This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" January 29, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Thank you, Trace.

Well, game not stopped. In case you were worried that all of this would
sort of fade, it hasn't, by week's end, as volatile and as crazy as ever,
GameStop as soon as we got news that Robinhood was raising a whole bunch of
dough to allow traders to resume buying and selling the stock, and they did
in droves, as you can see, a lot more buying.

But it also helped lift a number of other beaten-down stocks, Nokia,
Express, for a while, American Airlines. The new sort of fad in town is, if
it's shorted and down because some big hedge funds say it's going to go
down, along come these rebel populist traders to say, not on our watch.

So, how far does this go and how big does this get?

Welcome, everybody. Happy Friday to you. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is your
very, well, depending on the stock, profitable world. Not so great for the
conventional general markets, which are taking it on the chin, namely
because Washington right now is going to take its investigations right to
GameStop and a host of others, and all these others that have been jumping
far and fast.

Susan Li on the end-of-week theatrics that I don't think are ending on this
end of the week.

SUSAN LI, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

So, the GameStop-Reddit frenzy has driven Wall Street into unchartered
territory. We have never seen trading volumes like this before. And that's
making investors nervous. We have the Dow Jones industrials briefly
breaking below 30000 this afternoon, so, the Dow, along with the broader
S&P, finishing the first month of the year lower.

And while it was a major sell-off elsewhere in the markets, a GameStop
rally was back on, huge moves in the Reddit trading favorites like
GameStop, AMC, Express, and Koss. And this is after Robinhood allowed its
users to freely trade these names once again, managing to raise a billion
dollars in cash last night.

So, that ensures that it has enough money to clear the huge volume of
trades. But the move also angered Robinhood users, who accused the app of
rigging the markets in order to benefit the big money hedge fund guys.

Now, the SEC warning this morning that they will closely review actions
taken by regulated entities like Robinhood that may disadvantage investors
or otherwise unduly inhibit their ability to trade, but also adding that
the SEC will also act to protect retail investors when the facts
demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity, an investigation, by
the way, that Elizabeth Warren said that she asked for.

She tweeted that: "Casino-like swings in stock prices of GameStop reflect
wild levels of speculation that don't help GameStop's workers or customers
and could lead to market instability."

Now, despite Robinhood lifting restrictions this morning on trade, that
didn't last long, as the stock market sold off into the afternoon. So,
Robinhood customers holding GameStop shares were only allowed to buy one
additional share and up to five options contracts.

And that's not exactly free market capitalism at work there, Neil.

CAVUTO: Yes, I guess better than nothing, but it is getting weird.

All right, Susan Li, thank you, and very hard work today all around the
clock following this development here.

There's so much we don't know. This much, we do. The market giveth and it
can taketh right now. So, all of these people who are holding on to
multimillion-dollar fortunes, in some cases, given the run-up in the stock,
what happens if they want to get out? What happens when they all want to
get out at the same time? That could be problematic.

I have the two Charleses with us right now. And I'm very happy to, Charles
Payne, of course, Charlie Gasparino.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Charles Payne, to you.

The fact that the government is sniffing around, and something we will
raise with Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, what do you make of that,
that they're beginning to say, wait a minute, we got to start really
looking into all of this?

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Well, that always raises a red flag, right?
So -- and, of course, in this environment, people are wondering, what part
of this saga are you going to be sniffing around?

Will it be the ability to short 140 percent of a company? Even these shorts
-- if you just look at the top 10 shorted stocks, in FIZZ and Tootsie Roll,
those kind of names, to short 70, 60, 80 percent of a company, let alone
140 percent, I think a lot of people universally believe something is wrong
there.

I would start there if I was Congress. And then, listen, if Robinhood is
having trouble, they have got to -- they're going to have to look back and
understand how they seduce or wooed all of these customers, and maybe,
maybe figure that part out.

So, I'm worried about Congress, but I'm not -- I'm glad that the attention
is reaching certain levels and that this has become a mainstream story,
because it's a -- the underpinnings of this are mainstream, in the sense
that those who have not had a chance to participate, those who don't think
they have a lot of money, those who have felt that their forays into the
market in the past have been crushed, either they were in a stock that was
shorted or something just didn't work out for them, they feel like maybe,
collectively, they now have a voice, and they're being taken seriously.

CAVUTO: You know, Charlie Gasparino, you're saying that maybe the best
protection of all is recognizing, if it sounds too good to be true, it
probably is, or if you're getting a little too selfish, that's on you.

I'm just sort of getting a general sense of where you are on this, but not
necessarily for Washington intervening, that it can cause more harm. Could
you explain?

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, I worry
about it.

Listen, here's the bottom line with short selling, and here's why I'm
worried about them cracking down on short selling. Short selling actually
exposes so many frauds, because stock markets are much more filled with
touters and people who pump up these stocks like GameStop, by the way.

I mean, when was the last time you were in a mall? Or BlackBerry. I mean,
that -- those stocks are being touted, and investors are getting in those
stocks, thinking that they are great, based on flimsy research. And guess
what? The short sales come in and give you another side of the story.

So, if you think getting rid of short selling is a good thing, think again,
because it's going to lead to many more ripoffs. The problem with
Washington, I think, on this story, is this, Neil. I don't think there's
much they can do.

You can investigate the market manipulation. Guess what? You're going to
find out it's almost impossible to peel back, because a lot of this -- a
lot of this message board stuff is all anonymous. What's the difference
between a tout and a real -- and a real belief in something?

You have to delineate that. The real thing came down, I think, is -- with
what's going on here is that, when you have the Federal Reserve just
putting -- having zero percent interest rates forever, you're going to get
GameStop that's at $3 a share shoot up to $40 a share, which is when the
shorts came in and said, this thing ain't worth it.

It's full of -- it's full of irrational exuberance. And that's happening
with a lot of stocks. So, I think the big thing is, you want to add some
reality to the markets? Add some interest rates and make sure there's --
make sure you have to pay for money here.

CAVUTO: All right, well, that could be a whole 'nother phenomena here.
There's plenty justification to keep rates where they are.

But having said that, Charles Payne I know you have been saying, we don't
waste a nanosecond looking the other way when big shorts and some of these
big hedge funds are losing a lot of money here and we don't hold them
accountable. But God forbid the little guy makes a lot of money. Then we're
zeroing in on him.

Is it really that way, though? Or is there just a sense right now that this
is like a market-toppy event, that we're assigning values to companies that
are way beyond the norm? Tesla's one thing, but something that we see
happening to these small guys who've been targeted, I guess, because
they're small, because of the focus of shorts, they get a disproportionate
amount of attention.

What do you think?

PAYNE: Well, it's easy now to say, oh, well, Tesla is not the same. For the
last five, six, seven years, people were saying the same exact argument.

I'm not here to argue value. Listen, I'm in the market to make money. Two
weeks ago, I put out a list of shorts that people should buy. And we took
profits on them, actually, most of them last week. The only one I took
profits on this week, I think, was SPCE (ph). And they were all grand
slams.

So, you got to know your own greed level. Also, the assumption that
everyone who bought these at 50 bucks is all going to hold it until it goes
all the way back down to $1. It's a farce. I mean, these are not dumb
people. They may -- some of them -- listen, human nature, some people are
going to get greedy.

But a lot of people have already made a lot of money. I think the main
story here, though, is that Wall Street hedge funds, it's good. You think a
stock is 100 bucks and it should be 80 bucks, go short. But they don't just
go short. They put together 50-page reports. They get to go on TV.

They have their own networks, their own very powerful networks. They don't
need to go in a chat room and gather a million people with 400 bucks. They
can make two or three phone calls.

GASPARINO: Yes, but...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: So, the idea that the hedge funds are being dissed or somehow
disadvantaged there is a farce.

GASPARINO: But wait a second.

Look at the short thesis on BlackBerry, OK, the analysis on BlackBerry, and
the long thesis on BlackBerry.

PAYNE: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: And then let me tell you one thing. Charlie, let me tell you thing.

GASPARINO: That's insane.

PAYNE: Let me tell you one thing.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: That's insane. I get trading out of it.

Look at the short thesis on GameStop.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, let me just tell you one thing, though.
Let me just tell you one thing.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: I bought BlackBerry in my own account, in my own account a year --
almost a year ago.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: The thesis makes no sense.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: So what?

CAVUTO: Let Charles Payne answer. Let Charles Payne answer.

Go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: ... stocks up.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Who cares about your thesis? Who cares about your thesis? Who are
you? Who are you? Who cares about your thesis?

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Guess what?

Not all the money in there are smart people. There are people being led
astray. It happens every few years. And it's happening now, like it
happened...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Guess what? People were led astray when they bought General Electric
at $54.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: ... bubble, Charles. But a lot of small investors believed
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Pets.com&d=DwICAg&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=VkbVq-YonEbBIwUJaIvKV3SgloMTL-0dr1cdxo8ZLD8&m=wIzK7U1bdLJt_KbF4zjCc_wktstOnUtv2MpZfT0camM&s=mu9mLqUR0EqdPLSXv4EPP15EjfSZLU4XXBmsmvylxuo&e= was going to be the next https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Amazon.com&d=DwICAg&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=VkbVq-YonEbBIwUJaIvKV3SgloMTL-0dr1cdxo8ZLD8&m=wIzK7U1bdLJt_KbF4zjCc_wktstOnUtv2MpZfT0camM&s=Vzh97oUDmxTLo3x_wm-mVCYs6T_4iUjHbQshWls0EEA&e= . Remember that.

PAYNE: Yes, and guess what? And guess what?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: And they looked wise, that the crowd that shorted Tesla looked
very, very wise, right? In retrospect, maybe not so much, right?

PAYNE: Listen, we saw this with Tesla, Netflix. Amazon for years was a
stock that the experts said don't buy because there was no E in the P/E.

Here's the thing. I bought BlackBerry a year ago, almost a year ago, in my
own account because of the 5G technology. I just happened to see the short
squeeze and take it. My broker sent me an e-mail, said, yo, you remember
this? I said, oh, golly.

So there was a thesis for me to own it.

GASPARINO: Not everybody trades in...

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: ... Charles.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Excuse me. I told you a year ago. What does a year ago mean to you?
I said I bought it a year ago.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: ... and holding this stuff.

And there are people that are buying...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Neil, I didn't want to do this with anybody else that would not let
me speak, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: All right, all right, guys, one at a time, one at a time.

So, Charles, you're saying you have confidence that people are grownups,
they can invest in something. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out.

PAYNE: No.

CAVUTO: But they're certainly as qualified as the hedge funds who have
second-guessed now, right?

PAYNE: I'm not saying anybody who -- I'm not judging qualifications. I'm
judging opportunity.

I'm saying, who the hell is anybody out there to say, oh, you should stop
being able to own GameStop at a certain level?

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Nobody is saying that.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: I would love to be able to speak more than three seconds.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Nobody is saying that, Charles.

PAYNE: All right. Well, here's the bottom line. Here's the bottom line.
Everyone has theses, right?

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: All we're doing is raising the issue.

PAYNE: All right, here's the thing.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: You're calling people stupid.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: ... is that they couldn't handle the volume from a settlement
standpoint.

And Rush Limbaugh and all these lunatics are running around saying it's a
class warfare thing. It's absurd.

PAYNE: I tend to agree with Rush on this, because you know what?

Robinhood could have raised...

GASPARINO: Well, that's -- it's an absurd argument.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: Excuse me. I would like to talk -- I would like to talk for more
than one second, my man. Please, give me the chance. I'm asking you to let
me talk for a minute.

Now, Robinhood raised a billion dollars this morning. They could have
raised that yesterday. They could have raised $10 billion. They want to go
public. The insiders don't want to give up anymore equity.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: They raised a billion because they don't have enough money for
the settlement.

PAYNE: Neil, I'm out. Please cut me off. I don't want to finish this.

This guy keeps interrupting. What kind of nonsense is this?

CAVUTO: OK. All right. All right.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I just want to understand, guys, are you -- real quickly, guys, are
you for the government looking into this?

PAYNE: No, no, no.

CAVUTO: Charlie Gasparino, yes or no?

All right, Charles Payne, you're not.

GASPARINO: Look into it. I'm not for more regulation.

CAVUTO: So, you're both...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You agree.

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: I want them to make sure, though, that you can never stop -- you can
never short 140 percent of a company. I want to make sure the hedge funds
can never keep shorting unlimited amounts of stock, because every short is
a deliberate sell, a deliberate attempt to knock the stock down.

And that is not a free market.

GASPARINO: I want to make sure people stop touting stocks and getting...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: All right, and that was the case with GameStop. It did have a 140
percent short position, all right? OK.

Guys, it's been great having you on. We saved a hell of a lot of time by
talking over one another, so touche.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: That never gets old.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: These are -- no, it never does get old.

Thank you, my friend.

GASPARINO: It like the old -- it's like "Cavuto" on Saturday, the old show.

CAVUTO: That's fine. That's fine.

All right, guys, I want to thank you very much.

Senator Pat Toomey, one word for you: Help.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Very good to have you, Senator. Thank you for taking the time.

SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): Yes. Thanks for having me, Neil.

CAVUTO: Obviously, this gets quite emotional and volatile. And you could
well understand.

I'm just curious, because a lot of folks -- I know you will be leaving the
Senate. A lot of people disappointed to hear that, see that, because you
have always been a good voice of reason. I'm just wondering whether
Washington could get ahead of itself here.

That seems to be the fear of both sides. What do you think?

TOOMEY: Well, we shouldn't let that happen.

I do have colleagues who've already been making noises about somehow the
SEC stepping in and new regulations and new laws. I see no case for that at
this point

I do think we should understand why the brokers made the decision they
made, several of them, including Robinhood, to limit the ability of people
to buy stock. I think there is a very plausible explanation that has to do
with the additional capital required when stocks become extremely volatile.

But let's make sure we understand that. But, hey, let's remember, Neil, the
technology, the innovation of some of these companies that have made a
user-friendly app that allows you to trade stocks for free, and including
fractional shares of stock, this is a wonderful innovation that is bringing
investment opportunities to people of modest means who never would have had
that opportunity before.

This is a really, really good development. And I don't want to do anything
to damage the opportunity of individual folks, middle-income, blue-collar
folks, to be able to participate in a big wealth-generating machine...

CAVUTO: Right.

TOOMEY: ... which is historically what the stock market has been.

CAVUTO: Well, that's how they have been characterizing it, Senator, to your
astute point here, that this is a chance for the little guy to do what the
big guys have been doing.

TOOMEY: Yes.

CAVUTO: But, having said that, though, I did mention the market sold off
mightily today.

TOOMEY: Right.

CAVUTO: Part of the concerns, Senator, were that some of these hedge funds
that have been very important in this whole process, big short players,
like Melvin Capital, Citron, might be losing billions here.

Certainly, that was enough the case with Melvin that big investors like Ken
Griffin and Steve Cohen poured $2.5 billion to keep them going.

So, the fear seemed to be building that others were exposed to these big
hedge funds and might have to be rescued or helped if it gets that bad. And
that is what the people are fearing, that there's something systemic going
on here.

Do you worry about that?

TOOMEY: So, I -- look, I am not aware of any evidence that there is a
systemic risk in the capital markets here.

Let's keep in mind, I mean, our markets have been awfully frothy. We have
had an amazing run-up.

CAVUTO: Right.

TOOMEY: The idea of giving back a few percentage on any given day, for
almost any reason, wouldn't be the least bit surprising to me.

I do think it's also worth pointing out, look, this is a classic bubble.
Let's just be honest. It had all the components, the confluence of a number
of events that caused -- that has caused an unbelievable run-up in a stock
that is completely unsustainable.

When this ends, it's going to end badly for the people who buy in late,
just as it went very badly for the hedge funds who shorted early. The hedge
funds need to live with the consequences of that. They have lost -- some of
them lost a boatload of money. That's life. They're big boys and girls.

CAVUTO: Should individuals as well, then, Senator?

TOOMEY: But individuals...

CAVUTO: I mean, we're all adults here. We don't need to be baby-sat through
this. What do you think?

TOOMEY: Neil, let me...

CAVUTO: Sure.

TOOMEY: Individuals also have to live with the consequences of their
decisions.

And I hope they have the good judgment to not make very speculative
investments with money they can't afford to lose. But that's their
decision. And we shouldn't be regulating them out of the marketplace.

CAVUTO: Got it.

Senator, very good seeing you again. You didn't bring quite as much fire as
the two Charleses did, but I appreciate your being here just the same.

(LAUGHTER)

TOOMEY: All right, thanks for having me, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, well, we -- very good having you, sir.

We're going to have John Kirby on, the Pentagon press secretary, to talk
about how the Pentagon is going to help out in vaccine distribution and the
rest, but what the heck. I feel tempted now to just ask him about GameStop,
but -- not really. But he's next.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, we're not too far away from Defense General Lloyd
Austin. He's going to be up on Capitol Hill.

He's talking about all the National Guard commitment and how many Guards --
Guards men are going to have to stay on hand in Washington and for how long
and where else they might be needed.

So, he's busy, just having gotten approved and ready to go, as is this next
fellow, John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. Had that role in the
State Department with Barack Obama.

John, very good to have you. And congratulations on that.

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Thanks, Neil. Good to be
with you.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, what do you think of GameStop? No, I was just joking.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Let me talk a little bit about this National Guard troop commitment
and how many troops will be required or likely to stay.

KIRBY: Sure.

CAVUTO: Can you update us on that?

KIRBY: Well, so, right now, Neil, there's a little bit more than 7,000 or
so in the capital region. I want to make it clear that not 7,000 on the
streets at any given time. They work in shifts. So it's a much smaller
number that are out and about during the course of the day.

And those numbers will go down over the next month or so, as the mission
itself, the purpose for the mission itself declines.

CAVUTO: John, as well, National Guard is being called to help, as are
soldiers in general, I should add, on dealing with dispensing these
vaccines all over the country to speed up the process.

Can you update us on that?

KIRBY: Well, so, what I would tell you is, we got a request from FEMA --
it's here in the Pentagon -- it's being analyzed -- to use Department of
Defense capacity and capabilities, not to distribute the vaccines, but to
help administer the vaccines for the American people.

And I wouldn't be able to get into the aegis of the request itself. But I
can tell you, it's going through the same process that any request for
military forces, which comes in from our combatant commanders, goes
through. It'll get sourced by the services.

And then once we have analyzed it and determined the risk and what that --
what are the best resources to apply to it, then we will be out and about.

But Secretary Austin has made it very clear that the Department of Defense
does have capability and capacity to assist in this, and he wants to make
sure we're leaning forward and leaning in on contributing to the larger
federal government mission here.

CAVUTO: So, could I switch gears a little bit and talk about the Middle
East for a second, and specifically the planned rollback and eventual exit
of our troops out of that area, out of that region, particularly in
Afghanistan?

I know you have reported and mentioned, as has the secretary, that the
Taliban's refusal to meet commitments to reduce violence could inhibit or
even prevent that. Where do things stand now?

KIRBY: Well, what we're doing is, with our colleagues at the State
Department, we're reviewing the status of events in Afghanistan.

No decisions have been made about our future force posture there. But the
Department of Defense stands fully in support of the State Department's
lead on trying to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Look, there's got to be a political solution here that's bolstered by a
permanent and comprehensive cease-fire. And that's where the Department of
Defense wants to, again, help contribute to the diplomatic effort.

But I think, right now, General Austin, as he said in testimony, we want to
take a look at the negotiations that have occurred between the Taliban, so
we can better understand the nature of the commitments.

And, clearly, violence hasn't stopped there. And that's a real key
component going forward.

CAVUTO: All right, but I know you had said as well, John, that you're open
and still committed, as is the secretary, for a full troop withdrawal from
the region.

But it seems -- and this is just me making that leap -- I could be wrong --
that it's not going to be imminent.

KIRBY: I don't want to get into hypotheticals, Neil.

Again, we're going to review the status of the negotiations that are going
on. And we have made no decisions about future force posture. The secretary
looks forward to speaking to commanders in the field and here in the
Pentagon, as he gets a better grip on what the troop level ought to be
going forward.

But we have been hearing that, initially, anyway, the 2,500 troops that
they have right now are commensurate with the missions that they have been
given. But the secretary says he wants to get -- he wants to get a little
bit more knowledge and context about the mission itself going forward.

So, we're not making any commitments on force posture at this time.

CAVUTO: I know you're just settling in, John, as is the secretary.

But, of course, not surprising, as if on cue -- and this happens the
beginning of every new administration -- the Chinese take some provocative
actions, as you know, in the South China Sea, where they're building up
their presence, as well as some other matters, more bellicose regarding
Taiwan, and its push for eventual independence, something that, to them, is
a nonstarter, the Chinese.

Are you -- is the secretary worried that China has emerged as, by far, not
only our biggest threat, but maybe our thorniest one right now?

KIRBY: The way the secretary described it in testimony just a couple of
weeks ago is that he views China as the prime pacing challenge of the
United States military.

And he's speaking from a military perspective. Certainly, it's a pacing
challenge, a strategic competitor. But he's also said and made clear that
there's no reason for any of this tension to resolve itself through
confrontation, that we have military-to-military dialogue with the Chinese.

There's no reason for any of this to resolve itself into some kind of
conflict. But we also have an obligation to protect our national security
interests in the Asia Pacific. We are a Pacific power.

We have -- we have -- five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific
region. So, we have alliances that we also need to make sure we're honoring
through security commitments. And that's where his focus is going to be, on
making sure that the department has the capabilities, the operational
concepts, the technology that we need to match this pacing threat.

CAVUTO: Could I ask why you're here?

There's this report that the defense secretary is holding up some of the
Donald Trump nominees to these so-called Pentagon advisory boards. I
believe they're volunteer boards.

Do you know where that stands? Among the names that the former president
slated for this, Corey Lewandowski, of course, the former Trump campaign
manager...

KIRBY: Yes.

CAVUTO: ... and David Bossie, a former Trump deputy campaign manager.

Where is the secretary on this? Are they going to be able to serve in that
capacity?

KIRBY: Well, look coming in brand-new, the secretary has taken a bottom-up
look at the department, writ large, about the way the department is
structured, organized, the policies that we're implementing.

And that would certainly -- as it would on almost every other level, I
think you can expect that that will include these advisory committees and
these advisory boards.

I don't have any decisions to read out to you today or to announce today,
except to say that he's certainly wanting, just like in every other -- just
like we talked about with Afghanistan, he wants to take a bottom-up look
and make sure that the Department of Defense is doing the right things to
protect and defend the American people.

And that would include the work that these advisory boards conduct.

CAVUTO: All right, John Kirby, very good seeing you. And congratulations on
your new very challenging post.

KIRBY: Thanks.

CAVUTO: We will be watching closely, John Kirby, the spokesman at the
Pentagon.

We're finally a couple of other developments, including this news out of
New York state that deaths in nursing homes from COVID were apparently a
lot higher than the administration, Governor Cuomo was saying, OK? This is
coming all the more revealing, because the attorney general launching the
investigation is a Democrat.

What's going on?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, that $1.9 trillion stimulus plan is still a go for the
president United States. No road show to get it. No cutting it in two to
make it more palatable to reluctant Republicans.

And then there is this. It's still going to be expensive -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): When the Trump administration was trying to
divert blame, so they said, well, the state -- the states -- not just New
York, by the way. They blamed all the Democratic states for the deaths in
nursing homes.

The politics wasn't just here in New York. It was all the Democratic
governors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, it's not quite the issue here.

Welcome back, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

But Governor Cuomo under fire from no less than the New York state attorney
general, a Democrat, by the way, who says that the deaths in nursing homes
in the Empire State were severely understated by a number closer to 50
percent.

In other words, the deaths were at least 50 percent higher than the
administration was letting on. Now, the back-and-forth on this doesn't end.
But the fact that the attorney general, herself a Democrat, conducted the
study and released those findings has added considerable weight to it.

Bryan Llenas following the fallout from all of that.

Hey, Bryan.

BRYAN LLENAS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

Well, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that it is a tragedy that
thousands of people died of COVID-19 in the state's nursing homes, but he
did not take any personal responsibility. In fact, he said there's really
nobody to blame.

And then, in the same breath, he blamed the Trump administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Everyone did the best they could. When I say the state Department of
Health, as the report said, the state Department of Health followed federal
guidance.

So, if you think there was a mistake, then go talk to the federal
government. It's not about pointing fingers of blame. It's that this became
a political football.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LLENAS: Now, yesterday, New York's Attorney General Letitia James released
an investigative report which found that the Cuomo administration's policy
requiring nursing homes to accept COVID-19-infected patients in the early
months of the pandemic may have put residents at increased risk.

Now, Governor Cuomo says that that mandate was simply following federal
guidelines and that nursing homes should have alerted the state if they
could not handle COVID patients.

Well, nursing homes argue they were overwhelmed and the guidance was not
clear. Former Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brett Giroir says that
it's not the federal government's fault.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADM. BRETT GIROIR, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES: What the CDC said is, under very specific circumstances, where a
nursing home had all the training, had all the PPE, had all the isolation
requirements, all the staff, all the training. Then it would be permissible
to do so.

In no way was this federal government guidance. That is just absolutely
wrong. And he can't shift the blame. He has to own this one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LLENAS: The A.G. investigative report also found that the Cuomo
administration undercounted the death toll in New York's nursing homes.

The actual toll is 12,743. That's 4,000 more than had been reported. Now,
New York was not counting as part of that final death toll count anybody
who was transferred to a hospital and happened to die there.

When asked about this discrepancy, Neil, the governor said it was -- part
of it was a result of sketchy data that was given to the state by nursing
homes. And then he said, frankly, who cares where the person died? They
died, and it's a tragedy.

But, Neil, if you speak to the grieving families who are looking for
accountability, it matters immensely where their loved one died -- Neil.

CAVUTO: But, Bryan, I'm curious. Have they at least acknowledge that the
higher figure, the 12,000-plus death figure, is indeed accurate?

LLENAS: We don't know entirely yet, actually, because the Department of
Health is still doing an audit.

They are still trying to figure out how many nursing home residents died in
the facilities and how many died after they were transferred to the
hospital. And the reality is, across the nation, Neil, about 36 percent of
all of our COVID deaths in this country are still occurring in long-term
health facilities.

And it's gotten better, but they're still overwhelmed -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, Bryan, thank you very, very much, Bryan Llenas following
all those developments.

We have put out calls to the governor on this, have yet to hear back. But
we will keep trying, fair, balanced, as always.

Lee Carter coming up, famous Republican pollster, on this issue of COVID
relief and how much is too much. Really kind of depends on who you talk to.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I support passing COVID relief
with support from Republicans, if we can get it, but the COVID relief has
to pass. There's no ifs, ands or buts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, so that $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, whether it works
out to that final figure, is going to happen, and the president making it
very, very clear it's not going to be cut up or sold in different routes.

So, the idea that it's going to be maybe removing some of the more
contentious provisions for Republicans, like aid to states and that sort of
thing, it's going to happen, and with them or without them. Is that the
right message?

Lee Carter with us right now, Republican pollster.

Lee, I have heard so many Republican senators who are saying, you talk like
a moderate, but you executive order and implement like a much, much, much
more progressive guy. What do you think of the language he's using and the
executive orders and the stance that he's taken?

LEE CARTER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Well, so much for unity, right?

I think it was interesting. In testing the inaugural address, other
speeches, when the president used the language of unity, Republicans
reacted all very similarly. They said, it's a great message, but I think
what he means is unity for people who agree with me.

And I think what he's doing right now is showing that's what he meant. He's
saying, I'm going to go it alone. I mean, on my first act, I'm not even
going to try to reach across the aisle. I'm not even going to attempt to
compromise. I don't believe it's possible, is what he's saying.

And that's his prerogative. Elections have consequences. The Republicans
lost. The Democrats won. This is what he can do. But it's a really tough
pill to swallow when you say that you're going to be the president of unity
for all Americans, when you're not even going to have a conversation about
it.

CAVUTO: Republicans, by and large, have some issues with certainly the size
of this package, of $1.9 trillion, but not just Republicans. He could have
a devil of a time getting old Democrats on board. Joe Manchin of West
Virginia comes to mind.

There are others who are skeptical about where a lot of this money is
going. And that's why there was talk, how about breaking this up a little
bit, maybe into two measures, keep some of the more controversial
provisions out in the first go-round, so you can address states and helping
them out later on, which is a real bone of contention with those moderate
Democrats and Republicans?

But he's not indicating that he's going to do that. What do you think?

CARTER: He's not indicating that he is going to break it apart?

And I'm not so sure that anyone on the left would vote against this at this
point. I think what's really at play here, right, is, are the Democrats or
the Republicans going to be the party of the working class? And that's
really what this has been -- this election was a war for. And that's really
what's at stake right now.

And you saw the speaker of the House, McCarthy, put out the statement this
week where he said: "We must ask the Biden administration at every turn,
will it help Americans in need?"

That's the bar that the Republicans are putting by. By obstructing this,
they're saying, no, we're not for acting in the interests of Republicans in
need, even though they have lots of reasons to break it apart, and there's
lots of reasons why they might oppose it. But, symbolically, that's what it
looks like.

I think Democrats would have the same problem. If they don't pass it, it
looks like they're not for Republicans in need. And those particular
Democrats who would be voting against it would really have, I think, a hard
time within their party.

CAVUTO: All right, we will watch closely.

Lee, thank you very much, Lee Carter.

All right, here's the good news on vaccines. We have better than half-a-
dozen companies actively involved with treatments that are out there. Now
here's the bad news: getting them to you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, add Novavax to the latest company that has a vaccine out
that looks promising,an effective rate of about 89 percent, following up on
news that Johnson & Johnson had similar promising results.

If you're keeping track of, with along with these companies, AstraZeneca,
and you have got Oxford, Pfizer, BioNTech, again, no shortage of premier
players offering what could potentially be tens of millions of extra doses
of vaccine on the market.

That's not the issue then. It's getting into people's arms, which has
proven a real, real problem.

Dr. Saralyn Mark, the Medical Reserve Corps, American Medical Women's
Association head, on all of this.

Doctor, that's the one that I don't understand. No shortage of vaccines,
right? I mean, we're told now there are twice as many as people who have
taken them out already. Now, I understand the problem, the last mile and in
states and all. But who's to say that all these extra vaccines coming to
market won't suffer the same delayed fate?

DR. SARALYN MARK, FORMER WHITE HOUSE MEDICAL ADVISER: Well, Neil, it's good
to be back on your show.

And you ask a really important question. If you can remember, back in the
springtime, we had issues with testing, trying to get the tests to folks
who needed it and to get results back on time. I think, as we have seen, we
have to deal with supplies, such as the vaccines and all the elements that
you need to vaccinate, certainly sites, as well as people to vaccinate, as
well as administer those vaccines, to register and to check surveillance.

I think now we have a really good game plan to try to correct some of the
bottlenecks to move us forward, because we have got to get these vaccines
into the arms of individuals. So, by activating the Defense Production Act
to ensure that we have more supplies, not just the vaccines, but everything
else that you need for them, to get more people to vaccinate, to also check
the data management system.

How easy is it to register people? How is it to follow? And what does it
take to pre-vaccinate, as well as follow folks after vaccinating?

CAVUTO: I was chatting with the CEO of Novavax earlier today on his new
offering here.

And the one thing that struck me -- and I'm -- believe me, I'm not a
medical expert. You are. But that it's less effective against this variant,
the South African variant that's popped up in -- like, states like South
Carolina, and I notice other vaccines have similar issues, not that they
can't deal with it, but not deal with it as well.

Should we be worried, Doctor?

MARK: Well, I think we always need to be on our toes.

We're dealing with a virus that seems at times to be one step ahead of us.
Viruses mutate. And what we have to do is try to stay on top of things as
quick as possible. With these mRNA platforms, with the new antivirus
platform, they're able to adjust, perhaps provide boosters.

But, Neil, you bring up something that's important. Should we be concerned?
And the issue is, yes, but we have tools in front of us. I know we have
used the military parlance to talk about this as a war. We have activated,
reactivated the Defense Production Act.

Just think about it. You don't go into battle with just your guns. You go
in with body armor. And so, if you think about your vaccines as guns and
your public health measures as your body armor, we have a fighting chance.

So, what are those public health measures, which we know work if we use
them consistently correctly? And that's masking up, distancing and washing
our hands.

CAVUTO: Well put.

You always calm me down, Doctor. I appreciate that.

Dr. Saralyn Mark looking at all these developments here. Again, no shortage
of vaccines, but the problem is getting them to you, and soon. We shall
see.

All right, in the meantime, you knew this was going to happen, right? If
you're on Robinhood and you want to either buy or even sell GameStop, and
you can't, you could wait in half-a-breath for a lawsuit. It's already
happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the online trading platform Robinhood allowing folks to
trade in some of those hot issues like GameStop again, but a little too
late for one customer who is suing over the trade freeze in effect
yesterday.

John Pavia not surprised, the Quinnipiac law adjunct professor.

I bet, John, you're expecting more, right?

JOHN PAVIA, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Oh, there's going to be so much more.
This story has so many legs, it's awesome. And is -- is this lawsuit going
to go anywhere?

I don't think so, Neil. Every platform has in the fine print the ability to
stop trading under certain parameters. The question is going to be in this
one, who do they think they're protecting, right?

Because you have got a lot of exposure here, in lot of sense. And it's -- I
don't see it on the side of the retail investors. You get these
unsophisticated retail investors. And unless you're going to show some kind
of real coordination and collusion to manipulate the market, which is a --
by the way, it's a very hard thing to prove in this country, I think
they're the safest ones out of the bunch.

The hedge funds in this thing, and especially in GameStop, over 100
percent, over 100 percent of that stock was shorted, right? So that means
you got naked short selling going on?

CAVUTO: Right.

PAVIA: And it's not really -- so, I don't want to -- we can -- I don't want
go down the rathole of what short selling requires. But there's a lot of
exposure there.

So, who are these guys protecting? And then you talk about the platforms,
and with the hedge funds, the platforms. Who are they protecting? And did
they stop trading and halt trading because of the volatility hit that
threshold that, under their agency agreement, allows them to stop trading,
or did they stop it because they were protecting some fund that's got a big
investment in their platform?

There's a lot of issues in this thing.

CAVUTO: Or they can't handle it, right?

Sometimes, I think we get too smart for our own good here, that, sometimes,
if you are overwhelmed with orders, and everyone wants in or to buy at the
same time, it's overwhelming, especially for a young online trading firm,
let alone one of the giants, the Merrills, or Goldman or Morgan Stanley.

So, is it so sinister? And does this guy have a case if it comes down to
that, we could not handle it, and we just had to get a handle over it?

PAVIA: So, well, if that's the case, I think -- I think he's probably on
safer grounds, if there's a technological reason, because you're not going
to be able -- there, I don't think you have an intent issue to hurt or to
protect anybody that they shouldn't be protecting.

CAVUTO: And that's what you have to prove. You have to prove intent, right,
if the intent was there.

PAVIA: Yes. Yes, yes.

No, this is going to come down -- this is like a populist movement of its
own kind. We saw what happened at the Capitol, but this is really the
unsophisticated investors really rising up, based on some kind of viral
hunch that whoever had.

And unless you're going to be able to show that there was like this group
of people who said, hey, we can really move this market and move this stock
by putting out some kind of story that misrepresents what's going on here,
you're not going to have it.

CAVUTO: All right.

PAVIA: You could create a sculpture that says, buy this stock, and you're
going to be -- it's not a crime.

You try to manipulate it by -- with some kind of scheme, then you're in
trouble.

CAVUTO: On both sides. On both sides, on the buy side and on the sell side.

So, John, we will have to see. It's going to keep lawyers like you maybe
busy. We will see.

John Pavia.

We're exploring that in a lot more detail tomorrow about how far this goes
and how threatening it is, especially when there are a whole bunch of other
stocks they're looking at -- tomorrow.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 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.