‘Your World’ on Supreme Court leak – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript of “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on May 3, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You know, at this point, a lot of people don’t know which is worse, learning that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade in just a draft opinion — after all, a draft opinion doesn’t mean the final opinion.

Then there’s the issue of the leaker and who was behind getting it out there. So far, no signs that Democrats are minding this, Republicans very concerned about how this could happen yet again, because this is a pattern, my friends.

Welcome, everybody. I’m Neil Cavuto. And this is “Your World.”

And crowds still gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe forcing an opinion change that they think has been all but baked in, hence the release of this early opinion before it was an official opinion. Never mind the details.

Right now, it has separated the two camps, those pro-choice and those looking at where to go from here in the pro-life camp. No way of telegraphing exactly how far this goes. But what we do know is, it’s predictably falling along party lines.

Shannon Bream has more on this from Washington — Shannon.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: So, Neil, here’s what we know at this hour.

There is officially an investigation under way by the U.S. Marshals Office. And the Supreme Court did something unusual this afternoon, kind of forced it hand. It admitted that this draft piece that is out there by Justice Alito, at least current as of February, which is a long time ago when it comes to these things, it’s legit.

Now, here’s how drafts work. That majority opinion goes out. It is circulated. The justices, their clerks are all intimately involved with this process. That’s how dissents are crafted. Concurrences, if there are those, will be crafted as well. They’re all intimately involved with this process.

So now we’re going to have to wait to see what the actual final opinion looks like and how closely it does or does not track with this draft opinion by Alito.

Here is what White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said about as we wait.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So, I would note that, if Roe fails, abortion would probably be illegal in about half the states. Up to 26 states, particularly in the South, Midwest and West, are poised to further restrict or ban access.

Tens of millions of women may lack access to reproductive health.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: So, if Roe is overturned, it really would send this back to the states.

Each state is going to have a lot of latitude about where they want to draw the lines on abortion access. Pro-life groups say, listen, they know if Roe is struck down, they have got to step up to provide resources, to prevent – – present opportunities for women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy.

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life group the Susan B. Anthony List tweets this: “The pro-life movement stands strongly in support of providing the resources necessary so that moms are truly empowered to choose life. This is so well-demonstrated by the more than 2,700 pregnancy care centers across the country that serve millions of people annually.”

But, for now, Neil, you know all of this is premature speculation. As you said, it’s a draft opinion. It was back in February. That’s almost two months ago. We will wait to see what we actually get from the court. Drafts can change. Votes can change. We just don’t know at this point.

CAVUTO: No, but I have been feeling what you’re going to be all over tonight on your show “FOX News @ Night.” I look forward to that.

Shannon, thank you so much for all of that.

BREAM: See you then.

CAVUTO: All right, well, as Shannon pointed out, it necessarily does not mean that a draft opinion becomes the final opinion, although that is quite often the case.

Let’s go to Tom Dupree, the former assistant attorney general, his take on all of this.

Leaving the leaker beside, we have to deal with the leak. And we have to deal with this advance heads-up, I guess, on an opinion that isn’t official, but is telegraphed. How significant is this?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Neil, this is a seismic event. It’s devastating. It’s terrible. It’s heartbreaking.

This just never happens at the Supreme Court, a leak like this, literally unprecedented in the court’s history. People like to say — and it’s true – – that the Supreme Court is the one institution in Washington, D.C., that does not leak.

That’s why what happened last night was just so stunning to court watchers.

CAVUTO: Who do you think did it? And what type of person would it be so much on the left, who obviously wanted to give a heads up or warning about what was coming, with the hope that the uproar would force some judges to cower and change their minds?

DUPREE: That’s my read of it, Neil.

It seems to me that whoever leaked this did so with a political purpose in mind, that they knew this was the way the court was trending. They wanted to see if they could somehow influence the deliberative process by putting this thing out in the public sphere. It’s obviously already whipped up a huge public frenzy.

And I suspect the leaker’s goal was to bring public pressure and political pressure to bear on the five justices who formed at least this tentative majority, in the hopes that maybe one of them bows to public pressure and changes his or her vote.

CAVUTO: If we take it at face value that this is a draft opinion — and Justice Douglas (sic) has indicated right now that at least this is legitimate, how often is an early draft opinion a final one?

DUPREE: The outcome is usually going to be the same. I don’t want to say 100 percent, because there are circumstances where you lose one vote, and especially if it’s 5-4. All it takes is one vote to go the other way.

So my best guess is that this is very likely the ultimate outcome that the court is going to reach. At least statistically, it’s very probable. But, of course, the actual opinion, the scope, the reasoning, the sweep, the logic, all of that can and does change as the draft ultimately goes through different iterations and becomes a final opinion.

CAVUTO: All right, what’s — what we know from Justice Samuel Alito, who is writing on this — and I guess this dates back to February.

He said that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. A, what do you make of that? And, B, how many justices do you think concurred with that view, this was wrong from the start?

DUPREE: I think they tentatively had a majority. I think they tentatively had five that agreed with that principle.

You will recall, Neil, that, during the argument in this case, it seemed, reading the tea leaves, that Chief John Roberts might be trying to see if there was any appetite for a compromise, a middle ground, a way that they could uphold the law, the anti-abortion law, but, at the same time, not overrule Roe and Casey.

Alito’s draft opinion says, no way. We’re going all the way. We’re going to overrule Roe, we’re going to overrule Casey, Roe was wrong from the minute it decided. Five tentative votes for that. But, of course, we’re not going to know whether there are five actual votes for it until that opinion actually comes out.

CAVUTO: Can you see a justice who might have been on the side with Alito to strike this down changing his or her mind now under pressure?

DUPREE: You know, I don’t, Neil. I really don’t, because, look, this is an issue that these justices, all nine of them, have been thinking about for a long, long time.

These are also men and women of great integrity that are used to deciding cases in this highly charged political atmosphere. They’re used to decide these massive cases that gets the world’s attention. And I don’t think they’re going to be influenced by a public drumbeat one way or another. They’re going to decide this case on principle, based on what they think the Constitution actually says.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very, very much for that, Tom Dupree, the deputy — the former deputy assistant attorney general.

Back to the leak at the origins of the leak. It is important to put this in perspective. We have been here and done this before. Leaks, for example, are nothing — nothing new at all in Washington. We have seen this during the January 6 commission investigation, leaks involving President Trump’s controversial call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

It was a leak of a letter from Blasey Ford that triggered intense scrutiny of Brett Kavanaugh. We all remember that. And now this leak from the Supreme Court. By the way, there are others. But suffice it to say Democrats have been very quick to condemn what’s in this leak, but not the leaker of this leak.

To Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill on a pattern here — Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Good afternoon, Neil.

Well, leaks are a custom in Washington, leaks about GOP North Carolina Representative Madison Cawthorn, leaks of texts from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, audiotapes from Kevin McCarthy. Remember, President Nixon called in what were described as the plumbers during Watergate.

Usually, in a campaign year, we have an October surprise. This was a May surprise. Democrats hoped the leak will energize their side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: I am just — I cannot tell you the outrage I feel at this decision and the outrage I feel that Republicans who did it won’t own up to it and duck. It’s despicable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Leader Mitch McConnell would not discuss the implications of the leak for the midterms. But the GOP is girding for battle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I think the person who leaked this disagreed with the draft opinion and leaked it for political reasons to, A, try to change minds of Supreme Court justices through public pressure and to, B, proud to help my Democratic colleagues in the midterm elections.

And even by the standards of Washington, D.C., it’s pretty cynical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Overturning Roe isn’t the policy Democrats want, but they believe that will help them with a key voting bloc.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Part of this November’s election, reproductive rights will be on the ballot. And women will vote. And they will make sure their voices are heard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERGRAM: Democrats feel burned by Senate Republicans and former President Trump, so they’re making this a referendum on the former president.

The Senate never held a confirmation hearing for President Obama’s nominee for the High Court, current Attorney General Merrick Garland. And then Mr. Trump got three justices confirmed. That includes Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 election. Expect Democrats to highlight this history on the campaign trail — Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you very much for that, Chad Pergram.

So, on the campaign trail, is this an issue and, out of nowhere, maybe a winning Hail Mary pass for Democrats who are looking for one and something that could galvanize the base?

To Bob Cusack on that, The Hill editor in chief.

Well, it certainly has galvanized some passionate on — in that base. I’m just wondering how long that passion lasts. What do you think?

BOB CUSACK, THE HILL: Well, I do think it wakes Democrats up. They’re a bit fat now because they control everything. And Republicans are the hungry party because they don’t control the House, Senate or the White House like Democrats do.

So, Neil I didn’t know what Democrats were going to talk about on the campaign trail for their campaign message. We have been asking about that, not getting straight answers. Well, now we know. It is about abortion. It’s about Trump’s justice picks. That’s what they’re going to be talking about, because they really can’t talk about COVID. They don’t want to talk about inflation or the border.

Those are things Republicans want to talk about. I do think this helps Democrats, to some degree. Will it save the day? In all likelihood, probably not.

CAVUTO: Yes, it’s a state-by-state battle in these midterms, as you have reminded me, Bob.

But I am wondering whether it gets some Democrats who might have sat this went out, the midterm election, feeling more inclined not to, and whether it moves independents. I still think, as you pointed out, the economy kind of dictates everything here. And that could again be the big issue as we go into the fall. But you never know. We’re a long way from that.

How do you see this sorting out?

CUSACK: Well, you got to look at the Virginia race, the governor’s race that Republicans won, Youngkin defeating McAuliffe.

Biden had won the suburbs and suburban women in 2020. Well, he lost them last year. And that’s where the battleground is going to be. So, is that going to get Democrats more votes? I think it’s going to get some from the base, because the base has been disappointed with what Biden hasn’t gotten done, based upon his campaign promises.

But now they have got a big reason to show up. And, remember, if the Senate does flip, in all likelihood, Mitch McConnell is not going to give Joe Biden a vote. It’s going to be Merrick Garland all over again. So I would bet that, in 2023 — McConnell hasn’t answered this question — but if McConnell is the majority leader, and there is another opening, we’re going to wait until after the 2024 election.

So there’s a lot of reason for both parties to actually vote this fall.

CAVUTO: How does this galvanize Republicans, or does it?

CUSACK: Well, there’s a narrative in the media that this is just going to get Democrats to the polls. And I get that. I understand it. And I agree to it, to a point.

But this issue fires up Republicans as well, Neil. So this is another reason for them to show up to the polls. But it’s interesting to see how Mitch McConnell and I’m interested to see how Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, deal with this.

I don’t think they want to talk that much about abortion. I think they want to talk about inflation, gas prices and crime. They will talk about this to some degree, but their bread and butter are the other issues that we have been talking about for months.

CAVUTO: I have always noticed, when documents are leaked, the Ellsberg papers, during the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, people in the end are invariably drawn to what was leaked or what came out.

And so this Republican quest to find out the leaker, if they identify that person, will it make a big difference? Or are people actually ticked off about it enough to say, well, this is unprecedented, we have never seen anything like this?

CUSACK: It’s a big deal. It is unprecedented.

I don’t think the — if they’re able to identify the leaker — I don’t know who the leaker is. I wish I did. I don’t think it’s going to matter that much, because that’s not — that’s not something people are going to vote on.

But for the base, yes, and for Washington drama and palace intrigue, we want to know who it is. So that’s going to be a big storyline in the months ahead.

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

And we were showing you there that Daniel Ellsberg release of Pentagon documents that called into question what we were saying about the war in the time in Vietnam. And it turns out, a lot of it was lies.

CUSACK: Thank you.

CAVUTO: So, again, it was the final leaked product, and not the leaker, that got the attention. That was then. We will see what happens right now.

Also see what happens right now, the president of the United States in Alabama looking at some of the weaponry that he has already made sure is en route to Ukraine, if not already there.

What our — the ambassador to the United States from Ukraine makes of all of this. She has been saying again, again and again: We need as much as we can as fast as you can — after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As I have said from the beginning, this fight is not going to be cheap. But caving to aggression would even be more costly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: And the president committing and visiting the facility right now where a lot of those weapons, including the Javelins that the Ukrainians seriously need, and a lot more of, are en route and being made.

Ambassador Oksana Markarova joins us right now, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, reaction to all of this.

Ambassador, good to have you back.

First off, what do you think of — this is just some of the weaponry that is coming your way. Some of it’s already come your way. What do you think about it?

OKSANA MARKAROVA, UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Neil, for having me.

We’re very grateful for American people for helping us in this very important, existential fight for us. And as long as Russia continues the attack, we will continue to resist and fight and defend our country. And we rely heavily on strategic partner number one for us, United States, helping us with all the weapons and all the assistance that we can receive in this.

So, we are very grateful for everything that we received to date. And it’s a lot. And we look forward to what was sent as the proposal by President Biden and hopefully will be reviewed very soon with Congress, because the war continues. And Russia doubled down in Ukraine.

CAVUTO: Now, this new military aid coming, Ambassador, where do things stand right now, especially with the ongoing Russian attacks and sortie attacks?

They seem to be popping up all over your country, that is, these airstrikes against — and they have seemed to be targeting civilians. But, in Mariupol, it’s the same story, we understand, where individuals find it — find it tough getting out of there, and the guaranteed safe passageway out of there isn’t still there.

Can you update us on that?

MARKAROVA: Well, Neil, you’re absolutely right.

I mean, from the beginning of this phase of the war — and I want to remind that Russia attacked us eight years ago before. But this past 69 days, Russian army, or, should I say, Russian war criminals, were not fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces.

They were specifically targeting civilians from day one. They were shooting at schools, ruining buildings, city of Mariupol, destroyed 95 percent. I mean, the whole city of the size of Tampa, Florida, was encircled for more than two months, without food, water. And they’re pounding, knowing that the majority of people there are civilians.

So it has been — I don’t — I cannot even name you what type of war crimes Russian — Russians did not commit on the territory of Ukraine. But we — again, we will resist. And while it’s a different phase of war right now, while they are focusing on the east and west, but they still continue, as you rightfully said, shooting with the missiles everywhere, in Lviv, in Kyiv, in Odessa, killing women and children.

There are not targeting military objects. But, as Ukrainians, we’re very effective in defending the country and putting to good use all the support, all the military support U.S. has provided. We were also very effective in keeping all the supply lines and been very effective in getting the tools that you are providing us with to places where our armed forces need them.

So it’s very hard. The devastation is great. But, at the same time, not only we successfully defend ourselves; we can win.

CAVUTO: There’s no doubt about that, and the effectiveness and just the sheer bravery of your soldiers, Ambassador.

But I’m wondering, given these Russian poundings, they seem to be targeting routes where that military and other aid could come in, and that that’s their goal, that, no matter what the U.S. and other Western allies offer and provide for you, their eventual goal, that is, Vladimir Putin’s eventual goal, more specifically, is to make sure you never get that stuff.

MARKAROVA: That’s right.

But, to date, they were not successful in targeting those, like they were not successful in taking Kyiv, like they were not successful in having Mariupol even to fall, or Kharkiv, because they are not fighting with only the armed forces. And our armed forces are very motivated and brave.

But they essentially are fighting with all Ukrainians, all of us. Regarding of what God do we believe, or what language do we speak, where we live, all of us want to be — want to live peacefully in our own country. And all of us want Russians to be gone.

So they are essentially fighting with all Ukrainian people.

CAVUTO: I just wonder — I mean, obviously targeting civilians, trying to wear you and your people down, Ambassador, the multiple attempts on your president’s life, Zelenskyy’s life, 10, he says, it’s got to be draining.

But you have never seem drained. Your people never seem drained. They keep at it. But what do you think of the strategy of Vladimir Putin to wear that down, to wear you down, to wear your people down?

MARKAROVA: It’s hard to predict the strategy of a war criminal, and because people like you and me and Americans and Ukrainians, we wouldn’t even start a war like this. It’s unimaginable to even — how these processes in the hands of a normal person would even go through to say, one day, we will bomb a peaceful country, or we will kill somebody, or we would rape children.

I mean, this should be something that we should never even discuss or imagine.

So, we are tired. I will be — I would be not saying the truth if I would say that we are as — we’re not tired. We are tired. But, at the same time, it’s clear for us, after seeing what happens in Mariupol, after seeing what happened in Bucha, after knowing what happens all over the place, that it’s also existential for us.

If they were — if they are able to occupy us, they will kill us all. So we’re defending our homes. We’re defending our life, way of living. We are defending our freedom and democracy. And regardless of how tired we are or how many people we will lose, we will fight, because we don’t have any other home.

CAVUTO: You are relentless, Ambassador, and so are your incredible people.

Thank you very much for joining us. Be safe, be well, Ambassador Oksana Markarova, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States.

And in the United States, all focus, all attention on the state of Ohio right now, a crucial primary battle that will, I guess, Mark Meredith, test the so-called Trump bump and if there is one for one particular candidate, right?

MARK MEREDITH, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: That’s right, Neil.

This is a fascinating Senate race under way in Ohio today, primary day, as you well know. We will be looking to see if whether or not former President Trump’s endorsement matters to midterm voters throughout Ohio and across the country.

We will tell you more about what’s happening here in Ohio when we come back from break right after this.

Stay with us. You’re watching FOX News.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, he was an iconic and is an iconic face for how the markets are going.

I wonder how Peter Tuchman right now in that famous image feels about two back-to-back winning days for the first time in a month. He’s coming. He’s here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Well, they call it the Trump bump.

Any candidate at Donald Trump says, I think you’re good, you’re the guy, tends to do pretty well. That will be under extreme pressure test time in Ohio, the first of among many opportunities people will have to see whether Donald Trump’s support closes the deal for them.

Mark Meredith in Cincinnati, Ohio, with more on that — Mark.

MEREDITH: Hey, Neil.

Well, former President Trump surprised a lot of people when he chose to endorse author and businessman J.D. Vance, because it wasn’t that long ago that Vance was pretty critical about Trump and his agenda. But then that all appeared to be forgotten when Trump came to a rally here in Ohio in April to show his support for Vance and then Vance started surging in the polls.

But it was also interesting. Over the weekend, Trump was holding a different rally in which he appeared to mix up Vance’s name with that of the former Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel, who also is a pro-Trump candidate. Vance says it was a simple mistake and that there is no love lost between those two men.

We had a chance to catch up with Vance as he was casting his ballot earlier today in Cincinnati. And he says he’s feeling good heading into this final stretch and that he even spoke to Trump on Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE (R), OHIO SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Gave me some encouragement, said that he’s seen some polls that he thought were really good. I’d seen some of those polls too. Some of them, I hadn’t seen.

And he’s he’s confident we’re going to win. And I’m confident we’re going to win too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MEREDITH: But Vance is certainly facing plenty of competition in this race, including from businessman Matt (sic) Gibbons, who’s spending a lot of his own money to get on the ballot in November. He says it’s already been quite a journey to get to primary day today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE GIBBONS (R), OHIO SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Is kind of an end of a 13 months of hard work. It ended today. And, hopefully, it’ll begin again tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MEREDITH: State Senator Matt Dolan, who met with voters as they went to the polls this morning, has also seen his numbers climb just before Election Day.

Dolan is selling himself is more of a traditional conservative, as opposed to someone who wants to focus on relitigating the 2020 election. And Dolan had told FOX that he really believes this last-minute surge is real. Of course, we will wait to see what turnout is actually like.

We have had some pretty bad weather across the Ohio Valley today. An early voting number, Neil, was — were not great to begin with. So we’re not sure how many people will show up to vote. Democrats also holding their primary date today, Congressman Tim Ryan the man to beat.

And either way, Neil, a lot of money and attention are going to be focused on Ohio in November, no matter who wins the nomination tonight — Neil.

CAVUTO: Always has been that way. Probably always will be.

Mark, thank you very much, Mark Meredith.

The read on this from Lee Carter, Republican pollster, Phil Wegmann of RealClearPolitics.

Lee, for Donald Trump and, of course, Donald Trump-backed candidates, this is a big test. It begins tonight in Ohio, continues in other states, in Georgia, where we will see that his pick of the former Senator Perdue to take on the current incumbent governor, how that will fan out.

But, again, across the country, maybe different examples of how much weight Donald Trump still carries. What do you think?

LEE CARTER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Look, I think it’s exactly what this is.

It is — we’re going to see the future of the Republican Party being defined in the primaries. Are we going to continue to be the party that is under Trump or are we going to be a more moderate, traditionally conservative organization?

And I don’t think it’s clear right now. The polling suggests that it’s leaning more towards a Trump-like landscape, when you look at the success right now of Vance, when you look at some of the other races there.

But then there’s other — the races are close here. And if voter turnout isn’t huge, we’re going to — we’re going to — we might have some surprises. But there’s no doubt about it right now. This is — this is the moment that we’re going to see, who is the Republican Party going to be going forward? And it’s looking like Trump still does carry quite a bit of weight.

CAVUTO: Now, that has not stopped, Phil Wegmann, as you know, in Georgia, the next big battleground that’s going to test sort of the Trump magic.

George W. Bush is already set for this fund-raiser right now to help raise money for Brian Kemp, the incumbent governor, who looks, at least in the polls, to be in pretty good shape, despite former Senator Perdue’s push and backing by Donald Trump.

So, how do you sort this out?

PHILIP WEGMANN, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Well, not to mix headlines here, but I do think it’s very relevant.

I just got off the phone with Senators Lee, Hawley, and Blackburn throughout the day. And we were talking about the leaked draft of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. And the fact that we were even having that conversation is a reflection of the fact that Donald Trump, he leaned on Heritage, he leaned on the Federalist Society, and he got three Supreme Court justices confirmed.

Now, the question is, will those types of accomplishments, will they resonate with voters, particularly the ideologically involved ones, who are going to these primaries?

There’s another phenomenon that’s also taking place. As Trump sort of recedes a bit from the fore, he’s not on Twitter every day, as he sort of retreats a little bit, his polling numbers increase. We will see if his popularity wanes or increases the more combative he gets. But, absolutely, he’s the biggest guy in the room.

CAVUTO: You know, it’s interesting too, Lee, regardless how these races sort out.

There’s a controversial one in Nebraska, where he’s backing Charles Herbster, of course. He is a former businessman who was accused of fondling — all these issues that might or might not have an impact on the races. But let’s say they’re split. I mean, do you see that changing any sentiment? No matter how these contests work out and the midterms in general work out, that it’s very clear, Donald Trump is running for president again.

I guess what I’d like to ask you is, no matter the outcome here, whether others run against him, even if he is.

CARTER: I think others will run against him even if he is.

And I — you can see it. There’s a real division in the Republican Party right now. And there’s a real fight for what they decide that they want to become in this moment. I don’t think that it’s going to slow down. And I think that, if Trump is going to run again, we’re going to see a lot of people trying to take him down.

And we haven’t ever seen anyone who’s come up with a formula that works, because it seems, the more you try to take him down, the more he excels. And so I think the biggest thing that Republican — Republicans who are trying to combat Trumpism are going to have to deal with is, what is the message that they are all about? What are they for?

It can’t be simply that they are against certain things that Trump stands for. It’s going to be, what is going to be better if they take over the Republican Party? And no one really has tried that strategy successfully at this point.

CAVUTO: All right.

CARTER: But I think it’s going to be really important, if that’s what we want to have see happen.

CAVUTO: All right, guys, I apologize.

Do want to break for breaking news here. Elon Musk has said that he does plan a stage of an initial public offering of Twitter in as little as three years of buying it. This is coming from The Wall Street Journal. We will keep you posted on that and how the markets were trying a comeback today, back-to-back days. That is a rarity, especially for the Nasdaq, which hasn’t seen that in the better part of a month.

We’re on that after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, an iconic face to treasure an iconic moment.

Peter Tuchman, of course, you’re very familiar with, an image over these many decades of really the telltale feeling of what’s going on in the markets, maybe a little bit more relieved over the last couple of days. We have had surprising gains in the markets, after volatile swings in the markets, for the Nasdaq that has just gotten hammered, first time we have seen such a phenomenon in the better part of a month.

Peter Tuchman joins us right now from the New York Stock Exchange.

Peter, good to see you.

I always know how we’re doing or maybe not doing, Peter, when I look at your handsome image, and if you look panicked or worried vs. excited. It’s hard to tell these days, because they have been so volatile, and up in the morning and down, and then a little bit of all, with swings of 40 percent or more.

Where are you on this, on where we stand?

PETER TUCHMAN, NYSE TRADER: So, the funny thing, if — were asking me this morning, do I think the market is going to go up or down? And my best answer was yes, right?

(LAUGHTER)

TUCHMAN: That’s what we have seen for the last couple of days.

CAVUTO: That’s true.

TUCHMAN: That’s what — and I hate to have an opinion about which way this market is going to go. So yes is the only really responsible answer in a market that does.

Look at the — look at the chart of today’s market. I mean, yes, look, we have been down. The market is engaged, obviously, coming into tomorrow’s Fed meeting. We have got — the market, in my opinion, can usually handle one or two things that are going on geopolitically, economically, or whatnot.

And we obviously have a lot on the table right now. And, obviously, it’s been the most tumultuous time since Jan. 1, the low of Jan. 24, what’s been going on for the last month, the war, the taper, interest rate raises, and all that.

And then we have seen massive outflows into the marketplace, a lot of rotation and whatnot. And, obviously, over the last couple of weeks, we have seen the market tech, the sector that led us into the high highs of 2021, are the one that are leading us lower down. Obviously, there are many moving parts here.

Yesterday’s rally, we always — we joked about it yesterday here. It was one of those what we call a rip your face off rally. It caught everyone off guard, right?

CAVUTO: Right.

TUCHMAN: I mean, we were down. We were down all day. My gut is, it was a little bit of fresh money.

People were waiting. Look, usually, on the first day of a trading month, you do see a lot of fresh cash coming into the market. And so people were sort of waiting for a little bit of a technical support, which happened at 4-0-5-60 in the S&P 500. And then it was sort of off to the races.

Everyone is sort of sitting on the sidelines, not being the first — wanting to be the first one in, but not wanting to miss the bottom. And from a trader’s point of view, that can be fun and aggressive and potentially short-term profitable.

But when you see the movements like today, we came in, there was a little bit of follow through on yesterday’s rally, and it could have been a bear market rally. We do see that historically. Within bear markets, you do see a day or two where you do get a little bit of a lift. But, today, the market went up and down in a range of 400 or 500 points…

CAVUTO: Incredible.

TUCHMAN: … so many times, so many times.

Now, we get sort of jaded in a market that we have seen, like, do this for the last five months and the last year. These are actually billions of dollars of outflow and inflow in a market that is actually reversing intraday, intrahour.

So I would be irresponsible to tell you exactly who’s selling, who’s buying, why it’s happening, except it’s a bit of a perfect storm, in my opinion.

CAVUTO: It is.

TUCHMAN: We have got a war going on that could get worse. We have got energy sector that’s sort of going through whatever’s going on between Russia and the other actors in that space.

We have got interest rates being raised, everyone with an opinion how much they should be raised and how many there are going to be in a year. We have got the taper story.

CAVUTO: All right.

TUCHMAN: We have got a market — market that’s — a market that’s a little bit fractured.

So…

CAVUTO: No, they don’t know. They don’t know.

But, Peter, thank you for giving us an update on that. And thank you for proving you’re so powerful, you don’t have to wear a tie. You can — you’re your own guy. You’re your own guy.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Peter, be well, my friend. Thank you very much.

TUCHMAN: Thanks, Neil. Great to see you guys. Good luck. Happy trading…

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Peter Tuchman, he’s the best and a legend. He calls it as he sees it. But he’s been there through bull and bear markets alike. We always get through. We always, always, always get through.

We’ll have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, right the great exodus from Ukraine continues.

Better than five million have left thus far, actually more than six million if you count those who’ve been dispersed to other countries, but Poland still the biggest receiver of those refugees.

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat is back there right now trying to help folks there deal with the onslaught. And it is an onslaught.

Doctor, what are you seeing?

DR. JANETTE NESHEIWAT, FOX NEWS MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Hey, Neil.

It’s still every day Ukrainians are being killed or injured, broken bones, wounds, rashes, severe dehydration. They’re still coming in. They’re still being injured. Those who are not severely injured are able to cross the border. I’m sitting right in front of the border right now.

And it’s definitely less stressful on my behalf, because we’re not in Lviv, where we’re getting sirens and alarms that were going off, and that looming fear of, are we going to have to go underground and seek shelter while we’re trying to take care of patients?

So, at least now we can focus on taking care of the refugees. But they’re still very ill. And there’s still such a great need for humanitarian aid and humanitarian care. And so it’s so important that we make sure that we provide and have the resources available. And that’s why we’re out here trying to provide them not only with food and shelter and clothing and other things like that, but also the critical medical aspect.

You may not have a gunshot wound, but if you have uncontrolled blood pressure, and you don’t have access to your blood pressure medicines, it will go up. You can have a stroke. You can have a heart attack. I had a teenager earlier, a type 1 diabetic, didn’t have any insulin.

CAVUTO: Wow.

NESHEIWAT: And if you don’t have your insulin, that can kill you.

So we’re definitely trying to provide those resources to give — at least give them a little bit of a reprieve from the horror that they’re enduring.

CAVUTO: And we have heard, Doctor, as well the latest group of refugees, especially those that are trying to find their way to safety are finding that the humanitarian passageways that had been promised by the Russians are not there.

So they’re striking out on their own. A lot of them are dealing with serious health issues of their own. How bad is that?

NESHEIWAT: It is. It is bad.

And if you are in Ukraine, you’re not safe. Putin will violate the international humanitarian law. Nobody is safe here. That’s why our railway station site setup that we were — we were taking care of patients there. It’s not there anymore because it’s too dangerous.

And so, yes, some of the volunteers as well, they have been — become ill. They have become dehydrated. They’re losing weight. But that’s why it’s just teamwork and trying to take care of one another, trying to take care of the refugees and provide resources for everyone in need.

CAVUTO: Doctor, thank you. You’re doing the lord’s work there. Thank you very much for joining us, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat.

Talk about a house call a half-a-world away.

All right, when we come back, the fuss over the leak, but, really, why no fuss over the leaker? Who got this out there and why?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Concentrate on what the news is today, not a leaked draft, but the fact that the draft was leaked.

SCHUMER: It is utterly amazing that Mitch McConnell did not want to say he supports repealing Roe v. Wade at this meeting.

Every time it was brought up substantively about Roe v. Wade, all he did is talk about the leaks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, the leak is a legitimate issue. We have never seen it happen before regarding the Supreme Court of the United States. That’s a big deal, in and of itself.

So who released this? What was behind this? Was it a way to get some of these justices to buckle, maybe change their minds?

A lot we don’t know, but my next guest wants to at least find out or try to know.

Senator Steve Daines joins us, the Montana senator, sits on the Energy Committee, a lot of committees. Kind enough to join us right now.

Senator, any idea at this point who did leak that information?

SEN. STEVE DAINES (R-MT): Well, Neil, we need to find out, and we’re going to find out.

Neil, this is unprecedented. It’s never happened before in the history of the United States Supreme Court. It is an outrageous breach of trust that was solely done to intimidate, to intimidate the justices on the United States Supreme Court. It is outrageous.

This is about mob rule unleashed. That’s exactly what the left is trying to do. And I think what’s also telling, Neil, not a single Democrat U.S. senator has condemned the leak. That tells you a lot. In fact, you have got folks out there on the left who are praising when this person leaked. In fact, they’re saying this person is a hero.

This is outrageous because, fundamentally, the trust of the Supreme Court has been breached. It will never be the same going forward.

CAVUTO: You know, Chuck Schumer had said there’s a reluctance on the part of your colleagues, sir, to state where they are on Roe v. Wade and overturning it.

What do you think of that? Would you support that? If this is true, would you say that this is a good move if the Supreme Court goes this route?

DAINES: Well, I think it is a good move.

But let’s be clear around what this ruling will be if indeed it holds, and that is, it transfers the power from nine justices in black robes to the American people, and specifically to elected officials, who will decide going forward what the laws ought to be to protect unborn babies and moms.

Do you realize the most dangerous place in the world to be, if the Democrats have their way, if you are an unborn child, is the United States of America. There are only seven countries in the world that allow abortions up until the point of birth. This is where the Democrats want this to be.

That includes the United States, North Korea and China. That ought to be chilling. As a father of four and three grandchildren, we need to do all we can to protect the most vulnerable. That includes the unborn.

CAVUTO: So, when we talk about the impact this could have on the midterms, I mean, you get this impression from Democrats that it’s galvanizing their base and that it might mitigate their losses in November.

Do you agree with that?

DAINES: You know, I don’t think so.

And I will tell you why, Neil. I remember and you remember 2018, when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. You remember what happened. It was — they unleashed the left mob on Brett Kavanaugh. And the American people saw this outrageous mob storming the hearings. They were storming the Capitol steps. They were storming state capitols.

And the bottom line, they reached way too far. And you saw that we had a very strong performance in 2018. And I think the American people will reject this radical far left, out of step where most Americans are, because most Americans believe that it shouldn’t be the Supreme Court that decides this. It ought to be elected officials.

They want the power to debate this contentious issue. And to allow abortion up until the moment of delivery, that is what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want, Neil. Literally, a minute away from being born, the Democrats would say you could have an abortion. That is chilling. That it chilling, if you really look at the facts.

CAVUTO: All right, and that — this particular Supreme Court case doesn’t cover that, to your point here.

So — but we will be examining this very, very closely.

Senator Daines, thank you very, very much.

I think Justice Samuel Alito might have put this in perspective by saying that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Therein lies the debate.

Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Source URL: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/your-world-neil-cavuto-supreme-court-leak

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: