This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," July 9, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a political witch- hunt, the likes of which nobody's ever seen before. It's a pure witch-hunt. It's a hoax.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The Supreme Court, including the president's appointees, have declared that he is not above the law.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Congress has broad oversight authority. I understand that. But it's supposed to be used for legitimate legislative purposes. This has been politically driven from day one.
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): The Supreme Court agreed that the president doesn't have the right to hide his financial records.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: A very taxing day for the president of the United States.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, says that a grand jury can go ahead and subpoena for his taxes.
What was glaring about that 7-2 decision it included Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, who voted against the president on this.
Growing questions what happens right now. What we do know now is, this shook the world and our markets. More on that in a second, an historic day that could have an influence on the election.
Let's get the read right now from Shannon Bream on the legal implications of all of this -- Shannon.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil. Great to see you.
So, yes, two big decisions grabbing headlines. They are blockbusters, but they don't actually resolve these cases just yet when it comes to those documents. Let's talk through the two of them.
So the first involve three House committees who say they need to get their hands on the president's financial records, even dating back to the time before he was running for the White House.
So this is what the court said today. Listen, committees can get them, but they haven't done a good enough job just yet, the courts and the committee's.
This is what the chief justice said, writing for the majority. He says: "Congressional subpoenas for information from the president implicate special concerns regarding the separate have powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns."
So he gave him sort of a four-pronged test, said, there are other things you have to look into, and realize these are two competing branches. You got to wade into this carefully. It wasn't done well enough yet. So those cases go back down.
Now, Justice Thomas doesn't even think that needs to happen. Here's what he said in his dissent in that case involving the House committees: "The power to subpoena private, non-official documents is not a necessary implication of Congress' legislative powers. If Congress wishes to obtain these documents, it should proceed through the impeachment power."
And there are lawmakers hinting, if the president's reelected, they may take another swing at that.
Now, the other case you mentioned involves a New York prosecutor up in New York state, and a subpoena connected to a criminal investigation, a grand jury there. The court said, yes, no president is immune from that kind of document, from that kind of subpoena. You don't get absolute immunity.
But there are enough questions here that this is going to go back to the lower courts for more consideration, the chief justice writing this: "The arguments presented here and in the court of appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The court of appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the district court, where the president may raise further arguments as appropriate."
So, Neil, where that leaves us tonight is, the president's legal team says, we're going to keep fighting on both these fronts as they go back to the lower courts. So almost nobody expects that those documents will be released before Election Day, just months away -- Neil.
CAVUTO: But someone could leak them, right?
BREAM: Yes. And you know what? That's a concern that actually came up during the arguments, especially the case dealing with the New York prosecutor.
Justice Alito was pushing back with the one of the attorneys arguing the case, and he said, listen, we all know that prosecutors have leaked things. And he specifically mentioned, things sometimes get leaked to The New York Times. So he was very aware that that was a potential consideration in the case.
Any time you give documents to congressional committees, to anyone, that you expand the circle of who has access, you got to know there's a potential for leaks in it. And it's been a real problem for this administration -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Yes, by the president himself, with his own niece releasing a lot of financial information to The New York Times.
BREAM: Right.
CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much, Shannon Bream.
Kristin Fisher on this at a not-so-happy White House -- Kristin.
KRISTIN FISHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, President Trump came out pretty hot right after this ruling came down, seven tweets in about two hours.
But when he talked about it in front of the cameras for the first time since the Supreme Court ruled on this, he gave a much more measured response. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, the rulings were basically starting all over again, sending everything back down to the lower courts, and you start all over again.
And so, from a certain point, I'm satisfied. From another point, we're not satisfied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FISHER: So let's break down that statement a little bit.
President Trump is saying that he's satisfied that his financial records will remain private, at least for now. But he's not satisfied that the Supreme Court ruled that presidents do not have absolute immunity from criminal subpoenas.
And we now know the president's attorney Jay Sekulow, as Shannon was saying, says that the fight will continue. And they're going to continue to raise these additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.
So, bottom line, after years of President Trump fighting to keep his financial records private, today, we simply learned that the fight is going to continue.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that today's ruling was about much, much more than simply the president's tax returns and financial records.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: What was at stake, is the president above the law? If, in fact, they would have ruled that he is above -- not above the law -- I mean, that he can do whatever he wants, without any oversight from Congress, that would have been just devastating, to tell you the honest truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FISHER: Now, the other really notable thing about today, Neil -- and you mentioned this in your introduction -- was the fact that the president's two nominees to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they both ruled against President Trump today.
So, during the briefing with the White House press secretary, I asked her about that. I asked if President Trump was upset at Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but all she would say is that, when she spoke with the president, he did not talk about it.
And she also noted that the president overall believes that these justices are entitled to their own opinions, Neil, but certainly striking that the president's two nominees to the high court did not go his way today.
CAVUTO: Yes, it's not the first time that's happened either.
Kristin Fisher, thank you very, very much.
Now, this compels, whatever the president might think of this, his financial accounting firms to turn over these documents to the grand jury investigating this case in the Southern District of New York.
And therein lies this mystery period over who has what and when and over what time that could possibly be addressed.
Let's go to Sam Dewey on this, the former congressional investigator, also an attorney.
Sam, how quickly must these firms comply to get this over to this grand jury and to the Southern District? How does it work?
SAMUEL DEWEY, ATTORNEY: Well, I think first, it's going to have to go back down to the lower courts. And there's going to be additional litigation, under the parameters of the court's opinion.
The opinion of the court in the tax return cases said, the president doesn't have absolute immunity, but he can raise these objections. And these objections are going to be raised, perhaps in federal court, perhaps in state court.
And the unfortunate answer is, we know there's going to be a lot more litigation, but we don't know exactly how it's going to work, because the court's opinion is so vague on the applicable tests.
CAVUTO: So, Sam, when the highest court is saying, all right, these have to be handed over, there isn't an essence of time issue here?
In other words, does that take some time before they physically get them to sort all this other stuff out? Or do they get it very, very quickly? The only reason why I raise it is the fear of leaks.
DEWEY: Yes.
Well, I think leaks are a good question. And I think that the question of leaks, I think Justice Alito made a very powerful point in his dissent about that. The records aren't going to be turned over yet until the lower court works out exactly which particular records are going to be turned over, because what the Supreme Court said is, you don't have absolute immunity, Mr. President, but you have some objections you can raise. Go back to the lower courts and work that out.
And that's the process that's going to occur. So, documents won't be turned over yet.
CAVUTO: OK.
So, for Congress and a lot of Democrats there who want to get their hot little hands on this, and maybe pursue impeachment hearings and all the rest, if they get what they want, or they think they're getting what they want, obviously, the office in New York is looking at what might be offenses that the president committed in either payments or the way his businesses were transacted.
And then Congress, if it were to go forward and get this eventually, would seize on the same information, right?
DEWEY: Yes.
And the subpoenas were actually almost identical, which I think raises a very strong question about, was this more about a coordinated political attack on the president than an actual investigation?
But I think that's absolutely right.
CAVUTO: OK. Yes, wild stuff.
Sam, thank you so much, Sam Dewey, following this very, very closely.
I want to bring your attention again to the Corner of Wall and Broad. This rattled the markets when they first got the news. I think it was around 10:10 a.m. I could be off a little bit.
We were already down, I believe, about 90 to 100 points. We quickly quintupled that, finished the day down 361 points. I always like to stress that Wall Street really isn't red or blue. You have heard that a million times. It's green. It's made a lot money under this president.
Anything that looks bad for him looks bad for them, or the fear is that this could really dent the president's chances to get reelected. Now, I'm not saying that's on a personal political basis. They just like the good times that have been roaring in these markets and the comeback in the economy.
And this was deemed to be, at the very least, initially disruptive to that.
Kristina Partsinevelos following that side of the equation -- Kristina.
KRISTINA PARTSINEVELOS, FOX NEWS BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right.
Neil, I'm just going to follow up on that. You had stocks that did abruptly turn negative. You had the S&P 500, as well as the Dow erasing all weekly gains. But the Nasdaq came out in positive territory, hitting a record high, thanks primarily to the tech sector.
But let's go back to what you were talking about, the Supreme Court ruling around 10:00 a.m. You did see stocks fall at that point, when there was a ruling 7-2 that prosecutors could follow ahead and seek out the president's financial documents, as well as tax returns.
Markets tend to be very friendly towards the president and his policies. So, when you see these relatively new negative headlines, they're sometimes knee-jerk reactions.
There's other catalysts for the volatility today, though, too. You also had new data that coronavirus cases were surging in certain parts of the country, in particular, Florida, as well as California. And that, of course, weighs negatively on investor sentiment, because they want a smooth reopening.
Even Dr. Fauci weighed in, saying some states should consider looking at shutting down.
But we also have a new report from the Labor Department showing that jobless claims fell for the week ending July 4. That means another 1.3 million Americans filed for first-time unemployment benefits. That's actually a decelerating trend since March.
And two particular stocks we could just focus on really quickly, you have got Walgreens in the red today, down over 7 percent. And that's a net loss. They're going to be closing jobs. And then Bed Bath & Beyond down a whopping 24 percent, primarily because they're closing 200 stores, and 50 percent of their sales fell because of the pandemic.
So, lots of volatility continues in these markets -- Neil, back to you.
CAVUTO: All right, Kristina, thank you very, very much.
Want to go to Teddy Weisberg right now, Seaport Securities. He's been through a lot of political and other scandals, not himself personally, I might point out...
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: ... but certainly what's been going on here.
Teddy, markets abhor uncertainty. I get that. We have talked about that over the many years I have had the pleasure to know you. I'm wondering here, isn't it still the economy, stupid, or maybe, by extension, the president's handling of the virus, if that stabilizes and rights itself?
Or does this add a variable we can't calculate?
TED WEISBERG, PRESIDENT, SEAPORT SECURITIES CORPORATION: Well, I'm not sure that it -- it certainly adds a variable, Neil, and an unknown. And we know that markets are not comfortable with unknowns.
But this president and this administration has dealt with a lot of political variables that have been going on for three-and-a-half years. And for the most part, these events seem to have a relatively short shelf life as far as the market is concerned.
And, yes, I would agree with you. I mean, this is clearly something else that, I guess, for the markets to be nervous about. But I think the shelf life here will be relatively limited, because it'll go back to the courts. Who knows when it will reappear again.
And, basically, it's going to be all about the economy, stupid, right, and COVID-19. And now second-quarter earnings are about to start any day, and then third-quarter earnings. We have plenty of other things that I think are much more important at the moment for the market to deal with than today's Supreme Court rulings.
CAVUTO: You know, when you think about the Supreme Court and the role it's played in market history and our own history, when the Supreme Court, all nine justices, voted against Richard Nixon and said that he had to release the tapes, I grant you, Teddy, apples and oranges, but that just continued a cascading market.
That was a very different time, I grant you. But when these things happen, there seem to be seminal moments, when, even in the case of a couple of justices appointed by the president, did not go the president way, does that have any potential rattle effect?
WEISBERG: Well, I -- yes, I mean, the answer is, it does. And we saw it today.
But down 300-and-some-odd points in a market that's had such a dramatic rise from the trading low of March...
CAVUTO: Absolutely
WEISBERG: I mean, we just finished one of the best quarters in, what, 20 or 25 years.
In general, in general, markets are due to rest. I mean, is it today's rulings that perhaps will put a little blanket on the market? I don't know. There are plenty of other things for the markets to deal with, Neil.
I just don't think that, in terms of the market, this is going to have a dramatic shelf life.
CAVUTO: Real quickly, Teddy.
The president has said that, if Joe Biden gets his way, with the higher taxes that will come, or at least bring the corporate rate up, you can kiss your market rally goodbye and your 401(k) will melt away.
What do you think of that?
(LAUGHTER)
WEISBERG: Well, we know that the president has been a great cheerleader for the stock market. And, clearly, he's had a lot to cheer about for the last three-and-a-half years.
Whether he's directly responsible or not, only the history books will tell us. But that there is no question that one of the issues with a change in administration, in the case of Joe Biden, is -- and he's -- I think he implied and again said it today, that he thinks corporate America should pay more than their fair share.
So that translates into higher corporate taxes. Clearly, that cannot be a positive for the market. So, yes, I mean, if -- I'm not sure it's as severe as the president is suggesting, but there's no question that, if he doesn't win, and Biden takes over, corporate taxes are probably going up, as are probably individual taxes.
And at least initially, I don't know how that's a plus for the stock market.
CAVUTO: Ted, thank you very, very much, my friend. Be well, be safe, be healthy.
WEISBERG: You too. Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: Teddy Weisberg.
All right, we are going to continue following this. You heard about the market impact. That could be just a one-shot event. The campaign fallout, well, that could be something entirely different.
Stick around.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): I think the law is so clear that no one's above it, and that the president too has to follow.
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): It would just be more nonsense, like they constantly do, where we have to deal with, they throw out a narrative bomb. It runs across all the platforms, and then Republicans are always having to respond to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: The Biden campaign responding to the Supreme Court news regarding the president today, while offering the former vice president opportunity to president an economic plan he says we will turn things around right now.
Peter Doocy with more on that from Pennsylvania -- Peter.
PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, the former V.P.'s event today was just a five-minute drive from the house where he grew up, which is now -- of course, perfect timing by a soda truck -- that house right there.
But he talks a lot at his events about coming up as a young senator. And one of the ways that he connects with people is talking about how financial disclosures used to show that he had the fewest assets of anybody in the United States Senate in the Upper Chamber.
So, today, shortly after the president's Supreme Court's tax return ruling regarding President Trump, he re-upped a tweet from last year, Biden did.
He wrote this: "Donald Trump, you want to talk about corruption. I have released 21 years of my tax returns. Release yours or shut up."
And then Biden added this comment today. He said: "As I was saying."
And these Trump tax returns used to be something that Biden talked about a lot on the campaign trail, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What's he hiding? What's he afraid of? What's buried in those returns? Why can't the American people see them?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOOCY: That clip was from October.
In this afternoon's remarks here in Pennsylvania, Biden did not directly address in front of the crowd the Supreme Court ruling about the tax returns, as the tax returns took a backseat to issues like health care and investing in American-made goods and services, to the tune of 700 billion tax dollars shortly after he takes over.
Biden did, though, kind of allude to the way that he thinks President Trump sees the world, the lens that he thinks the president sees the world through, accusing him of favoring Wall Street over Main Street -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much, Peter.
So, a surprise from the John Roberts court.
Let's go to that other equally famous John Roberts, our White House correspondent.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: John, what do you think?
JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon to you.
Well, one thing that appears to be clear at this point is that the November election is not going to be fought on the contents of the president's financial records or tax returns, because, even if Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, does get ahold of some of those financial records -- and it's unclear when or if he will, because this is going to be argued again in the lower courts -- those are supposed to remain secret because they are grand jury materials.
And, therefore, they should not get out into the public forum. And the fact that the Supreme Court shut down Congress means that those documents will not leak out of Capitol Hill anytime soon. And you can bet that, if the Supreme Court had have said Congress could go ahead and get their hands on those tax returns, they'd be in the hands of every reporter in Washington, D.C., at the moment.
For the president, though, it does leave open the question, again, of the tax returns. And it's something that Joe Biden can continue to try to bait him with, particularly during the upcoming debates. Watch for that to be a big topic.
But, so far, it appears on the surface that this is a win of sorts for the president, because it means that, even though the Manhattan district attorney can get his hands on that material, as it appears he can at this point -- but, again, further court action to come -- those tax returns and financial documents likely will not become public, at least not before the election.
So it, for the most part, I think, takes that off the table in terms of an issue.
CAVUTO: John, has the administration ever hinted, if this were to get out -- and, as you said, not an issue -- or the White House certainly hopes not an issue this year -- but to telegraph something or to telegraph features in there to sort of pre-dismiss?
Do you know their thinking on this?
ROBERTS: You know, I have never heard anything about trying to get some little snippets of it out there to try to take it off of the table.
I think that they have just tried to keep it off of the table. That's really been the strategy. And the fact that there is nothing that will compel that to enter the public forum, I think, would probably preclude any sort of preemptive strike on the part of the Trump campaign or the White House to soften the blow of them eventually coming out.
Don't forget, Michael Cohen, when he testified in front of Congress...
CAVUTO: Right.
ROBERTS: ... in 2019 said, the reason the president doesn't want these out there is because he doesn't want them to be picked over by a handful of accountants who are working on behalf of news organizations.
And it's kind of ironic that Michael Cohen this morning tweeted through Lanny Davis, his representative, his approval of the Supreme Court decision, at least as far as the Manhattan district attorney goes, and then, within an hour, Cohen had been whisked back off to jail because he didn't agree with the media ban that was part of a home confinement agreement that probation officers had put in front of him.
So his attorney, Jeffrey Levine, right now is trying desperately to get him out of the Metro Correctional Facility in Brooklyn. But it just shows, Neil, how small the circle really is when it comes to all of this stuff.
CAVUTO: Yes, lesson for Cohen, don't eat at a public restaurant where people might have smartphones on their -- on their possession.
ROBERTS: And might be taking pictures of you.
CAVUTO: All right, John Roberts, thank you.
ROBERTS: All right, you bet, Neil. Good to see you.
CAVUTO: Well, absolutely. Thank you, my friend, John Roberts, on all of that.
Well, both parties are already cementing their positions on this, predictably -- after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): It's a really important victory for our democracy, for the ability of Congress to fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and a resounding defeat to a president who claimed he's above the law.
JORDAN: What the Democrats are trying to do, go after the president of the United States' tax returns, go after his business records for the last 10 years, I think most Americans see this is kind of ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: What if this has nothing to do with whether the president did anything illegal, and everything to do with how wealthy he is or is not?
Charlie Gasparino on the raging debate in those financial records. How rich is he?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: A careful reading of the Supreme Court ruling related to the president's financial records is not good news for President Trump.
The court has reaffirmed the Congress' authority to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): It seems to me that the New York district attorney and others that have tried for it seems much more political than anything else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: Bottom line, in the Supreme Court twin rulings today on this very matter, it made a point of saying you, Congress, you, particularly congressional Democrats, cannot get your hands on these documents anytime soon.
And that was interpreted as a victory for the president here, because many of them want to have possession of those, and the sooner, the better.
Chad Pergram on what happens now on Capitol Hill.
Hey, Chad.
CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.
Well, this is one of the better outcomes that actually Democrats could have here in the House of Representatives. I'm going to come at this kind of through a backdoor way, the idea that they wanted to get their hands on these documents here, but they really didn't.
They had a lot of trepidation about starting another big investigation. So the fact that the high court basically said, you can assert your Article 1 oversight responsibilities, but you can't get these documents yet, that helps Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats politically, especially after what happened with impeachment.
Listen to the house speaker from this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: And some of them tell me they want to go down that road.
But we have a path that the Supreme Court has laid out that we certainly will not ignore, and we will never stop our oversight that is our responsibility under the Constitution of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: Not releasing the returns allows Democrats to stoke conjecture and speculation about what's in the president's tax records and insinuate he has something to hide.
And that's what bothers Republicans like Jim Jordan of Ohio months before an election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN: If Congress has the ability to look at President Trump's tax returns and everything else, you're talking about Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters auditing the president, I think that's a terrifying thing, based on what we have seen them do over the last four years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: Now, Neil, there was a Supreme Court case in 1962, Hutcheson v. the U.S. here. And there was a labor leader by the name of Maurice Hutcheson, who said he was being harassed by a Senate committee to get documents and information. Testimony, basically, is what the Senate committee wanted.
It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court says, yes, you have to provide that information, if they have a compelling legislative reason. And that's basically what they said today. Only, they said the House can't have those documents just yet -- Neil.
CAVUTO: Chad Pergram, thank you very, very much, my friend.
To Congressman Tom McClintock, Republican of California, sits on the very crucial House Judiciary Committee.
Congressman, what do you make of where this now goes?
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): Well, first, we have to understand what's going on.
This is a well-established pattern the Democrats have set throughout the Trump administration. They will allege something absolutely nefarious, launch an ostentatious investigation. They will then leak every innuendo and half-truth that they can come up with. And then, when nothing comes of it, they simply move on to the next pseudo-scandal.
And that's exactly what's going on here. Frankly, I think these are big wins for the president. In the Vance case, the Supreme Court said what it's been saying for more than 200 years, is that the president, just like everybody else, if he has evidence relevant to a case, that is subject to subpoena.
But the court also said that, just like every other person, the president is protected from, among other things, subpoenas issued in bad faith. Well, the Vance investigation reeks of bad faith.
Among other things, what he's asking for is strikingly similar to what the congressional Democrats did in their laundry list. There was obviously collusion going on.
And if you notice, the Supreme Court didn't say, turn over the documents. The Supreme Court said, go back to the lower court and make your case. And I think that will be a case very easy to make.
And with respect to the congressional fishing expedition, where the Democrats subpoenaed every check, every credit card swipe, every debit withdrawal by every member of the Trump family, the court said, you know, this kind of looks like a fishing expedition to us.
They imposed a four-part test that makes it impossible for the Democrats to continue with those subpoenas, and sent it back to the lower courts for enforcement.
So, I think these were both big wins for the president.
CAVUTO: You know, woulda, shoulda, coulda, and we could easily play Monday morning quarterback here.
If the president really has nothing untoward or illegal in those -- in those tax records -- and a lot of people give him the benefit of doubt on that, that he doesn't. Maybe there's other things about his wealth or, because of perfectly legal tax reasons, he didn't pay taxes because of huge losses early on in his casino empire. We just don't know. Those were some of the early reports that came out.
Could he have avoided all of this during the campaign or soon thereafter releasing pertinent information, because he was the only prominent candidate who hasn't in modern times? And it's come back to bite him. What do you think?
MCCLINTOCK: I don't think that would have been wise, because the pattern the Democrats have established is, it shows us they will look for anything, pull it out of context, and use it.
Someone with the extensive business empire of the president is going to have a very, very large bank of accountants and lawyers preparing the tax records. There's probably nothing untoward in them.
And I think what he realizes is, they will use anything they can get, even something that is perfectly legal and aboveboard.
CAVUTO: But, no, I guess what I'm saying is, if all this was thrashed out in the middle of the campaign, where Americans really didn't make a big deal of it one way or the other, he was voted in as president regardless, this would all be a moot point now.
MCCLINTOCK: Well, I think it's rather a moot point anyway. These are all personal attacks against Donald Trump. Not one of them has to do with public policy matters that actually affect people's lives.
On that, his record is very clear. We were enjoying the greatest economic expansion of our lifetimes, until the COVID lockdowns by Democratic governors.
CAVUTO: Got it.
Congressman, great catching up with you. Be well.
MCCLINTOCK: Thank you. You too.
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman McClintock here.
Well, the bottom line is here, this would not be the first president where they start digging into his financial past. Some do very, very well with that, others not so much.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: On the principle of absolute immunity, which is the posture that the -- that the president took in court, he believes there should have been more deference there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: The bottom line is, money might be the mother's milk of politics, but those who have it -- and Donald Trump is our richest president ever -- some say it's John Kennedy, if you talk family wealth -- the fact of the matter is, money can also become a focal point in a campaign.
But rarely has it ended a campaign or, for that matter, a presidency.
Let's go to Professor Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at UVA's Miller Center.
Professor, good to have you.
We don't know what's in these tax returns. I get that, know that. But history suggests that issues that have come up with money and all of that that have affected either those who've been vice president rarely amount to something that gets them forced out of office.
But frame this for me.
BARBARA PERRY, UVA MILLER CENTER: Well, you're absolutely right, Neil. And great to be with you today.
It is the case that, so often, these scandals involve people around the president or vice president, but actually rarely involve the president himself. And then it's up to the American people to decide, is the president at the top of this administration that's understandable, because of someone in the Cabinet, or maybe those in the secretary's position working for the president who are involved, maybe members of Congress, is that enough to tar the president with the brush of scandal and, if they're coming up for reelection, take them out of office?
CAVUTO: And, sometimes, the other side can get a little desperate too.
When Richard Nixon was the vice president, he got a dog as a gift, the famous Checkers speech, where he said he wasn't going to give up the dog. It looked like he was teetering as Eisenhower's running mate, but he survived it.
PERRY: He did.
There was what people called the slush fund, in addition to the cocker spaniel. But, yes, there were people who they put money aside for him. And so it came to be known as a slush fund. And it garnered so much information and media that he had to go on television, which was quite the thing in 1952, sitting there with his wife, Pat.
CAVUTO: Right.
PERRY: And then he actually went through all of his finances. He talked about his mortgage, what kind of car he drove, what kind of loans they had, and then came to this conclusion about the little dog Checkers had been a gift from a supporter, and that he and his two little daughters were not going to give Checkers up.
CAVUTO: You know, John Kennedy dealt with the family wealth thing by making fun of it, but he couldn't hide the fact he had a lot of money, right?
So I'm wondering if the same would apply to Donald Trump, assuming there's no illegality there, but he has a lot of money.
PERRY: Right.
Well, the way to do it is, as you say, John Kennedy did. He once at the Gridiron Dinner read out of fake, if you will, telegram from his dad, but pretended it was real and said: "Dear Jack, don't buy one more vote than necessary. I will be damned if I will pay for a landslide."
(LAUGHTER)
PERRY: So that's part of the way he handled it.
But he also had to go toe to toe with Eleanor Roosevelt in '58-'59, who was spreading word that his dad was buying the election for him. So, he was going back and forth in letters with her. Finally, she sort of threw in the towel on it, because he said, if you have evidence, let's see it, but I don't think you will.
CAVUTO: All right, Professor, I so wish we had more time. It's a great perspective on all that. We will be following it closely here.
But there is, to the professor's point, a reminder here. Money might be the root of a lot of problems, but not necessarily political ones that get you heaved out of office. We will see.
More after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCANLON: I think, yes, the fact that the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the president is above the law is a big win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: Well, Democrats might be rubbing their hands together on this Supreme Court twin decision today.
Keep in mind that the latter decision, the one that does not give congressional Democrats what they wanted, namely, the president's tax returns and their financial records, well, they're going to have to wait, and maybe quite a while on that.
To Robert Wolf, big Democratic operative, the former UBS chairman, very big in the financial community as well.
Robert, just listening to a number of Democrats today, they seem to be seizing on this as, aha, we got him. Are they aha-ing too soon?
ROBERT WOLF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, listen, this populist rhetoric about the Trump taxes has is great fodder.
The truth is, he should have shown them already. Vice President Biden has shown his. Every president before has shown theirs. This is nonsense. Whatever he's hiding, he should just show them. He's the president of the United States.
But I think the reason that Democrats are excited today, Neil, is because Vice President Biden put out a great economic recovery plan about rebuilding America and building America and buying America and investing in America.
And, actually, Steve Bannon just said, what a great plan that was that Biden came out with. So, I think the Dems feel pretty good right now that the vice president put out one of his four pillars of how to rebuild the economic recovery.
CAVUTO: Well, some will disagree with you on whether that was a great plan, but I hear where you're coming from, Robert.
The former vice president is arriving at his ancestral home in Scranton, New Jersey -- I'm sorry -- Scranton, Pennsylvania. So that's a big event for them.
Obviously, he's trying to contrast himself: I'm not a billionaire. He's done very well post leaving the public life, after he became vice president, with speeches and other events. It made him a very wealthy man.
But, again, he is trying to compare, well, I'm regular Joe. I'm Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joe.
Is that connecting? And does this news of the president and his taxes and all that, does that connect in a way?
WOLF: I do think it connects.
And I think they're really not non sequiturs, right? You have someone who - - as your prior guest said, who's very wealthy that seems to be hiding something. And you have someone that is blue-collar Joe, who really is reaching out to industrial America, the unions.
I mean, as Joe would say, the blue-collar guys, they shower after work. And I think that people are connecting with him. I think that's a reason he's doing so well in the polls. Granted, the polls are months ahead of what the election will be.
CAVUTO: Do you think, though -- you think about that, though, Robert, do you think that his move, just speaking as a former top Wall Street financier -- you're still a top finance guy -- but the argument for raising taxes at this time, the corporate rate and all that, the president has always and come back and say, well, you're all for raising taxes, and I'm not.
What do you think?
WOLF: Yes, I think two things.
One, we didn't need to go from 35 percent to 21 percent. So, actually, I think, if we went from 35 to 28, corporate America would be ringing the bell, ecstatic. So, one, I think the idea that Joe's talking about going to 28 percent is not going to surprise anyone.
Number two, the one thing you and I have discussed the years, the one thing we know that follows a war, which this pandemic is, is taxes. Every war since the American Revolution, to the Civil War, to every war we can speak up, taxes follow wars, because you have to pay for the things we're doing, like we're doing today, to try to keep Middle America open and PPP.
And, unfortunately, it's not going to be on the middle class, which is great. It's going to be on the upper class, and they're going to have to help pay for it. And they have in every war...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, we will see, Robert.
I don't mean to jump on you, my friend, but your candidate, Joe Biden...
WOLF: Yes.
CAVUTO: ... he was just speaking to reporters there. We're going to be following it as he sort of treks through Scranton here.
But just to give you an idea there, he spent the day talking about an economic program he says will benefit more Americans, and not be titled to the rich and fat cats on Wall Street.
I think he's talking about your old buddies, Robert, but who's to say?
WOLF: That's all right.
CAVUTO: We have a lot more coming up, including what could be in there that could help or hurt the president's reputation and image -- after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL DE BLASIO (D), MAYOR OF NEW YORK: Donald Trump's the only public servant in America who thinks he can get away with withholding his financial disclosure.
I mean, it's outrageous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: For years, for decades, it's been the number one question around Donald Trump: How wealthy is he?
He has always had arguments and Forbes magazine and the like to say that they are not accounting for just how wealthy he is, and argues with them when they might be understating that wealth that he puts at many billions of dollars.
Charlie Gasparino has covered him for quite some time and knows this could be at the heart of these disclosures here -- Charlie.
CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
Neil, he actually sued a reporter once for suggesting he's worth less than a billion dollars. We should point that out as well. And he's had massive fights with Forbes magazine on just how wealthy he was, how many billions.
CAVUTO: I remember, year in and year out, when they do their richest issue, right?
GASPARINO: Right.
So, it's -- this is something that is near and dear to his heart, to show that he's worth -- well, the latest -- his latest financial disclosures, I think he stated that he's worth $10 billion.
Now, we should point out that tax returns themselves don't have like a number on it, I am worth X. It does show sources of income. It shows property. It shows various means that could get you to the end of how much he's worth.
It will show how much charity -- charitable money he gives. He claims he gives a lot. I believe there's Trump charities. People have doubts about that. So, it's -- take out the potential illegality stuff.
What a tax return would show is whether he's truthful in terms of how much money he gives to charity, whether he -- if you back out some of the numbers, whether he's worth $10 billion, whether he's taking every sort of tax break in the world. It could be pretty embarrassing stuff for the president, if the numbers don't match the...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Or it could all be very, very legal.
There were issues years ago, remember, when there were charges that he had huge losses back in the '90s and the late '80s, what have you, where you are allowed -- or you were allowed at the time to write that off over a number of years. So there could have been reports where he didn't pay taxes or very few -- little in taxes, as a result.
That's something most people can't get a handle on, because they can't relate. There's nothing illegal about that or untoward about that. It was what it was, but it is going to be an issue now, right?
GASPARINO: Right.
And you know that real estate developers are notorious for taking every tax break. It's -- there's plenty of loopholes in the law.
CAVUTO: Right.
GASPARINO: I mean, there's nothing illegal about this.
I think where this gets problematic is what Michael Cohen once said, if you can believe him, his former fixture, where he inflates his wealth for the insurance policy and deflates it for the tax purposes. That's where this is something else.
And -- but if -- but, barring that, I think what his tax returns would show is some degree of embarrassment, if he -- if it doesn't match his rhetoric.
CAVUTO: All right.
GASPARINO: And his rhetoric was pretty off the charts on this stuff, as you know.
CAVUTO: All right. We will watch it very closely.
Thank you, Charlie, very much. But it's all about how wealthy the guy is.
By the way, people around Joe Biden are jumping and doing a jig right now. They're seeing the lead in the polls and saying, man, we have got this, and after today, oh, man, we really got this.
Michael Dukakis coming tomorrow to let Joe Biden know, don't get ahead of your political skis on this. There was a time I was up 20 points in the polls over George Bush Sr., and they were already calling me President Dukakis.
What happened to that? Michael Dukakis tomorrow.
Here comes "The Five."
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.
Fox News First
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.