kiss anyone's heinie. I'm just telling you the fact of the matter is these are the metrics Democrats are using with Barack Obama, saying...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You're ignoring all of that?

LEVENSON: No, what I'm saying is, when the minimum wage hasn't gone up in this country in over -- almost over a decade...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: We have record numbers of companies raising that.

LEVENSON: We're seeing buying power among the younger generation...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I'm seeing strong retail sales, strong consumer confidence numbers, strong industrial production.

Whether you want to credit this president or not, it is what it is. These are the metrics we use to decide what party stays in power. For now, doesn't that look good for this president, or no?

TIMPF: Objectively, it's a fact that it does.

And I think that it absolutely does matter. So I think that what Democrats should be doing is, they should be focusing on how they say, oh, we can make it even better. These are our ideas, rather than saying, let's impeach the president, which is impossible.

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: Elizabeth Warren's proposal over the last couple of days on really dealing with student loan addresses what the interns in my office are fearful about every day.

They fear they're not going to earn as much as their parents. That's a constant. And that filters down to confidence in the economy.

CAVUTO: But you're not concerned how she's going to pay for it, just by taxing rich people?

LEVENSON: I am totally -- of course I'm concerned about how she's paying for it, but I'm more concerned that we don't address it.

I'm more concerned that, as we talk about the indices, which are, by and large, good for corporate America, we're not dealing with the people...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, there are a lot of pension funds that have money tied to them, right?

LEVENSON: But you don't hear President Trump talking at all about the student loan problem.

You don't really hear him about...

CAVUTO: Maybe because he's against bailouts, right?

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: He doesn't talk about providing better health insurance.

BAHNSEN: I think that the problem with these talking points is that they're 20, 30 years old.

The wage stagnation that -- peaked under the Obama years. And the fact of the matter is, the labor participation force -- I don't understand why we don't talk about this more. There's seven million more people since Trump took office that are actually in the job force looking for jobs.

CAVUTO: But are you surprised the president's poll numbers aren't even stronger?

If the economy was booming, but do you worry about that?

BAHNSEN: I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed.

The reason I'm not surprised is because I know why it is.

CAVUTO: Why?

BAHNSEN: I blame him.

I think that the president has done the right thing from a policy standpoint economically, deregulation, corporate tax reform, and he's appointed very good people in a lot of the key positions.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I would agree with that, that, sometimes, he's his own worst enemy.

(CROSSTALK)

BAHNSEN: That's exactly right.

TIMPF: Absolutely. Even throughout the Russia investigation itself, I don't think it would have been talked about as much as it was talked about if he didn't insist on talking about it so much.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Would you rather then -- talking about impeachment on or this pathetic economy you allude to?

LEVENSON: Obviously, the weaponry, the arsenal is there.

The report is lying at the floor of Congress. You have to talk...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do you really think that -- you disagree with Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and some of these other Democrats who are saying that might be a foolhardy measure?

LEVENSON: I actually think Nancy Pelosi is taking exactly the right tone and focusing not on the politics of the impeachment discussion, but on the constitutional obligation.

CAVUTO: No, no, that's true.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But you feel that they go too far and that the Republicans, who many said went too far, Democrats are repeating?

(CROSSTALK)

LEVENSON: I actually think it's really important that this pace that is being drawn out the way it is, because it gives the leadership an opportunity to educate the electorate.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: I just can't believe you're seeing Democrats, some Democrats, fighting so hard for Pence. I had no idea they liked Pence so much.

I don't know if they realize that doesn't mean that you get President Hillary Clinton, if they actually did impeach Trump.

CAVUTO: David, would it be a big worry to you if these hearings, whatever comes of them, develop into something?

BAHNSEN: No, not in the slightest, because, first of all, they're not going to impeach him.

I agree with Kat. I don't know that they have the votes in the House. But I know they don't have them in the Senate. He's not going anywhere. If he did, it would be Vice President Pence.

(CROSSTALK)

BAHNSEN: All they're doing is helping his reelection effort.

LEVENSON: All the Republican framing of discussions around impeachment are around the politics. Nobody's talking about the constitutional obligation that the Congress has.

BAHNSEN: Oh, I will talk about that all day.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, Republicans talked about a constitutional obligation. I think you would say that they overdid it, right?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: And now a lot of Republicans are telling the Democrats, you risk overdoing it.

LEVENSON: Well, the Mueller report put it at the hands of Congress. They have an obligation to take it...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So, you think by focusing on that, they will do just fine?

LEVENSON: I think if they take the time and educate the electorate, they will do just fine.

CAVUTO: All right.

We shall see.

Guys, I want to thank you all very, very much.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden getting ready to make it official finally. Third time, could that be the charm? Well, he's got some competition from someone who wasn't even born when he made his first run -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, leave it to my crack staff to remind me, Neil, Mayor Buttigieg wasn't even around before, obviously, Joe Biden first ran a presidential campaign in '88 -- that he was. He was there, just a young man at the time, but a young child. But he was there.

It wasn't as if all that happened prior.

Anyway, Peter Doocy is in Washington with the latest, the entrant now very soon of Joe Biden into this presidential race, how that changes the mix.

What do you think, Peter?

PETER DOOCY, CORRESPONDENT: And, Neil, you're right.

Pete Buttigieg is half of Joe Biden's age. And he's been in the public eye for a fraction of the time, but they are on a level playing field right now in New Hampshire, where the Granite State Poll by the University of New Hampshire finds Mayor Pete has 15 percent. That is within the margin of error of Biden's 18 percent.

That's after a small drop for Biden, but a big jump for Buttigieg, since February. However, the two are still just vying for second place behind the Democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who has a commanding double-digit lead there in New Hampshire. He's risen to 30 percent.

And while these individual primaries and caucuses will determine the eventual nominee, a national poll finds the most famous man about to get in the race, Joe Biden, is in first. Monmouth's new numbers show Biden sits at 27 percent. That is a slight drop from January, Sanders, the runner-up there, 20 percent. That is a slight rise from January.

And Pete Buttigieg is third with 8 percent, after starting January with zero percent. So he literally came out of nowhere. And there has been a lot of confusion about Biden's plans to enter the race. Local outlets in his home state of Pennsylvania were citing multiple sources telling them he planned to rally there tomorrow.

But Biden's team tells us those were just rumors. So the plan for now is a video is going to go live online Thursday of this week, and then he's going to have his first campaign event at a union hall in Pittsburgh Monday of next week. That is Biden's home state, and it's one that he hopes to wrestle back from Trump, if, of course, Biden makes it through the Democratic primaries and becomes the nominee -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, and that could be a leap, to your point. Peter, thank you very, very much.

So to that other Pete, as in Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and his surge and whether Joe Biden, even Bernie Sanders should be worried.

RealClearPolitics' A.B. Stoddard.

A.B., as you have often reminded me, polls change on a dime and on a day and in the moment. And right now, the moment and the momentum seems to be with the young mayor. Should Joe Biden worry?

A.B. STODDARD, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Oh, I think he should definitely worry. I think Bernie should worry. I think Trump should worry.

Apparently, Don Jr. is worried. He's tweeting about Pete Buttigieg today. The reason is that, Buttigieg is a singular political figure. He has more experience at age 37 that would be very helpful qualifications for running for president than many other people running as senators.

He's a veteran. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He's been a mayor. He has an incredibly interesting life story, the things he's pursued, the curiosities that he has indulged. He is a very -- he has a very interesting presentation also, which is that it's very deliberative and very measured, without seeming calculated.

So I really think that he is this unique sort of political figure that is going to continue to rise and likely be among the top contenders at the end. And that's a long way. As you and I have discussed before sort of the contours of these races, people are kicking tires now. The debates are this summer. The voting starts in January.

Everything will look different at the end of the summer and early fall. People will drop out. People like Biden will consolidate more votes from the people who have left the race. But I think that Biden and Bernie know and I think the Trump team knows that Buttigieg, barring any kind of scandal or something that we can't see, is likely to be in the top final four or five.

CAVUTO: You know what is interesting, A.B., though?

And this happens to someone who surges out of the blue, that the criticisms and the examinations start as well, his mayoralty record and whether he was truly helpful to the housing industry in his -- in his city, and then a host of other issues, and that it will lend itself to this up and down nature of everyone takes a turn being the flavor of the day or week, so to speak.

STODDARD: Right.

Look, I think that there is a huge push in the Democratic Party that they have to turn out black women voters to take the presidency back. That's what party strategists tell me. That's the reason why they say, hell, no, we can't nominate a white man with another white man on the ticket.

And so look at the women running in this race. Kamala Harris is in the top, but the other women contenders don't seem to have made a splash over the white men. This is really a concern at the party level. If Joe Biden is going to be criticized for things he said in the past about segregation, if Buttigieg will be criticized for his policies as mayor that disenfranchised black people in South Bend, if Bernie is going to get the cold shoulder from black voters in South Carolina, will the other contenders in the race point that out?

Will they take it on? Or will these candidates that I just mentioned find a way to speak to this discrepancy and overcome that liability and earn black support? Someone like Biden has deep support among black voters. Why? Because they're pragmatic and they think he can beat Trump.

So I think this is going to look a lot different later, once we see how dirty this gets, how divisive it is, and whether or not different groups we think are so different in the coalition end up just looking for a winner.

CAVUTO: You know, I -- you focus on the politics and the history and the drama. I focus on the nerdy math.

And I think it would be very tough for someone to emerge as a first ballot victor in this crowded field, proportional voting and all the rest.

STODDARD: It is so true, Neil.

The Democrats, in response to Bernie's rise, the fact that he almost knocked off Hillary, and his supporters said the system was rigged against him, they have changed a lot of the rules and the structuring of this process. And with all of these candidates, there's a very good chance they're looking at a brokered convention, with someone like Bernie going all the way.

And that really actually could threaten their ability to beat Trump.

CAVUTO: Wow.

A.B., good catching up with you. Thank you very, very much.

STODDARD: Thanks so much, Neil.

CAVUTO: The Supreme Court and something the president wants badly -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: People.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Power!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: People.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Power!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: When I say people, you say power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: So, the 2020 census is all about citizenship?

The Trump administration says, yes, it is, and they're free to ask that on the census survey that Commerce overseas. Now, what are the issues at hand?

Let's go to who Doug McKelway outside the Supreme Court with the very, very latest.

Hey, Doug.

DOUG MCKELWAY, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

You know, it's a risky proposition to try to forecast how the Supreme Court will rule based on the questions they ask during oral arguments. That said, the high court's conservative majority seem poised to uphold the administration's plan to pose this question on the 2020 census -- quote -- "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?"

Well, that question had been included in every census from the year 1820 through 1950. The Trump administration wants it back, allegedly to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

But the four liberal members of the court pummeled the administration's lawyers over the plan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor telling him -- quote -- "This is a solution in search of a problem."

Justice Elena Kagan also weighed in -- quote -- "You can't read this record without sensing that this need was a contrived one."

Hundreds of immigrant rights supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court to protest the plan, seemingly unaware that it is -- quote -- "illegal for the Census Bureau to disclose or publish any private information that identifies any individuals or businesses."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DALE HO, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Well, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned that, if that data is out there, it could pose a risk to you. We have seen an administration that is picking people up in sensitive places, like courthouses, schools, going to the doctor's office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: Both sides in this debate acknowledge that if the question is included in the 2020 census, as many as 6.5 million people may not participate in the census, and that translates into probable losses for the Democrats, because the census determines the number of electoral votes, the number of congresspeople, and also the allocation of federal funds to each and every states.

We're expecting a decision this coming June -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you, my friend, very much.

All right, Judge Napolitano here.

I guess, Judge, not being a lawyer, as you often know, I don't know what the debate is here. What is wrong with asking that question?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, JUDICIAL ANALYST: So there's a couple of issues.

One is, you have a right to remain silent. The government can ask you whatever it wants, but, under the Constitution, you don't have to answer. The government can't enter your house directly or indirectly, and force you to tell them how many toilets you have and what the education is.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You don't have to answer that particular question either.

NAPOLITANO: Well, the law says you have to answer, but the Constitution says you can remain silent.

And when the Constitution and the law conflict the Constitution trumps, lowercase T. -- law.

The argument in the Supreme Court today was, did the government go about adding this question back on -- as Doug quite properly reported, it was on there for 100 years.

CAVUTO: That's right.

NAPOLITANO: Did the government go about adding this question back on in a proper and lawful way? I don't think they did.

The Supreme Court, from my read of the oral argument today, doesn't seem to be too concerned with that. If I had to predict how it's going to go, I think it'll go 5-4 in favor of the government along ideological lines.

But I do think that a lot of immigrants will be afraid that, by answering this question truthfully, they may lose their status here and it may harm them. So they will remain silent. So the government will have an undercount.

CAVUTO: Well, there's a big difference between immigrants and illegal.

NAPOLITANO: Yes. Yes.

CAVUTO: Right.

So, why would an illegal even fill out the form?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I don't know the answer to that.

But there's generally not one form per person, but one form per household.

CAVUTO: Right, per household.

NAPOLITANO: And a household might have a mixture of people who are lawful and people who are not lawful.

I, myself, have had run-ins with these census people, and they came to my house. They knew exactly who I was, but I didn't want to answer the questions because of my belief that you have the right to remain silent when the government comes knocking.

We actually had some humorous conversations over this.

CAVUTO: You must be hell to deal with.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: No, no, no, no.

So where do you think this goes if, for example, the Supreme Court says that that question, legitimate though it was for a century, is still legitimate now?

NAPOLITANO: Well, it'll be on the form. Not everybody gets the long form. Some people get the -- they get the short form, and it's not an issue.

If it's on the form that you get, under the law, you're supposed to answer it correctly. Under the Constitution, you can remain silent. What will people do?

My guess is that people who feel they may be jeopardized, whether that's a rational feeling or not, will remain silent. And the government will have an undercount. And then there will be repercussions to that, as Doug pointed out, in terms of representation in Congress, federal aid, protection under the Voting Rights Act and number of electoral votes.

It could trigger a significant fallout as a result of the undercounting.

CAVUTO: And then illegals and all who would benefit from the very types of services that would be provided...

NAPOLITANO: Wouldn't get those services.

CAVUTO: But they're not entitled to them anyway because they're illegal.

NAPOLITANO: Ah, that's the rub, because the same Supreme Court that heard this oral argument today has also ruled that, with respect to basic government services, emergency rooms, police, fire, education, the government can't distinguish on the basis of legal and illegal.

You bring your kid to school, and you're not being deported, the kid gets a seat.

CAVUTO: You know who created this mess?

NAPOLITANO: Who?

CAVUTO: Lawyers.

NAPOLITANO: Yes. You sound like Varney now, but you're right. You're right.

(LAUGHTER)

NAPOLITANO: Hopefully, they won't make it worse.

CAVUTO: All right. Judge, thank you very, very much.

And lawyers, you don't think -- I'm not talking about the judge, of course. But it gets out of control. Right?

All right, so what do you think right now is a bigger threat to our way of life, to our democracy, Russia or the Mueller report? Because the president's senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, just drew a distinction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARED KUSHNER, SENIOR PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Now, the media spent so much time focusing on it, that, quite frankly, the whole thing's just a big distraction for the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, this is pretty interesting.

We're getting word that the president met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey out with stronger-than-expected numbers and more users. The stock was up close to 16 percent. The president's been critical that a lot of social media need to be fairer.

More after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KUSHNER: Quite frankly, the whole thing's just a big distraction for the country.

And you look at what Russia did, buying some Facebook ads to try to sow dissent and do it -- and it's a terrible thing -- but I think the investigations and all of the speculation that's happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, depends on your point of view, of course.

That's Jared Kushner's read on this. A lot of people are saying the Russians interfering in a presidential election to the degree they did is a big deal, and the fact they could do it again an even bigger deal.

Let's get the read from Gianno Caldwell. We have got Democratic strategist Robin Biro and The Washington Examiner's Tiana Lowe.

Gianno, what do you think of what he's saying, that the fallout and all the attention addressed to the Mueller report far more damaging than the Russian interference on which it was based?

GIANNO CALDWELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I'm honestly, Neil, not familiar with any data that suggests what he's saying is true.

So I can't come to the same conclusion as he did, because I'm just simply not aware of that data. What I can say, though, this Russia hacking thing was a big issue. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, a Republican, or anything else.

And, truthfully speaking, any time that there's an interference in our democracy, our way of living, our way of handling our elections, that we -- there should have been an investigation. And, honestly speaking, what made it as big as it was, was in part because of President Trump continued tweeting about it, continued talking about it before the media.

This was something that he talked about on almost a daily basis. So if there's a reason for it being as big and as big of a disruption as it was, one can say that President Trump had a lot to do with that.

CAVUTO: Well, yes, Tiana, I mean, I understand the administration's frustration with the whole investigation, what have you, it was a witch- hunt, but what the Russians did, even though it's been deemed not to have altered the outcome of the election, is a pretty big deal, irMDNM_s it not?

Tiana?

ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes.

CALDWELL: It certainly is.

CAVUTO: Tiana first. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

TIANA LOWE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: So, it obviously was a big deal.

And based on what we saw on the Mueller report, it's evident that it was -- the investigation was initially founded on a solid basis. Whether or not you had bad actors within the probe, people like Peter Strzok, obviously held an anti-Trump bias, that's another question.

This is also separate from the media coverage of it. And I think that, to an extent, both Trump and the media really fed this story to be a much bigger thing than what it actually should have been.

We really shouldn't have had to discuss it until the Mueller report actually came out. And the fact that Russia -- I mean, they were trying to influence the Trump campaign's Ukraine policy. We know this with the Paul Manafort parts of the Mueller report. And that's really dangerous.

And, luckily, Manafort never actually made it to the White House. And we should all be thankful for that.

CAVUTO: Well, to be fair, to say that the Democrats didn't have some dirt on their hands in pushing this, and leaving people to say, are you saying that this guy wasn't duly elected?

And, Robin, that is something I got from a number of prominent Democrats. I have them on any of my shows. And only one that I knew of said that this made him think that the president was duly elected, in other words, that all the others left it out there that it's possible, even now, this altered the outcome of the election. And that's just not right.

BIRO: Yes, I can't agree.

Donald Trump won this election, in my opinion, and Hillary Clinton lost it. It was hers to lose. And, yes, I'm really grateful that the Mueller report was as detailed as it was. Volume one laid out over 180 pages.

The appointment orders charged him to investigate Russian interference and meddling in our election. I think they did a really good job and a good service to our country in doing that. We need to look now at how we can prevent that going forward.

I would allege that that is more serious of a problem than perhaps media bias, which I think is what Jared Kushner was more alluding to, Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, for them, it was always back to them and how it affected them. I get that. I know that what a fixation this was in the media and everywhere.

But, Gianno, we have to be very cognizant of the fact that the Russians are trying to do this all over again in 2020. Right?

CALDWELL: They certainly are.

But unlike what happened when President Obama was in office, I'm sure that the country, especially this administration, will take that very seriously. The fact of the matter is, there should -- there should have been sanctions placed on Russia, which we saw that there were, and there should continue to be sanctions placed on any country that chooses to try to attempt any interference within our country whatsoever.

What Democrats need to do now is move on, the report is out there, and stop trying to find a narrative to show why President Trump won this 2016 election. And I think that's what will hurt them overall, because 50 -- over 51 percent of Americans believe that this was an actual witch-hunt.

And the report showed that there was no collusion. So with that being the case, I think we all need to move on and focus on the issues that are important to Americans across this country.

CAVUTO: We shall see. Guys, I want to thank you very much.

All this breaking news, including some new video..

CALDWELL: Thank you.

CAVUTO: ... that's come into our newsroom of a suspected suicide bomber in Sri Lanka. This was just moments before he blew himself up, but doing so at a church, helping to kill hundreds.

Now ISIS is claiming responsibility for these series of coordinated attacks. So, now what?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: A national day of mourning in Sri Lanka, as funerals begin for all of those victims of that deadly Easter bombing. ISIS has since claimed responsibility for the attacks.

FOX News Channel's Benjamin Hall with more -- Benjamin.

BENJAMIN HALL, CORRESPONDENT: Yes, hi, Neil.

And ISIS claiming responsibility on their news agency, Amaq. But from very early on, many experts thought that it would have been impossible for such a small domestic terror group, called National Thowheed Jamath, to have carried out this coordinated, sophisticated attack themselves.

Together with the fact that over 40 Sri Lankans have gone to fight with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the connection was already being made before that; 321 people are now dead; 500 have been injured.

And, today, the prime minister for Sri Lanka warning that there were more militants and more bombs out there. We're also now learning the identity of the alleged mastermind, Moulvi Zahran Hashim, seen here among the other suicide bombers pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi just before the attack.

It's a still from a video just released. And we're seeing chilling surveillance video of one of the seven suicide bombers walking calmly across a square in the capital Colombo wearing his heavy backpack, entering St. Sebastian's Church, walking into the center right up to the front of that Catholic Church, before blowing himself up.

Today in Sri Lanka, funerals began, as the country observed a day of mourning. The country is under a state of emergency. And the military is operating under enhanced wartime powers. Police have so far arrested at least 40 people in connection to the bombing.

And also among the dead, tragically, four Americans among them, 11-year-old Kieran Shafritz de Zoysa, also brother and sister Amelie and Daniel Linsey, 15 and 19 years old, and 40-year-old Dieter Kowalski.

Other Americans are believed to be injured. And now it's believed there will be a security shakedown in Sri Lanka, as it emerged officials didn't heed warnings from India that these attacks would be carried out -- 10 days ago, Indian intelligence said that suicide bombers would target churches and hotels, and they did nothing about it.

Now the FBI is sending their agents out to Sri Lanka to see if they can assist in the investigation -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Benjamin, thank you very much, Benjamin Hall in London.

Another guilty plea in that college admissions scandal, as Lori Loughlin and her husband push to have more evidence released -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: The USC coach who made a fake crew profile for actress Lori Loughlin's daughter agreeing to plead guilty in this ongoing college admissions scandal.

Trace Gallagher with the latest.

Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

Laura Janke is the former assistant women's soccer coach at the University of Southern California. She's accused of helping the ringleader of the college admissions scam, Rick Singer, by creating these fake athletic profiles to get kids recruited for various sports they never played or weren't very good at, including making it appear that Lori Loughlin's daughters were accomplished rowers, when they weren't. They never rowed.

Rick Singer allegedly paid for Janke's services by donating money to her soccer club. Janke will now plead guilty to racketeering and conspiracy. And she will cooperate with prosecutors.

Meantime, Lori Loughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, want the legal process against them to stop until the feds turn over all the evidence. They're facing money laundering and wire fraud charges for allegedly funneling their $500,000 bribe through a charity.

Legal experts say the government would likely have bank records, wire transfers, cash checks, et cetera, and that her attorneys will want to see how damaging that evidence is before proceeding.

Loughlin and Giannulli have turned down a plea deal because it includes significant jail time -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Trace, thank you very much, Trace Gallagher.

All right, Bill Donahue in New York is in some heat for a green future that's very different from those elsewhere in his party. Some say he's trying to outlaw glass and steel skyscrapers. And we're looking around Manhattan, and we see glass and steel skyscrapers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: The Green New Deal, do you support that?

RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO: Not as currently written.

QUESTION: Oh, really? So you would support something like that, but why do you not support it?

Is it too expensive, or you think it's not realistic?

TRUMKA: We weren't part of the process. And so the workers' interest really wasn't completely figured into it. So we would want a whole lot of changes made, so that workers and our jobs are protected in the process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, that's AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, the latest, well, those left of center to say they don't like the Green New Deal, the way it's configured right now.

Ditto New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has been pushing for skyscrapers to go green, but doesn't like the direction of the plan that's on the table right now. A lot of confusion on the left.

The Wall Street Journal's James Freeman, Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro.

Capri, what do you make of this? No one seems to be on the same page.

CAPRI CAFARO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think that you have a number of progressive Democrats that are trying to lurch as far left as possible with the Green New Deal, the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes, and some folks that are running for president, because they think this is a shiny object.

But then you have folks like Richard Trumka who I think are much more pragmatic, recognizing that there are significant implications. And when you look at what, for example, Bill Donahue has proposed in New York, while it's not an out-and-out ban, it essentially would make it cost-prohibitive to have things like steel and glass skyscrapers.

What does that mean for the building trades, the ironworkers, the sheet metal workers, even people like the cement finishers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? It means no jobs.

And so, yes, we need to care about the environment, but we have to do it in a pragmatic manner. And that's -- I think that's where -- when you look at practical Democrats, they put the brakes on because there's a recognition that if you lurch too far to the left, it's going to cost jobs. And what does that mean? That's going to hurt our economy.

CAVUTO: Well, it makes the mayor too look like Fred Flintstone. And I think today's cover of The New York Post pretty much says it all, James.

I'm wondering if it's now hitting beyond silly territory.

JAMES FREEMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, well, keep in mind, Mr. de Blasio isn't running a big, booming metropolis like South Bend, Indiana. He's only running New York City. So he's got to make an effort to kind of stand out in this field.

And I think he's thinking that if he can be greener than the rest of the field -- the Green New Deal in the Senate, they all voted present, whereas he's saying, I'm going to do a New York City Green New Deal.

CAVUTO: But how would he do that? In other words, if you're saying you don't like glass and steel structures and the like, and you want to make them to code, does that then either grandfather in the existing structures, of which there are plenty?

Or do you start from scratch, because that would be an expensive nightmare for the city?

FREEMAN: Yes.

And it's going to be expensive on both ends. So the city council has just passed new emissions caps. The mayor wants to go further. And he said, I want to ban these glass and steel towers. Then he kind of backtracked a little.

What you're talking about is big fines for these buildings. And it's going to affect both things that can be built and tens of thousands, potentially, of existing structures. So I don't think this is really a plan for New York or a realistic plan in a city that is losing population, because the cost of government is so heavy here.

I think it's really about trying to define himself as the green candidate. He wants to be in the presidential mix, wants to go to Iowa and say, I'm the greenest guy here.

CAVUTO: Well, you can't change the laws and the rules after the fact. Maybe you can going forward.

But, Capri, this is part of the problem of paying what you want to do. And I think this is something Barack Obama warned some Democrats about a few weeks ago, right?

CAFARO: Right.

CAVUTO: That their grand visions are fine, but you have got to have a way to pay for them. And it's very clear...

CAFARO: That's right. That's right. I mean, it...

CAVUTO: ... that some of these, they have no idea.

CAFARO: Well, look, I mean, whether it's the issue that is before us in the city of New York, which, frankly, again, not only is going to create jobs, but will create stagnation when it comes to building, which is happening all the time in New York City.

I'm sure that folks like Vornado and Durst will have a lot to say about something like this.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

CAFARO: But when you also look at things like Elizabeth Warren's plan when it comes to debt forgiveness for college, that sounds lovely.

And, obviously, we have some issues when it comes to college affordability and student loan debt. But how we're paying for it is something that we have to be serious about. We can't be children about how we present our policy ideas. We need to be realistic about those things.

Be incremental, so people know you're serious, not just throw out big ideas that sound great, but can't get...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: To your point, have a game plan.

Now, we're getting an interesting item just into our newsroom, guys.

James, I will bounce this off you.

Nancy Pelosi is saying she is planning a meeting with President Trump on infrastructure. That is something of which both parties have some agreement. What do you think of that?

FREEMAN: Yes, the president and the Congress, unfortunately, both want to spend a lot of money. This is the area where people expect some common ground.

I think, ultimately, nothing will be done, because the person we see right there, Nancy Pelosi, is not going to agree to waive environmental rules to allow faster infrastructure development.

CAVUTO: What do you think, Capri?

CAFARO: You wouldn't necessarily need -- you don't necessarily need to do that.

I mean, let's take a look at what's already going on with things like the Army Corps of Engineers. I mean, so I don't necessarily know how much, frankly, is going to need to be waived in order to expedite some of the infrastructure investment that they're looking to do.

CAVUTO: And they -- both parties have some common goals here.

CAFARO: Absolutely. Absolutely.

CAVUTO: They're both open to it. The devil is in the details, right?

FREEMAN: Yes, but Trump -- the president's not going to go for a plan that builds stuff five to 10 years from now, after all the impact statements are done.

(CROSSTALK)

CAFARO: Well, sure.

(CROSSTALK)

CAFARO: And there's a lot -- there's a lot to deal with on there.

CAVUTO: Well, we don't know. We don't know that. We don't know what either side wants yet, just...

(CROSSTALK)

FREEMAN: I think he wants jobs now.

CAVUTO: All right. We shall see.

Guys, we don't know.

But, again, the fact that Nancy Pelosi and the president do plan to meet next week and do address infrastructure means that maybe there is some common ground, maybe.

Here comes "The Five."

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