This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So much for a trade more on stocks, from panic to, well, we can deal with that.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

And let's just say it could have been worse, much worse, much, much worse. The Dow diving 500 points at the open today, when it looked like a trade deal with China was on the brink and maybe gone. It all began over the weekend, when the president threatened to ramp up tariffs to 25 percent from 10 percent on some 200 billion bucks in Chinese goods, with the added threat that those tariffs could easily expand to $325 million worth of stuff we get from there.

Talk that the president was simply getting impatient and the Chinese after that were getting furious, so furious, they threatened they might push off, even cancel outright trade talks with the United States.

But that does not -- I stress, looks like it does not seem to be the case. Negotiators from Beijing reportedly still are coming here. We just don't know how many or who they will be.

Let's just say, by day's end, it was enough to calm the selling storm, for now.

We have got about Fox News coverage with Kevin Corke at the White House and what they're saying, and Fox Business Network's Charles Payne on how stocks were responding.

We begin with Kevin.

Hey, Kev.

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, always good to be with you.

And what a day, right? I mean, there are a lot of people as far back as the weekend who were very concerned that what the president had to say on Twitter really would just blow this whole thing up. Then you heard what the Chinese were saying, they may not make it here this week for negotiations. But all that appears, at least for now, to be a thing of the past.

We will have to see. You mentioned we don't know exactly how many people are going to make their way here. At one point, we were expecting a delegation north of 100 Chinese. It could be much smaller than that. We don't know if the lead negotiator will come.

But what we do know right now is that the White House is obviously a little bit more encouraged and the markets, for that matter, appear to be encouraged as well, after that market-rattling comment on Twitter over the weekend.

Keep this in mind, by the way, Neil. Tariffs really do hurt the American consumer. Ultimately, they're the ones along with American businesses that do business in China that bear the brunt of the tariffs.

Here's what Larry Kudlow said about that now infamous tweet over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: The president's tariffs, however, have been extremely useful in negotiating. They have brought China to the table.

We believe China needs a deal more than we do. There are always some costs with this tariff story. They're very minor costs in the USA, farmers. And we help them out, OK?

The president is I think issuing a warning here that we bent over backwards earlier. We suspended the 25 percent tariff to 10. And then we have left it there. That may not be forever, if the talks don't work out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORKE: They want to increase the pace, the urgency. Let's get these talks going.

Hey, how about this, Neil? A little support from an unlikely source, Democratic Minority Leader in the Senate Chuck Schumer saying this on Twitter: "Hang tough on China, President Trump. Don't back down. Strength is the only way to win with China."

So will the Chinese come? How large will their delegation be? We don't know. It looks like they will still come. I will keep you posted. I may get more information within the hour. I'm going to talk to some officials here coming up. And as I get more, I promise to pass it along, but, for now, back to you.

CAVUTO: Thank you, my friend, Kevin Corke at the White House.

Way overdone was how my friend and colleague Charles Payne was describing the market reaction in the middle of that multihundred-point falloff, when we were still in that multihundred-point falloff.

Charles Payne joins us right now, the host of "Making Money" on FOX Business, which, if you don't have, you really should demand, because you have missed all of this.

Charles, what did you see that a lot of others were fretting and not?

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Well, let's, first of all, put it all in perspective.

Right now, this is one of the wildest sessions of this year. But this has been a remarkable year, the first four months of this year the best in decades. Of course, a lot of that took in the assumption, though, that a China -- U.S.-China trade deal was a done deal.

President Trump reminding everyone that it's not a done deal. Wall Street and China included giving us a -- really drawing a line in the sand for Friday for those aforementioned tariffs to come into play. But I got to tell you, one of the hallmarks of this rally all year long has been the ability for investors to buy on these dips.

And it's so intriguing, because we saw some of the worst performing names, those names that have the biggest exposure to China, start to make the big comeback and turn this market around. I'm talking about Apple, Wynn Casino, Qualcomm, Intel and Cummins engine.

Also, I will mention that Boeing was another name under a lot of pressure today. They plan on making tens of billions of dollars from China's insatiable appetite for airplanes, but they also have some other issues with that Boeing 737 MAX problem, some embarrassing, perhaps even legal issues there.

Nevertheless, the market was able to make this turn. And I think, Neil, investors know, as Kevin was suggesting, that maybe, maybe this is a negotiating ploy. Maybe the president is trying to push something that felt like it was stalling.

But, ultimately, Wall Street is concerned about this issue. It will not go away, even though they bought the dip today.

CAVUTO: All right, Charles Payne, thank you very much, my friend.

PAYNE: You got it.

CAVUTO: So what happens right now?

Let's ask our market watchers, Rebecca Walser, Scott Martin over at the CME, Ted Weisberg at the New York Stock Exchange.

Ted, I mean, I had whiplash just following the markets today. What happened?

TED WEISBERG, PRESIDENT, SEAPORT SECURITIES CORPORATION: Well, I think, clearly, we were deep in the hole coming into this section, Neil.

But, as the day progressed, we actually almost got positive at one point. I think at the end of the day, clearly, the tariff issue is a huge issue. But I think most people think it's a very political, and we're into this major league negotiation.

But as far as the market is concerned, the U.S. economy continues to be strong. The Fed on hold creates a very positive backdrop for equities. So when you add it all up, the markets will probably continue to climb this wall of worry. And the tariff issue, I think the market is telling us one way or the other it will get resolved in a positive way.

CAVUTO: All right, now, always it gets to be, as you and I have discussed in the past, Rebecca, the trust but verify thing, right?

In other words, you have to get the Chinese to deliver the goods and make sure they're doing what they say they will do, whenever that comes. What do you think?

REBECCA WALSER, WALSER WEALTH MANAGEMENT: I think absolutely, Neil.

I mean, what this is about is basically the Chinese wanting the tariffs released as soon as the ink is dry on this deal, and the U.S. saying, let's. see that you're actually performing before we actually release these tariffs.

And so there you saw some backpedaling from the Chinese. And Trump is calling a spade a spade and saying, no, no, no. And let's remember why you're here at this table in the first place, because we do have some authority and some pressure that we have been leveraging on you. And I can do it again.

And I think that he is displaying the art of negotiator. These are the labor pains that come naturally with a deal of this magnitude.

CAVUTO: Scott, the underlying economy here is the envy of the world. And we saw that with the employment report on Friday, the lowest unemployment rate since, well, a century before you were born.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: And it continues.

SCOTT MARTIN, KINGSVIEW ASSET MANAGEMENT: I have read about it.

CAVUTO: And I'm wondering if that was the backdrop that emboldened the president to go ahead and up the ante with the Chinese. Do you see any issues with that?

MARTIN: No, other than something Kudlow said, Neil, last-name basis, I guess he and I are on, which is, we have the most leverage, we have -- that China has more to lose.

That's something we have heard a lot today. And that may be true now, but face it, my friends, China's getting more depth with their trading partners that they have outside of the U.S. I mean, South Korea is a major one, Hong Kong. India even is a major increasing trading partner of ours.

And we still don't make a lot of things here. I know we're trying to bring jobs back. I know we're trying to bring more manufacturing to this country. But the fact remains, this is a big paradigm shift, if we were to move away from China, if a deal does fall apart.

So that's why I thought you saw the market reacts so swiftly today on the anticipation that maybe a deal was going to fall off the table, because it's not as simple as just shifting all that activity to other countries if, say, things don't work out here with China.

CAVUTO: Ted, you have reminded me of this in the past, but it is uncanny, isn't it, that the better prospects look for a trade deal with China, the better stocks look, the worse or suddenly the surprise that it might not happen or happen so soon, the worse that look.

So how is this battle going, and what if it's significantly delayed, that we get a deal, but it's significantly delayed?

WEISBERG: Well, I think, first of all, clearly, there's a new sheriff in town.

And I think the world's politicians and bureaucrats don't quite know how to react to him. But, at the end of the day, I think cooler heads will prevail and there will be a deal. I mean, we don't know what form it will take, but everybody's playing this big high-stakes negotiation game.

But, at the end of the day, it's in everybody's best interests that the U.S. has a deal with China, and I think that will trump -- I hate to use that expression -- all the other -- all the other sidebars.

(LAUGHTER)

WEISBERG: At the end of the day, they're going to get something done.

These things just don't happen when we expect them to.

CAVUTO: No, they don't.

Rebecca, it's interesting. When I was looking into this and talking about obviously in the Dow Jones industrials, those are 30 international players, many of whom are directly exposed to what's happening in China, but way beyond that, I was surprised how much China comprises in revenues, the likes of Intel 24 percent, Qualcomm 65 percent, Micron 51 percent, Wynn Resorts more than 70 percent, Apple in excess of 21 percent.

We have a lot on the line here, don't we?

WALSER: You know what, Neil? You're just saying highlighting the fact that our two economies are so interdependent, and, therefore, all the more reason that we need fair trading terms and to live off of and go forward off of an agreement where they're not being treated like a Third World country with the World Trade Organization, that we are getting what is fair.

When I say fair, you know what I mean. We have been taken advantage of on intellectual property, all of the things that have been happening. And so the fact that our big Dow 30's are so integrated with the Chinese market is not a surprise. And it is all the more reason that we absolutely have to get this deal and it has to happen.

And we just -- I understand that it's political and that it's painful, especially for farmers and soybean producers, but it is a necessary evil that we get this deal finally done and signed.

CAVUTO: All right, we shall see what happens.

A little bit later in the show, we're going to talk to a top economist who says, if you're getting nervous about days like these and these wild swings, he's got some uncanny advice, how to stay calm and keep your cash.

That's coming up a little bit later on in "Your World."

And, oh, yes, we're on the subject of international crises. Did you hear that we're now sending warships to the Middle East to deal with Iran?

And, by the way, that is just for starters. You remember this guy? Yes, he's making some noise too. Just there, his lips aren't moving, but generally he makes noise.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIG. GEN. ANTHONY TATA (RET.), U.S. ARMY: You have got to assert strength. To achieve peace, you got to have strength.

That is that one well-known factor about this world when you have tyrants like Kim Jong-un. And so you have got to stand up to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, that was from my Saturday show, retired U.S. Army General Anthony Tata. He was actually talking about North Korea there, but he could have just as easily been talking about Iran.

The U.S. is now sending warships to the Middle East to deal with a potential threat from that country.

Let's get the read from former USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold.

You know, Commander, when it rains, it pours. We have got so many sudden international hot spots, if you want to throw in Venezuela to that and a host of others. But particularly this Iran development here, what do you make of it?

KIRK LIPPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: Well, what I think you're seeing in Iran for the first time is, clearly, John Bolton is sending a signal by announcing the fact that we're deploying the Abraham Lincoln strike group, plus an Air Force bomber group to the Middle East.

Normally, the president doesn't like to announce the movement or operational moves of our military forces. In this case, it's strategic messaging that he is sending to Iran. We clearly have the indications and warning that something is up.

The president is absorbing that material from the intelligence community, and is clearly deciding to send a signal. We are not going to tolerate you killing Americans anymore. We're not going to have our forces jeopardized by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, recently classified as a terrorist organization, or others, and we're going to hold them accountable, even through their proxy organizations.

CAVUTO: You know, it occurs only a few days after the administration took a hard line on getting all Iranian oil off the markets, even those -- even our friends who get that oil, either directly themselves or through the black market, that that's going to go.

So where do you see that going?

LIPPOLD: I think what you're going to see is, it's going to be a two-fold process. If you look at the United States tightening the sanctions on Iran, they're shutting off the oil even to countries like China to make sure that we minimize the impact on the oil markets on one hand, and working with Saudi Arabia to get more oil introduced into the system, so that we don't have a spike affecting the world economies.

But, nonetheless, the issue is going to be, Iran knows the squeeze is coming. They're going to try and take actions that are going to distract from that going on. They're going to continue to have oil that is going to be exported. We have to look at where that oil is going to go, hold those countries accountable for continuing to support this regime that is there, that is still the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and hopefully clamp down on it in a way that allows the mullahs to realize they cannot continue on the path that they have.

CAVUTO: Commander, while I still have you here, we're taking a similarly tough stand, although with patience toward the North Korean leader, with North Korea.

The president saying he still enjoys a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, didn't make a big deal or at least didn't appear to make a big deal out of this missile test or whatever they're calling, projectile test, over the weekend.

And I'm just wondering what you make of that stance, particularly on the president's part.

LIPPOLD: Well, I think the president is doing exactly right by saying, we need to exercise patience in this.

But, by the same token, the path to denuclearization, we have not wavered from. We have not dropped any sanctions. We still continue to coordinate and work with our allies in the region, especially between President Trump and Prime Minister Abe in Japan.

I think the South Koreans understand the situation. They're the ones that are going to live with the result if anything bad starts to really go on the Korean Peninsula. But, nonetheless, the United States is going to hold a hard line. And we need to. The North Koreans have given up nothing.

Don't forget, Neil, the one thing you have to remember, China is the 800- pound gorilla in the room that has chosen not to be engaged in this process. Yet they're the ones that aided and abetted to give North Korea the ability to have those weapons today.

We are going to continue on a path to denuclearization. The North Koreans know it. They have to come to the negotiating table and have a verifiable path toward that end, or we have no choice but to begin to look at the Korean regime, saying, we cannot tolerate you threatening us with those weapons, now or ever.

CAVUTO: We shall see.

Commander, good seeing you again. Thank you.

LIPPOLD: As always, Neil, thank you.

CAVUTO: Well, Michael Cohen is in jail, day one of a three-year sentence.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: The fixer is fixing to do some time.

The president's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen arriving at a New York federal prison just a short time ago, formally beginning that three-year jail sentence.

Rick Leventhal near the federal prison in Otisville, New York, with more.

Hey, Rick.

RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

This is the first day of the next three years of Michael Cohen's life and it will likely be a lot different than what he's been used to, although Otisville is known as one of the finest prison camps in the U.S.

Cohen likely has already been processed into the facility. And then he will be housed in the minimum security wing of the facility, where he can make use of a gym and a basketball court, a tennis court and library, and he can shop or snacks in the commissary.

But he will have to work a job in between his three-square meals a day, and also a daily head count, with the lights on at 6:00 a.m. and the lights off at 11:30 every night.

Of course, Cohen pled guilty to tax evasion, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress and will have to serve at least 30-and-a-half months of his three-year sentence. So he won't be eligible for parole until late 2021.

A prison consultant told us that Cohen would be wise to stay humble and keep a low profile during his time here, to do more listening and less talking, if he wants to stay out of trouble.

Neil, I guess we will find out if that happens.

CAVUTO: Three years.

OK, Rick, thank you very, very much, Rick Leventhal.

Well, remember when President Trump was all for the Mueller report to be released? Things have changed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let it come out. Let people see it.

I have nothing to hide. This was a hoax. This was a witch-hunt.

QUESTION: Mr. President, should Mueller testify? Would you like to see him testify?

TRUMP: I don't know. That's up to our attorney general, who I think has done a fantastic job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, now the president saying that Bob Mueller shouldn't testify. Can the president do that and prevent him from testifying?

Former Justice official John Yoo on that.

John, what do you think? Can he?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's a very complicated question and really tests the waters, this constitutional conflict that is coming between Congress and the president that the courts really have never resolved.

So, if Mueller stays as a Justice Department official, then the president could just order him not to testify, on the basis that the Justice Department has always tried to protect prosecutors and their decisions from excessive scrutiny. They don't want those decisions out in public.

But we have already crossed that line. The Mueller report already has all the evidence described. You already see the prosecutorial mind at work. And so a lot of the things that the Justice Department usually tries to protect by keeping things confidential are already out there.

So the main grounds for preventing someone like Mueller from testifying have really evaporated.

CAVUTO: All right, Democrats seize on this, say, well, there's a lot that was inferred on the part of Mueller that we want to get to the bottom of. Why didn't he make more of an obstruction case against the president? Why did he kind of leave it as a jump ball for us?

That's their take. What do you say?

YOO: Well, on the other side is that Barr and the president could say look, Mueller has nothing to add. He wrote it all out in the report. We don't want Congress trying to peer inside the minds of prosecutors. It'll create a bad incentive for future prosecutors, who are always going to be worried then about people looking over their shoulders, instead of making the right call about doing the just thing.

But the other thing I should have added is, presidents have always tried to claim a kind of privilege to protect the internal deliberations of the executive branch, to try to preserve the ability to have robust and candid decision-making.

They would worry that if the public and Congress are always second-guessing their decisions, people aren't going to speak up, people aren't going to say what's on their minds, and you will have worse decisions as a result.

So, in the end, in the bottom line, I think Mueller, though, could just quit. This is the hard thing. What if Mueller quits? He's no longer an employee of the Justice Department. Then the president doesn't have as much ability to prevent Mueller from voluntarily testifying as a private citizen.

CAVUTO: So what do you think are the odds of that?

YOO: I think, in the end, Mueller will testify with some kind of conditions.

And -- but I think Mueller is a very play-it-by-book guy. So I think he's probably not going to depart hardly at all from what's already in his report. So I think you're going to have members of Congress, like Jerry Nadler, the chairman of House Judiciary Committee, are just going to be extremely frustrated, and they're going to just continue to attack the Justice Department, unfortunately, because I think they did a very good job here.

CAVUTO: Yes.

While I have you, I haven't had the pleasure of getting your take on the friction or the appeared friction between Bill Barr and Bob Mueller over the release of the bullet points and the summary of the Mueller report.

What did you make of that and a fast friendship that turned fast non- friendship?

YOO: Well, I think this is just a silly criticism, because Barr's letter is just a short summary of the conclusions of the Mueller report. It didn't say it was a summary. And it doesn't matter anymore, because now we have the Mueller report itself.

So the Barr letter is not even going to be the footnote to the footnote to a footnote in history. No one's ever going to remember this months or years from now, because it doesn't matter.

CAVUTO: And I still wonder, John. You're the expert here. But is there anything that, if you think about it, Barr got wrong?

I mean, he -- there was no definitive statement one way or the other on obstruction. People could form their own opinions on that. But the report makes clear in the end didn't have enough to go with it, didn't have enough not to go with it. So what did Barr supposedly get wrong?

YOO: He didn't. He didn't get anything wrong.

The people who are criticizing him are saying, well, he didn't provide the full context, so it altered the narrative.

That's not Barr's job. It's not Mueller's job to worry about the narrative.

CAVUTO: Well, that would have delayed the release of the report itself at a heated time when everyone wanted it out, right?

YOO: Exactly.

I think Barr decide -- I think Barr made the right call.

CAVUTO: OK.

YOO: He could have slowed down the release of the report and issued some longer letter, but he chose the other way, get the report out fast. I think that's what was best for the American people.

CAVUTO: All right. Thank you very, very much, John. Good seeing you again.

YOO: Great seeing you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, let's get the read on all of this from California Republican and a key Judiciary member in the House Tom McClintock.

Congressman, very good to have you.

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK, R-CALIF.: Good to be back, Neil.

CAVUTO: How do you feel about, let's say, Mueller were a private citizen testifying to your committee?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, there are a lot of questions I would like to ask him, so I hope that happens.

I would like to know why he showed so little interest in how the greatest lie in the history of American presidential politics entered the public discussion, was used by high-level officials in the Obama administration, first to try to influence an presidential election, and then, when that failed, to try to undermine the president of the United States, having been duly elected, for more than two years.

So I would like to know why he stacked his investigators with Democratic partisans. There's a lot of questions I would like to ask him. So I hope he does come before the committee.

CAVUTO: Now, the president, for whatever reason -- and maybe because he's still technically a government official -- doesn't want him to.

Were you surprised by that, because, to your point, this could provide an opportunity for Republicans to ask just those questions?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes, I mean, I don't know what the president's thinking is on that.

But Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. So I would like to see all of Robert Mueller's investigation laid out there, because there are some very serious questions about his conduct in that position.

CAVUTO: Do you think what a lot of people are waiting to hear, what got this investigation going? And then maybe Democrats...

MCCLINTOCK: Yes.

CAVUTO: ... your colleagues, are very concerned about what they will reveal, hence this sort of brushfire, preoccupation with everything Barr said, with what everything Mueller pointed out in the report, to deflect?

What do you think of that?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, that's the other shoe that's about to drop.

We now know that this was a lie. That's all laid out very clearly. Despite 22 months of investigations, millions of dollars spent, they were not able to find any evidence of collusion.

So we now know that was just a great hoax.

CAVUTO: Well, maybe not collusion, but a number of people are going to jail, or worse, right? I mean, not on the collusion issue, you're right.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCLINTOCK: But, again, the whole hoax.

CAVUTO: But do you think that, by extending this and getting into it, that there is a risk for both parties that they overdo it?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, I think it's important that we find out how this hoax developed and how it was used by senior officials in the FBI, in the intelligence agencies, in the Department of Justice and perhaps at the White House itself to influence our elections process, and, having failed to do that, having it -- using it to undermine the president of the United States.

CAVUTO: Congressman, thank you for taking the time. We appreciate it.

MCCLINTOCK: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

CAVUTO: All right.

By now, you have seen this video of this fiery plane crash in Russia. Do you know a lot of people leaving this plane before they were, were getting their luggage? It's true. The fatal fallout from just that -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: We now know that most of the victims on that Russian jet were in the back of the plane. They were trying to get out near the front, but were being blocked by passengers, many of whom were trying to get their luggage first.

Incredible.

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Officials are still investigating the Russian passenger jet that burst into flames while trying to make an emergency landing in Moscow; 41 people were killed.

Reports many were trying to get out of the plane, but not all could. Some were blocked by passengers near the front of the plane who were trying to get their bags or luggage first.

So much, we don't know. This much, we do. There's a lot of investigating to continue.

To former FAA acting Administrator Barry Valentine with more. He joins us via Skype.

Barry, thank you for taking the time.

BARRY VALENTINE, FORMER ACTING FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR: My pleasure.

CAVUTO: You have had a chance I'm sure, Barry, to look at some of the video, which was in unusual abundant supply from virtually all angles on this. What do you think?

VALENTINE: In watching the video of the actual aircraft landing, it's very evident that the airplane touched down pretty hard the first time, bounced a bit higher in the air than I have ever seen an airplane bounce, and came down really hard on that last touchdown.

And, obviously, as I understand it, the personal landing gear up through the wings, probably ruptured fuel tanks, and a fire ensued. I understand investigators are looking at pilot performance, mechanical issues, and the weather at the time at the airport to see what role each of those played on that -- that tragic accident.

CAVUTO: But, Administrator, to your point, it was that first bounce on the runway that led to this puncturing, right.

VALENTINE: Yes, that first bounce, the airplane went back up into the air a distance.

CAVUTO: Right.

VALENTINE: And I think, at that point, it probably ran out of sufficient airspeed to stay airborne and just literally pancaked in, as it appeared on the video with enough force to significantly damage the airplane and, again, most likely rupture fuel tanks and cause the fire.

CAVUTO: Now, it looked like the only escape routes were near the front of the plane, not near the back of the plane, or they might have been engulfed in flames, so they couldn't be used.

Any insight into that?

VALENTINE: Yes.

That appears to be the case when you look at the videos, that it was sort of the rear half of the airplane that appeared to be engulfed in flames. And so that would suggest that a passenger might not try to get out of any exits toward the rear of the airplane, but instead to try to move as far forward as possible to exit the airplane.

CAVUTO: We're getting some video that came from people who survived the crash and were using phones and the like, smartphones and the like, that showed many retrieving bags or whatever they could before they got off.

I'm sure, if that were true, it would obviously delayed some getting off, even though those who could were off within 55 seconds. That was too little, too late for those in the rear of the plane.

VALENTINE: Yes, I noticed that.

And there is a requirement for certification of all airplanes that they be able to be evacuated within 90 seconds. And it sounds like that was possibly met. I'm surprised about the issue of passengers looking for luggage.

You would think that one's survival instinct would inspire one to get out of that airplane as quickly as possible. But I will say also that, in the last two or three decades, I have had the opportunity to fly on at least two dozen foreign airlines in virtually every continent, and I have observed that passenger performance can vary from region to region and from culture to culture.

So I'm totally surprised anybody on an airplane that's on fire wouldn't do their best to just get out immediately. But, apparently, based on some of the videos that show people with baggage, that didn't happen, and that may have impeded the exit of the people who were further back in the airplane.

CAVUTO: So tragic.

Barry Valentine, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.

VALENTINE: You're very welcome, sir. Thank you.

CAVUTO: All right, be well.

Well, days like today probably, especially in the markets, leave you very, very nervous. And you're wondering, gosh, I mean, this could have been a lot worse. I was down 500 points. What do I do, as I'm just getting ready to retire or just getting ready to get my hands on that cash, and suddenly I can't? Then what?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Stocks shaken today, investors stirred up, thinking, what if this was just on the verge of my retirement? Then what? Then what do you do? How do you prepare for things that happen out of the blue?

Economist Peter Morici says you step back and be calm. I'm trivializing it there, but he joins me right now.

Peter, how do people brace for these moments? If you don't have the stomach for stocks, I guess it depends on your tolerance for risk. But what do you think?

PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST: Well, I think people ought to have, in retirement, about half their -- half their assets in stocks, say, the S&P and, the other half in fixed-income investments, a ladder of Treasury securities going out about seven years.

If you do that, you have got some room to draw down on your fixed assets at, say, 3, 3.5 percent a year until the market recovers and perhaps rebalance.

CAVUTO: A lot of people don't think about that time frame, though. It's akin to having an emergency stash of cash on the side, anywhere from three to six months, for any unplanned event.

But this would be on relatively short notice. So are you saying the closer you get to needing that cash -- and it could also be through your kids' college education or the like -- at what point do you get really to a point where it half is in cash or cash equivalents, like you say, and the rest in stocks or mirroring the performance of something like an average like the S&P 500?

MORICI: The day you retire.

I mean, clearly, when you're raising a family in your 30s and 40s, you got two pots of money, those that you need to pay for weddings and college and that business and the stuff you're putting aside for retirement.

The money you're putting aside for retirement ought to be in a broad-based stock fund virtually 100 percent when you're 35 years old, 40, 45 years old. But once you get rid of the kids, and you're 55 years old, and you're starting to look at a retirement date, then you should be segueing out of stocks, to the point that you're half stocks and half fixed-income investments.

And I don't mean your local savings account, but a ladder of C.D.s, a ladder of treasury securities, that sort of thing. And if you -- if you do that, so, on the day you retire, it's 50 percent in that ladder and 50 percent in stocks, I have worked it out, you should be able to withdraw 3.5 percent a year.

That should be your benchmark. Can I live on that 3.5 percent? However, you should also consider, what if they have a big downdraft the first couple of years you're retired, you have -- the stock market crashes? Can you live on 3.5 percent if your stocks go down by 25?

CAVUTO: So, in other words, for those, it might help to have a little just income, period, to brace you for that?

MORICI: Well, yes.

If you can keep on working, the studies show that folks that don't completely retire live longer. Just, if you're 65, and you know you're going to retire, just thinking about retiring raises the death rate.

CAVUTO: Wow.

MORICI: Yes.

CAVUTO: You're kind of scaring me here. So, I guess...

(CROSSTALK)

MORICI: I know. You really -- you know, working is good for you, Neil.

CAVUTO: Yes, yes, I guess -- I guess so.

All right, Peter, always good seeing you. Thank you very, very much.

MORICI: Take care.

CAVUTO: Peter Morici.

Well, Nancy Pelosi is still convinced that Donald Trump is not going to get reelected. No surprise there. What is a surprise is what she's telling Democrats if he refuses to go when he isn't.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Just because Nancy Pelosi says she is open to an infrastructure deal with President Trump, that doesn't mean she's planning on him sticking around.

In fact, she's reportedly warning Democrats not about building bridges with the White House, but making sure the president loses by a big enough margin that he has no choice but to leave the White House.

Apparently, she thinks, if it's too close to call, he's not going to late.

The Washington Examiner's Becket Adams joins us, Democratic strategist Sarah Riggs Amico and Republican strategist Kimberly Klacik.

Kimberly, end it with you, begin with you.

What do you think of that?

KIMBERLY KLACIK, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think, honestly, this is what psychologists call projection. And that's what it is at its finest.

But I do have to give Nancy Pelosi credit. She is the only official on the left that seems to actually recognize that the president is actually the president of the United States. But, in my opinion, unless Jesus Christ jumps into this presidential race, I don't think Trump has anything to worry about.

Employers added 263,000 jobs this year. The unemployment rate is as low as it's been since 1960. In some regions of the country, the only reason you could be unemployed is either you are disabled, or you just don't want to work.

But I have to wonder, with her comment, he has to win by a large margin, is he -- is she signaling something there? Is she's talking about illegal votes? What is she really saying with all this?

CAVUTO: Well, I think what she's saying is, this guy is going to be a sore loser if he loses.

That's a bit of a leap. We have no idea what would happen in that event.

KLACIK: Right.

CAVUTO: But what do you think, Sarah, the message she's sending?

SARAH RIGGS AMICO, JACK COOPER HOLDINGS: I think Speaker Pelosi is actually sharing a really important message with Democrats, which is, if you would like President Trump to leave office, the single best way to do that is to make sure he is handily defeated in November of 2020.

What she's telling us is, it's time to hit the doors, it's time to talk to voters. And she's also telling us to stick to the issues, like health care, bigger paychecks, accountable government, the mainstream of what most Americans, regardless of their party affiliation, want to talk about.

CAVUTO: You know, Becket, I was wondering about what she was saying or telling Democrats, and the history of recent elections, where the media generally get it wrong, the experts get it wrong.

Very few, if any, saw Donald Trump getting elected, certainly even getting the nomination from the Republicans. We could go back to Hillary going at it with Barack Obama, and that he had no chance, until suddenly he was the president of the United States.

I guess, is she just saying, don't take anything for granted, and that that's the way this should go, or, look, we can't just beat this guy, we have to crush this guy to remove any and all doubt?

BECKET ADAMS, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Right.

Actually, I think it's the latter. I think what the speaker is doing is not just saying we have to win by such a large margin that he won't have any chance to claim foul.

I think, regardless, if he loses, whether it's by a large margin or a small margin, he's going to claim foul. I mean, Donald Trump is the sort of guy who reminds me of the movie "Moneyball." I think he actually hates losing more than he enjoys winning.

So depending on -- no matter how it goes, if a Democrat beats him, he's going to complain. I don't think she's talking about, oh, we have to win by such a large margin...

CAVUTO: Well, complaining about it is very different than clasping your knuckles onto the White House doorknob and not leaving.

ADAMS: But...

CAVUTO: But, Kimberly, could I ask you something about -- Joe Biden is already prepared for the name-calling he suspects will be the rigueur du jour in this campaign. I guess he's sleepy Joe or whatever, and that he's called the president a clown, as if that has elevated the debate.

So what are we looking at here?

KLACIK: I think Joe Biden is grasping at straws.

I don't think people want another Obama-type president. I think now he thinks, OK, well, I'm going to try to get as much airtime as possible. So he's going to throw the name-calling. He's going to do whatever he can to...

CAVUTO: Yes, but he's already saying, the other guy started it, right?

(LAUGHTER)

KLACIK: So now we're in fifth grade. Right?

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Well, sixth maybe.

KLACIK: No.

CAVUTO: Sarah, what do you make of that, that there was a strategy that many Republicans regret that they didn't take Donald Trump on earlier, before it was too late and he had out-hustled and -smarted than and that, at least when it comes to Joe Biden, he doesn't want to do the same thing.

Play this out, if he were the nominee, for example.

RIGGS AMICO: You know, I think what Vice President Biden is doing is exactly on point.

He's doing two things simultaneously. One, he's telling us he is going to push back against the kind of rhetoric and name-calling that has already come out of this president. And, number two, he's telling us that he wants to continue to talk about issues.

And I think it's consistent with...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: By using terms like clown?

RIGGS AMICO: Look, he has consistently talked about kitchen table, pocketbook issues.

CAVUTO: All right.

RIGGS AMICO: He's following exactly the same line that Speaker Pelosi has. And this is what voters want.

KLACIK: I thought the Democrats said, when they go low, we go high. What happened to that, Sarah?

RIGGS AMICO: Talking about health care and how we give it to people, instead of take it away from them, is going high. And that is what the American public wants.

CAVUTO: All right, Becket, I could ask -- veering a little bit -- that the more profound comments from Biden might have been his dismissal of the Chinese as a competitive threat.

It's stuff like that that might come back to bite him, not whether he calls the president a clown or not. Your thoughts?

ADAMS: Right. Right.

Well, we're talking about Biden wants to talk about campaigning on getting back the soul of America, but he's launching with Harpootlian, who, if you recall, has compared to Nikki Haley to Eva Braun and once promised to send her back -- quote -- "wherever the hell she came from."

I mean, if he wants to really do this sort of sitting around the kitchen table, talking to the soul of America, he actually has to live up to that.

CAVUTO: All right, both sides do, right?

ADAMS: Yes.

CAVUTO: OK.

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

In the meantime, words are not doing it. Maybe U.S. troops will? What Juan Guaido wants from us to settle this Venezuelan mess once and for all.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the supportive words are one thing, but Venezuela's opposition leader has a better idea. Could we get a little bit of military help from the United States of America?

Steve Harrigan is in Caracas, Venezuela, with more on that.

Hey, Steve.

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Neil, Juan Guaido, the opposition leader who's recognized as interim president of Venezuela by the U.S. and by 53 other nations gets asked that question a lot lately: How do you feel about U.S. military intervention here in Venezuela?

The reason he gets asked it so often is because his own attempt at military uprising on Tuesday failed dramatically. He's moved his position slightly. Now Guaido is saying he would be open to considering U.S. military intervention here in Venezuela, as long as U.S. troops fought alongside Venezuelans trying to oust Nicolas Maduro from power.

As far as his own pressure on the streets go, earlier this week, we saw large-scale and violent demonstrations, thousands of people coming out, battling with security forces. But after that failed uprising, the momentum and the power seems to have really gone away from the opposition.

On Saturday, we saw just about 200 demonstrators, yesterday just a few dozen. So this is a man who can now bring just a few hundred people into the streets talking about possible U.S. military intervention -- Neil, back to you.

CAVUTO: You know what's interesting, Steve? And you were the first to report it. It was all about getting the generals to bolt for Nicolas Maduro. Some did, but not nearly all, in fact, not nearly even a majority.

And that made all the difference, didn't it?

HARRIGAN: That's really the key demographic. Guaido has been trying to lobby them.

He's only gotten one person to flip, an intelligence chief so far, in three months. You see Maduro visiting the soldiers and the generals every day on state television. He's trying to show that they still are with him. And so far, they still are, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, so, if that remains the case, and these demonstrations have sort of petered out, what's next?

HARRIGAN: I think this could be a long battle.

We have seen Guaido probably lose the first three rounds. He announced himself as president. Nothing. He said he was going to bring in foreign aid. Didn't happen. He announced the military uprising. Didn't happen.

But Maduro is still in a tough position. He doesn't have the money. He's really holed up in the presidential palace, and a big chunk of the world is against him. So this could really be a long fight, but, right now, Maduro is hanging on.

CAVUTO: All right, Steve Harrigan, thank you very, very much, Steve Harrigan in Caracas, Venezuela, relatively calmer today, but Nicolas Maduro still technically the guy in that presidential palace.

We will be exploring this a lot more tomorrow on FOX Business beginning at noon Eastern time, as well as the fallout from that trade situation, and the fact that the Chinese might still be coming or bring a delegation to this country.

We had a wild, whipsawing day today, a swing of close to 1,000 points. What are we in for tomorrow? We will know tomorrow.

For now, here comes "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.