everyone sings along with "hey jude." it's not a sad song. katie: mine is the spice girls. better than all of yours. after the shutdown, the lowdown on why the president did open up the government. maybe he was looking at this. planes not flying, airport lines building. safety fears rising. that all ended yesterday, or did it? we will ask the president of the national air traffic controllers association, who is not so sure. after all, this could happen all over again in three weeks. and much of the mainstream media says the president didn't just blink, he caved. freedom caucus chair mark meadows says it's more like he set a trap.

we will ask the chief deputy whip in the house, dan kildee. historian doris goode-kerwin says playing the bigger man often pays big dividends. it worked for john kennedy and ronald reagan and might just work for donald trump. all that and home depot co-founder on democrats aiming to tax the heck out of the rich. isn't that what happened in venezuela and isn't that why secretary of state mike pompeo stepped in today at the u.n. no less to say once and for all, it stops in venezuela. can you sue the nfl for a botched call? a lot of new orleans saints fans sure think so. meet the lawyer who is arguing their case, but does he even have a prayer? we will ask him because he's here with a promise. next week's super bowl, don't think his saints don't still

come marching in. let's get going. "cavuto live" starts now. neil: all right. as we enter the second year with this show, it's another reminder why it's good to be live on saturdays, because as my friend shepard smith says, breaking news changes everything and goshdarn it, with the government reopening last night and all the adjustments in place now and some back and forth going on at the united nations as we speak over the future of venezuela, just what we do about it, it is a good thing we are here to connect all the dots, beginning with this shutdown that's now officially done, but getting back to normal, whatever that is, well, that's anyone's guess. we have the latest from the white house. reporter: late yesterday, president trump signed a bill to reopen the federal government for three weeks, ending the longest shutdown in u.s. history. however, the reason for the shutdown, the reason why we got

in this mess to begin with still remains unresolved. this deal does not include new money for a border wall. instead, there is a promise that those talks, those negotiations will continue, which is almost exactly what democrats had asked the president to do. they had been saying hey, open the federal government first, then we will talk about border security. president trump, however, says it is not a concession. president trump tweeting this morning, 21 days ago very quick, 21 days goes very quickly, negotiations with democrats will start immediately, will not be easy to make a deal. both parties very dug in. part of the deal here is that democrats and republicans set up a bipartisan conference committee to draft an appropriations bill for the department of homeland security and discuss funding for the president's proposed border wall. in the rose garden, the president tried to once again make the case for a physical barrier at the u.s./mexico border, focusing heavily on crime and saying the only choice is to build a quote, powerful wall or steel barrier. >> if we don't get a fair deal

from congress, the government will either shut down on february 15th again or i will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the constitution of the united states to address this emergency. reporter: a senior white house official tells me that they believe moderate democrats, democrats who flipped previously republican-held districts this last election cycle, they say they believe those democrats are willing to fund a border wall but they say the question now is how much pull will those types of democrats have when it comes to this conference committee. they say that that is their big question moving forward, exactly who is going to be the key negotiators within this conference committee. we have names of people on it but they say the big question is who has really the most say here, and whether or not it will be those moderate democrats or the other members of the party who have said very clearly that they do not support the wall. they say the reason for this,

and the president touched on this a little bit yesterday, they say they have heard, the white house claims they have heard from moderate democrats throughout this shutdown, that they are willing to bend on funding the wall and they say they are hoping those are the people who are going to lead the negotiations moving forward. neil? neil: thank you very, very much. it's not just the moderate democrats who might be more flexible on this. it includes the number two democrat in the house, steny hoyer, house majority leader, who says a physical barrier might ultimately be part of the solution. take a look. >> i think physical barriers are part of the solution. neil: you don't share nancy pelosi's view that a wall is immoral? >> look, i think it depends upon what a wall is used for, whether it's moral or immoral. if it's protecting people, it's moral. if it's imprisoning people, it may well be immoral. neil: all right. that was the first hint that there's more give and take on this issue behind the scenes

than in front of the scenes than you think. republican congressman mark meadows, thanks for coming in. good to see you. >> good to see you, it's great to be back with you. neil: where do we stand right now, three weeks, it can go by like seconds, and the president is confident and said that he hopes to see some sort of wall funding by that time. do you? >> well, he is hopeful. i can tell you that that's based on a number of republicans and democrats having private conversations over the last 48 hours, even today there will be additional conversation in a bicameral and bipartisan way. but really, you can't look at this situation and believe that it will be easy. obviously the shutdown of the last 35 days would indicate that, but i do believe that high-ranking democrats, not just those swing state new freshmen, but high-ranking democrats, are willing to look at strategic fencing and border barriers as part of it, and i think what we

need to do is take our border patrol chiefs, let them talk about what is important for really operational control in their sections and hopefully, we will be able to see that in the coming days. neil: a lot of people say the president caved. i'm sure you might have taken a gander at the cover of the "new york daily news." variation of that theme even in the conservative media, congressman. breitbart, government open, border, no border. ann coulter. on and on. what did you make of it? >> i have read all the headlines. here's one of the things that a lot of those press releases fail to remember. if you remember back when he signed the big omnibus, he said i will never do that again, sign a big full funding of the government without border barrier funding and i can tell you that he's remained true to

that. now, we can criticize -- neil: i think the criticism at the time was just the sheer size of it but it did provide funding for the military, which he wanted. that's why he winced but signed it. this one just seemed to catch him off guard. i don't think he anticipated this. but what does he do now? >> well, i think that what he's doing is putting it back on congress's plate, but also taking democrats at their word. you know, the one thing that is not being covered here this morning, neil, is that the fact that the president of the united states said okay, democrats, i'm going to take you at your word, i'm going to trust that you're really willing to negotiate, you got three weeks to get it done, and if not, we are going to be back in the same situation, but i think -- neil: what does same situation mean, sir? does that mean he does declare a national emergency or would he risk shutting down the government again? what? >> well, i think there's always a risk of shutting it down, although i don't think that that's the highest risk at this particular point. i know you made that point yesterday, neil.

i think that he -- in fact, i know he has three or four different operations that are at his disposal that are legal, some that are in statute already. listen, if president obama can send $1.8 billion to the iranians, i can tell you, i didn't appropriate that, certainly finding a few billion dollars for border security on our southern border is something that this president can do legally and without a challenge. neil: all right. well, article iv of the constitution does give him some wide moves here. he could require the federal government to protect states that might be in danger of an invasion from these caravans but that would likely, from what legal analysts tell me, that would likely be struck down by a court and we would be back to where we are. do you anticipate that? >> so i don't anticipate necessarily that one being used. let's look at 10usc sections 274-284. neil: i'm so glad you brought those up.

>> here's what it does. it says the dod can help protect our borders for the drug corridors, build fencing, build walls, provide lighting -- neil: you can allocate money appropriated to other areas and shift them to these areas. many tell me you can't do that. nancy pelosi is already on record saying don't even try that. >> but the supreme courts are on the executive branch's side of this because they have what they call chevron deference that says if it's ambiguous, the executive branch gets to interpret it. the last time i checked, nancy pelosi is not a supreme court justice and if we are going to have the fight, let's do it. but i think that where we really need to be is make congress do their job over the next three weeks. we are going to take the democrats at their word, they said open it up, we will negotiate in good faith. we will see very quickly. neil: so just so i understand, the democrats as part of their word, did that include the possibility of including in the debate funding for a wall?

i have heard from some democrats who say that was never talked about. was it? >> yeah, so i think that where we are on this particular thing, if you are using the word wall and a concrete barrier, i don't think most democrats will support that. if you're looking at strategic fencing and barriers and border barriers similar to what steny hoyer just said, hopefully what you will hear from mr. kildee coming up here in just a minute, i think most democrats see that there are areas of our border that have no fencing, no barriers, and you can just walk across and that doesn't mean just walking across for a stroll. it means drugs and human trafficking and all the bad things that can happen. so hopefully, we will see that. i can tell you, i've had very good conversations with a lot of my democrat colleagues in private. i'm optimistic that we can get there. neil: all right. we'll see. thank you very, very much. the congressman sort of tipped our hand, dan kildee, the deputy

whip will be responding to this and whether there were sort of promises made that we would indeed, the democrats, be open to talking about a wall. we'll see. he's up a little bit later on in the program. meanwhile, a deal to temporarily fund the government should get us around all these grounded flights and delays and long lines at the nation's airports, right? not necessarily. after this. oh really? thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.

neil: all right. if the government is back in business, it should be business as usual if you're flying anywhere in this country. the lines will be gone, all the problems will be gone. not necessarily and not so fast. jonathan serrie, at hartsfield-jackson airport, where concerns have been a delay, what's going on there? reporter: even though the government shutdown has ended, it is having a lingering effect on federal transportation workers who have already missed two paychecks.

this morning, at hartsfield-jackson atlanta international airport, a local food bank is dropping off donati donations at the airport. yesterday a credit union offered tsa employees free gas at two service stations near the airport. nationwide, many federal airport workers view the temporary end to the shutdown as just that, temporary. >> they want to try to do in three weeks what they couldn't do in five weeks, so any one of us that's asking what do you think is going to happen, they are going to shut down the government again. that's what we all think. they are going to do it again. reporter: the trade group airlines for america issued a statement on the agreement on the government shutdown saying this measure will allow the federal employees who protect and maintain our nation's aviation system to be paid for the critical work they do. we appreciate the men and women who have been going to work every day to ensure the safety and security of the traveling and shipping public, even though they missed two paychecks.

throughout the shutdown, federal agencies say they have been consolidating resources to continue providing services without compromising passenger safety, but yesterday's staffing shortages at faa control centers along the east coast caused major flight delays at new york's laguardia airport, which of course has a ripple effect throughout the entire system. coming back to our live shot here at the airport in atlanta, they are estimating the wait times in the tsa lines, about 15 minutes, which is what you would expect on a normal saturday morning. neil? neil: next week it could be very different, with the super bowl and everything else. reporter: absolutely. city officials are saying this shutdown ended just in time. neil: yeah. i would imagine they would be saying that. all right, jonathan, thank you very, very much. great job. meanwhile, the president of the national air traffic controllers association, paul ronaldi, you wanted to see this day come and so it has. but it did open up a couple

reminders how vulnerable we are if only a few people leave their desks or don't show up for work. any lessons from any of this? >> it certainly showed our staffing crisis that we have throughout the system. 30-year low on fully certified controllers and what we saw yesterday was, you know, a handful of controllers in a building that has about 400 controllers not show up and they couldn't open all the positions. so i think what we have to really focus on hiring air traffic controllers. our academy has been closed for the last 35 days. we are working on getting that going, we are making plans with the faa to get it going as quickly as possible because we have to hire more air traffic controllers and train them. it takes three to six years, depending on the facility they're going to, to train them so they can work on their own. neil: you know, much has been raised of the fact, and everyone understands pressures of the job, especially when you're not getting paid for that job. but when 1 out of 10 tsa

workers, for example, i don't know the exact numbers for flight controllers, don't show up, they can't do that, it's against the law, but will there be any punishment meted out for those who did that? >> well, we have tracked sick leave since the first day, with the secretary of transportation and the faa administrator. our sick leave in the air traffic control unit was actually less than it was in a normal operation. and we stress that this is not who we are and that's not who we are. we are highly skilled, highly trained professionals and take the safety of the flying public very sacred. neil: so what happens if the three weeks, we're back, doing this again and shutting down, then what? >> i think the immediate relief we're seeing is that the controllers are expecting to get their paycheck tuesday or wednesday next week, some money to start paying some bills. so that stress that they were dealing with is out of the work

environment, which helps tremendously. now, yes, we certainly hope we never see this again. it's really not a smart move by either party or the white house. i saw it cost $90 million a day to have federal employees stay home. that's absurd. they should come to work, they should get paid and they should do the work for the american public. neil: do you think this whole episode has given bad guys ideas, seeing the vulnerabilities in our air traffic system that we might regret? >> i think we really have to start to put the pieces together, the puzzle back together, over the last 35 days and make sure there are no vul vesh vulnerabilities and make sure any risk that entered into the system, we mitigate it immediately. neil: thank you very, very much. i appreciate it. the guy who heads up the national air traffic controllers

association. i want to take you to the united nations right now. they are working there. you don't often see that on a saturday. but at issue is what collectively the world is going to do about venezuela, where technically, we have two men claiming to be president of that country. juan guaido is the one we recognize, the interim president. much of the western world. but nicholas maduro, the incumbent, is not leaving. he's got the backing of russia and china and cuba. so he's saying he's not going anywhere. more crucially, he's got the backing, maduro, of the nation's military. you know how that goes. whoever has the military generally has the edge on power. for now, maduro does. what happens next? that's what they are trying to decide. good luck with that. is is a ver. failure is not an option. more than half of employees across the country bring financial stress to work.

if you're stressed out financially at home, you're going to be too worried to be able to do a good job. i want to be able to offer all of the benefits that keep them satisfied. it is the people that is really the only asset that you have. put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential. bring your challenges.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

the system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong. neil: this populist pitch does resonate with a lot of folks. how do you defend that as a rich guy, that the system's just fine? >> well, i like to not think of me as a rich guy. i grew up in a tenement in newark, new jersey. neil: i understand, but you are quite rich now. >> i'm rich today because i broke my back getting there, neil. and you know what? everybody in america should have the opportunity to get to where i am. neil: the great thing about bernie marcus is only in america can someone who is not remotely handy come up with a store like home depot and become a

millionaire. this is america. welcome back. obviously this back-and-forth comes amid a clarion call on the part of many democrats who have taken over the house to remind folks there there's a new sheriff in town and that sheriff is looking to go after the rich, not necessarily congresswoman cortez's route, taxing them as much as 70%, but to, like elizabeth warren, put a percentage on their wealth and tax that, raise overall taxes, which they are contemplating in the house. the budget committee chairman talked about upping the corporate tax from 21% to 28%. there is a pattern here. pretty much expressed by all the presidential candidates announced thus far. let's go to susan li. we have lindsey bell. lindsey, what do you think of this trend? >> i think it goes against everything that america was built on. america has had the success we've had, we are a $20 trillion economy, the largest economy in the world, because of capitalism. and the american dream, just like your guest said, if you

crush the american dream by punishing people for financial success, there will be economic implications. that's going to be coming in the face of stymieing innovation, productivity, wealth creation. it's all going to be lost and the whole world economic order can be changed. neil: a lot of them go back to the '50s and '60s when rates were about what they are talking about now and jonas, it worked. we were doing fine. >> yeah, we didn't collect those rates. that was -- i don't know if they actually really want to squeeze 70% out of people, because that's where you start to have problems. the actual percentage of income tax collecting, it hasn't really changed that much, believe it or not, over the years. i think -- neil: the fact the onus is put on fewer and fewer americans has changed. >> no, in fact what's changed, this is the part, my biggest criticism because i think she's done a very good job of dominating the left wing field and she's much better than elizabeth warren or bernie sanders even of selling these far left socialist ideas. i think she's a very dangerous candidate going forward. i think she's going to win a lot

of stuff. that said, the problem here is just that, is they don't understand how things work in sweden where incidentally, they have a lot of billionaires, sweden has always had a lot of billionaires. more than venezuela, which they need to remember. they actually tax everybody. they don't just soak the rich, because there wouldn't be any in sweden, either. they have very high taxation that goes across the board down to like $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 income. neil: everyone has skin in the game. >> that's how they pay for all these social programs. the european countries have a lot of billionaires all across europe, have a huge social contract. the government is like twice the size of ours in gdp terms. yet it's not soaking these handful of billionaires or they wouldn't be there. that's why they are getting rid of the wealth tax in most european countries in favors of other kinds of taxation. neil: they also gave us abba. >> ikea. great companies. neil: what do you make of this trend? >> i would argue if you take a look at soaking the rich and

taxes, take a look at the carter era going into the reagan eesra. reagan cutting taxes, deregulating. that's where you create more jobs, an economy growing at 3.5%. i think that's a lesson we should take away. you want to tax the rich at 70%, you won't get the economic growth and by the way, the wealth creation for everybody you saw during the reagan era, right? neil: you know, with the shutdown now over, i hope over, what happens next three weeks is anyone's guess, but you know, the market soared through this. we are showing the dow, nasdaq, s&p 500, russell 2000, all up double digits. >> yeah. it wasn't fazed even as things got more heated. neil: why? >> you look back at history, at shutdowns over time, the market isn't really fazed by -- neil: this was a long one. >> usually the deepest down is 1%, and it comes back up 1%. neil: why? they don't care? >> no, because they know it's going to be resolved. you can't operate with the government shut down for years on end, right?

neil: but the last 35 days, tell a market person that. >> i still think the market wouldn't have reacted. >> there are other factors at play as well. the federal reserve, that was probably the main cause of concern in december. that's when we dropped to 20% lows but now, the fed, it's like a turnaround in rhetoric, saying we've got your back, we will hold on to more treasuries. neil: they are less inclined -- >> definitely so. there's more money flowing through the economy as well. >> the manufacturing crisis including the tariff war has led the fed to be more aggressive raising rates. the whole problem started with rates going up too early, with them rolling off the debt earlier. that led to 20% decline which was a deal, now that rates are lower. as far as the shutdown specifically, i mean, it was bad for employees, obviously, right away but it only was a few days where it was really starting to hurt the economy, where you were seeing flights not coming in. that was right at the breaking point. that's why i think it is a short-term thing where you would start to have an economic impact that would affect the stock

market. it never got to that level. that's why investors are still buying. >> that's the key. there was no major economic impact. the economy and markets are two different things. if it went on for a long period of time, you would have seen the market react to the economic impact. neil: in three weeks, if we revisit this, it might happen. >> true. >> i think there's a long-term drag from it. now it will cost a lot to hire employees to work in the government because it's a job that has income interruption as part of the job description. i don't think people want to work there. neil: people are working and they are back to work. we work every weekend, as you know. apparently we're not alone. the united nations is working overtime today. the issue is venezuela. right now, technically they have two presidents, two men claiming that they are leading that country. mike pompeo is saying only one should be recognized and it's not the guy named maduro. he's about to address reporters. when he does, we are there.

all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

every insurance company tells you they can save you money. save up to 10% when you bundle with esurance. including me, esurance spokesperson dennis quaid. he's a pretty good spokesperson. ehhh. so when i say, "drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412," you probably won't believe me. hey, actor lady whose scene was cut. hi. but you can believe this esurance employee, nancy abraham. seriously, send her an email and ask her yourself. no emails... no emails. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. i will plead not guilty to these charges. i will defeat them in court. i believe this is a politically motivated investigation. there is no circumstance whatsoever under which i will bear false witness against the president, nor will i make up lies to ease the pressure on myself. neil: all right.

i think that is roger stone's way of saying hell, no, i will not go after being indicted, arrested on friday under the mueller probe. seven counts that include everything from obstruction of justice to witness tampering, that he's not going anywhere. former assistant u.s. attorney andrew mccarthy with us now. andrew, what did you make of his arrest and the way it was done? the only guy who was treated this way in this entire mueller probe. >> well, neil, i thought it was overkill. the reason i hesitate is i don't think it was actually the only guy or he was the only guy, stone, that is, who was treated this way. i think manafort, if i'm remembering right, they raided his home -- neil: you're right about that. so, by the way, michael cohen. the arrest and bringing him in to be fingerprinted and all of that stuff, that was an extra courtesy, whatever, allowed for him. i don't know why. what do we make of this?

this essentially comes down to lying to congress but obviously there's more to it. what is the significance of his indictment? >> well, i think the significance of his indictment is that actually what is not in the indictment, which is he's not charged with conspiring with the closest thing that we have to the collusion narrative and that's wikileaks. what the indictment, this long narrative that leads up to the eventual charges, what it lays out, neil, is that he is scrounging around trying to find out what wikileaks has under the belief which is informed by the fact that wikileaks has already put out these dnc e-mails, that they must have information that's very damaging to the hillary clinton campaign, and he spends a lot of time trying to press sources who have more ties to wikileaks than he does to

find out exactly what they have and when they will put it out, but the important thing is he's not involved enough or entangled enough with wikileaks itself, he's not informed enough about their operations, to be in a conspiracy with them and much less are the people in the trump campaign who are dealing with stone aware of what wikileaks is doing. and the reason for laying that out in that somewhat laborious way, is this is a very long way from where we started, which was the allegation that the trump campaign is in an espionage conspiracy with russia. it turns out that the trump campaign, in addition to apparently not having any involvement with russia's hacking activities, has no awareness of what wikileaks is doing and that is important because the way -- neil: i just want to get a handle on, the allegations that have been brought up, when we talk about collusion with the

russians, most of the ones who have been fingered, including cohen and manafort and stone, most of them have been focused on lying. you're lying to congress, lying to investigators, that's it. i'm wondering if it has veered off course. >> i don't think it ever had a course, neil. that's the problem. we talked about this before. i think it was given -- the fbi took it as a counter intelligence investigation and that's the way mueller inherited it. the problem with a counter intelligence investigation is unlike a criminal investigation, it doesn't have a crime as a target. it's really just an information gathering exercise. so it never really had a linear course to begin with. the narrative we were given was that it was about the fact that russia had this espionage operation against the campaign or against the election and that the trump campaign may have coordinated with it.

it appears to me that that was based on -- that suspicion was primarily based on the steele dossier which has not been verified and what you have at the end as you point out is a bunch of process crimes, people who lied to investigators, who were investigating something that wasn't a crime. neil: all right. it's confusing to me. thank you very much. andrew mccarthy. >> glad i was able to clear that up. neil: you do, all the time. i appreciate that. we are going to go right now to mike pompeo, secretary of state, who just wrapped up a u.n. security council meeting on what's going on in venezuela. let's listen. >> happy to take a couple questions. reporter: thank you, mr. secretary. michel michelle nichols from reuters. the ambassador had a direct question for you about the u.s. taking military action. if you would like to answer that here, feel free. what economic measures does the u.s. plan to impose on venezuela, and do you think the

venezuelan opposition should assume the u.n. seat here, and does the u.s. plan to draft a general assembly resolution to make that happen? >> i will take two of those three questions. first, this is the first step of what we hope will be real progress here at the united nations. we think every member of the united nations ought to join in support of the venezuelan people so we will continue to work to get more and more support. we are already a great deal along the way and we do think there will be appropriate resolutions when the time is right and we will certainly support those. they won't come just from us. they will come from other nations who care deeply about the venezuelan people as well. the other two questions involve what the united states will do next. i'm not going to speculate or hypothesize. i know only this. we are determined to support the venezuelan people so they can ultimately have the democratic institutions they deserve and they can return this once vibrant, wealthy, wonderful

nation to its rightful place. reporter: thank you, secretary. so what exactly are you prepared to do for the venezuelan people? you had announced $20 million in humanitarian aid and also today, you said something in your speech, it is time for every nation to pick its fight. will the u.s. consider secondary actions against countries who recognize the rogue regime like washington did in iran? >> the administration has already done a great deal for the venezuelan people. we will continue to do that. you mentioned the initial money, $20 million to ensure that food and medicine and we can get some level of order to begin to be restored. there will be much more to do. we will call upon other nations, we will join with them to create development and humanitarian assistance projects that actually deliver for the venezuelan people. those are all part of what will come when we get the democratic

changes that we're working towards achieving. you had a second question, too? reporter: about secondary sanctions. >> i'm not going to speculate on what other processes the united states might undertake, but know that we think now that the national assembly is the rightful governing body that chose interim president juan guaido to represent them. we think the resources that belong to the venezuelan people ought to go to the leaders that they have, under their constitution, duly elected. reporter: will you sanction anybody that will do business with them? >> i'm not going to speculate on what we will do next. reporter: mr. secretary, pamela faulk from cbs. how concerned are you about the military to military contact between russia and the deliveries of equipment last

month to venezuela, and have you had any contact with the military of venezuela? thank you. >> i spoke this morning about cuban security and russian influence, russian interference. we want the venezuelan people to have their say. so the russians have chosen to support the maduro regime. i hope they will change their way. i hope they will come to see that the rightful people to run this country are those that the venezuelan people chose, so we will have conversations with every country including the russians. we will talk with the chinese. we will talk with everyone. we think the whole world ought to get behind what it is that the venezuelan people have demanded for their country. thank you. thank you all. neil: all right. you have been listening to mike pompeo. this debate is still going on within the united nations security council. venezuela is a mess, total confusion. i'm not talking about the economy, ten million plus

percent inflation, i'm not even talking about the three million venezuelans who have already left the country and more expected to leave in the coming year because of everything that's transpired there. you have two men who are competing to lead the country, including nicholas maduro, the incumbent, backed by the russians and the chinese, and juan guaido, the interim president, who has been calling for immediate elections. we are standing by, guaido saying he's the duly elected as opposition leader man of the people, recognized by the people of venezuela as their duly elected leader. jacqui heinrich is at the united nations. one of the things i heard from this debate is the russians [ inaudible ] by our moves here or the fact we might do something militarily to support guaido here. what are you hearing? reporter: so neil, this morning, russia tried to block the talks that the u.s. requested.

they were trying -- the u.s. was trying to encourage other countries to support guaido as the interim president. russia called for something which was a procedural vote. it would require 9 of the 15 members of the security council to vote yes in order for the talks to even move forward. they attempted to block this from even happening this morning. exactly nine member states voted yes, and the talks did move forward. they are under way right now. the trump administration has been pushing for other nations to support and recognize juan guaido as the interim president after president nicholas maduro won re-election last may in what the u.n. and eu ruled as a rigged election. maduro is an autocratic president who has packed the venezuelan supreme court with loyalists, suspended elections for provincial governors, consolidated his own power and at one point moved to dissolve the legislature. people have fled the country and there is widespread starvation and riots. russia attempted fwlto block th call to action the u.s. requested, calling it an abuse

of power. secretary of state mike pompeo fired back, saying the time to act is right now. we don't have that sound bite for you. we will bring it to you shortly. the united states and some 14 other countries have recognized guaido as the interim president but former president maduro still has support from several countries, russia, china, cuba, syria and iran. secretary pompeo said it is noteworthy that the countries that are supporting maduro don't uphold the values of democracy within their own borders. this is still continuing this morning. we are following the developments for you. neil: thank you very, very much. with friends like that, who needs enemies. vanessa newman, where is this going? >> well, hopefully to maduro getting on an airplane and getting out of there. i want to be very clear. guaido is the constitutional president. he's not -- he has the law on

his side. he's the constitutional president according to the constitution written by these guys. maduro -- neil: how is he the constitutional president? >> because according to the constitution that chavez drafted, hugo chavez drafted, when the presidency is vacant, then the president of the national assembly, like speaker of the house, becomes president. the presidency is vacant because the elections of may 20 were not supposed to be in may, elections are in december. second of all, they didn't abide by any test of free and fair elections. they were not recognized. they were condemned. the national assembly, which is the legitimate body, says that's not an election. so did the international community. if there was no election, there's no presidency. so -- neil: the military doesn't seem to care. >> no, of course not. neil: the military guys want maduro. >> no, of course not, because they're criminals. let's be clear. maduro is the world's biggest

drug cartel. it is the biggest drug trafficking organization. it is the biggest transit point for cocaine from colombia into central america, into the u.s. and into europe. it uses military aircraft, okay? and government infrastructure. and the oil company appears to be laundering money. neil: is that why mexico's newly inaugurated president is not joining this western hemisphere -- >> there's room to speculate on that. i don't want to go that far and make that statement. neil: what do you think happens next? >> well, i think what happens next is the military has been offered amnesty. they need to take that seriously and support the constitution and get maduro and his guys on a plane out. otherwise, they are going to fa face, as their legitimacy erodes they face drug trafficking charges, money laundering charges and terrorist financing, not just from the u.s.

plenty of countries have been facing the ill effects of the maduro regime's criminal activities. neil: including the rank and file military guys. the generals, that's where there's a split. >> exactly. correct. from the level of lieutenant colonel on down, basically they are going home to starving children, hungry, you know, angry wives, dying children from a lack of medication. they are suffering everything venezuelan people are as well, which is why the offer of amnesty is on the table and they should take it. now, what happens is further on down the line, as more and more people recognize guaido as the legitimate president, the question becomes who owns the government assets, who owns the government bank accounts and all of that. neil: chinese or the russians? >> china, i think that's interesting because china is not going to get in a proxy fight with the u.s. china is going to try and protect its equities. if they think this is going to flip, they are going to try and

make a deal. neil: all right. we will watch it closely. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. neil: putting it into perspective. a lot more coming up, including the government open for business again here, but for how long? d , we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.

neil: all right. welcome back, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. the government is opened up for business again. technically it's coming in fits and starts, but it is back in business, and the longest shutdown in american history officially ended last night when the president signed an order to get everyone back. now the question is in this so-called three-week cooling-off period where they try to come up with a deal, can they avoid another shutdown? we have already heard from a top republican, we've got democrats -- the democratic chief deputy whip in the house, congressman dan kildee. good to have you. >> thanks for having me back.

neil: what is your sense of what happened now? can they cobble together, both parties, through this conference committee, a deal that will avoid yet another shutdown? >> i think so. i believe in this process. i think it's good that we're getting to what we would call in washington regular order, using a conference committee, democrats and republicans, house and senate, sitting across the table. i think we can work this out. i think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding of our position. we certainly support border security. i think the bigger problem that we have is that we can't use the politics or the tool of shutdown any longer in order to get what we're not willing to commit to the legislative process. democrats and republicans have to commit to this. so my hope is that we can send a signal to the country that we can get this together, we can take a step forward. it might not be everything everyone wants, but that's the nature of our system. neil: all right. when you say both sides have to work at this, congressman, i just want to be clear. are you open to funding for a

wall? >> well, you can call it what you want. we're open and continue to support effective border security, which would include fencing and barriers where appropriate, but also, hopefully, will focus much more attention on those issues that relate to our ports of entry. neil: you're not of the viewpoint that nancy pelosi was and is that a wall is immoral? or are you? >> i think a wall from sea to shining sea would be. i don't think we are talking about that. neil: no. the president isn't talking about that. but you would be open for some border funding if it came to that? >> sure. we supported that in the past. yes. neil: so what is your sense about what democrats would offer? we know what the administration wants, $5.6 billion for a wall or something close to it. would it be just a lesser figure, a smaller amount of wall space, something coupled with daca, what? >> i think there are a couple variables. one is how much money. secondly, for what?

and i think that will be the more difficult conversation. how much should be devoted to physical barriers, how much to electronic surveillance, drone technology, drug-sniffing technology, and then this other question that you just introduced, which hopefully will become part of the conversation. what other improvements can we make to our border security and our immigration system that gets us where we want to go. hopefully, by submitting this to a really diverse conference committee, we are going to be able to deal with all those questions. but again, as i said, i also believe, i had a conversation with the speaker about this yesterday, that we need to take a look at legislation that will essentially de-weaponize the use of shutdowns where we have a standoff over a policy question. i hope that we can put legislation sometime in the near future on the floor that will essentially eliminate that tool from the toolbox. neil: do you think the president caved? >> well, we are right back where we were 35 days ago.

he did not get really anything that he was asking for. i don't know going into these negotiations that we want to overcharacterize where the president stands because we need to have some good will going into these negotiations. but i don't think there's any doubt that as between the position that speaker pelosi took and the one that president trump took, speaker position clearly prevailed. neil: all right. any word on the state of the union and when that might take place? >> i don't believe just logistically it's going to be possible for it to happen tuesday. that's not going to be my decision, obviously, but for example, members haven't even submitted their guests to be vetted for that process. there are logistical considerations. i do think obviously we can now move forward on a state of the union address, but i will leave it to the president and the speaker to figure out the details. neil: while you're weighing in on that, you're big cheese in the house. >> that's what my mom thinks. neil: let me get your sense, i'm

the market guy here at fox, i.e. the nerd, congressman, and i notice that the market throughout the shutdown went up, double digits, it went up. there are a lot of reasons for that, there are other factors, but by and large, to a man and woman, this was a non-event, this goes on all the time, we shrug our shoulders and move on, do important things, and they didn't deem this to be something to worry about. what did you think of that reaction? >> well, i have long been of the view that people here in washington overstate our importance when it comes to how we move markets. there are a few positions in this country, certainly the president and a few others, that by their words can move markets, but i think generally speaking, the market takes a longer view. the blips that we go through can have an impact. i don't know that they are on a daily basis. obviously we all want to have a strong market so whenever we i was glad to see that. and many in your party, including those who want to run

for president. have been keen on raising taxes for the wealthy. i just want to understand that the house deputy whip, where you stand on this? >> well, i don't support the recent tax bill that went through and i think this proportionally benefitted the corporate and wealthy individuals. neither do i believe we should throw it in reverse to repeal. and there were benefits from the tax bill and i think we need to look at corporate rates. i think there's sharing of the burden. i'm not advocating a particular rate and that's the not question. neil: when you say particular rate, 70% espoused by congresswoman cortez and others? >> i don't think it's productive for them to signal where we should end up. i'm a member of the ways and means committee, something we need to take up. we need to be careful about

this. neil: and all of the people in favor of assets, could be north of 25 to 50 billion dollars, a moving target depending on the candidate, where do you stand on that. >> i think we need a more fair distribution of the responsibilities which will mean some people who are extraordinarily wealthy may have to make a greater contribution. honestly, i would take a look at where we are on social security. this is the most successful social insurance program in the history of the world. there is a tax element to that in terms of social security tax. if we're going to open the door right now on tax policy, i think our first obligation is to take whatever steps are necessary to stabilize the social security. that's going to take a conversation about the revenue side of the question, i'd prefer to start there. neil: you know, congressman, a lot of rich folks and not so

rich folks say why is it always us who have to pay the bill for this when it's a smaller and smaller slice of the pie paying for the pie, and that could we widen the tax base out not to tax everybody at the same rate or keep it a progressive system. but it's now to the point that half the eligible taxpayers in this country don't pay any federal income taxes at all. many pay fica and the rest. is there something wrong with that part of the equation? >> well, i think what's wrong, really, is the distribution of wealth in this country. one of the reasons that so many people fall below the level where they pay significant income tax is that they don't have significant income. we have a problem that the tax system is an example of or result of, but i think the fundamental problem is that we have a problem, real serious problem with the way the incredible wealth is generated in this country is apportioned

across the population. neil: if you have 2 or 3% of the population paying well over half the taxes, that's a bad mix? >> well, i think, when you think about the 2 or 3% of the population that we're talking about and how they got to that place, of course, many of them can take great pride in the work that they've done, but they've also benefitted from a system that allows them to generate that kind of wealth. so i don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with them paying a much larger share of their wealth or their income. i think it has to be fair. it has to be reasonable and structured so that people who do well are encouraged to continue to innovate. if we hit that sweet spot, i think we'll have a tax system that works for everyone. neil: do you think the wealthy should get medicare and social security? >> i do. because i think it's a really important social contract that we have that if everybody contributes, everybody should benefit and if we go down the path of breaking that promise, then there's always going to be an argument about where we draw

the line and it's going to be much more difficult to ask those individuals to make contributions to this, i think, very fundamental part of our economy. social security and medicare are successful programs because everybody's involved in it. neil: finally, congressman, i'd like to get your take on shutdowns and we've got a lot of them. this was a record one. do you think the problem is budgets are never submitted on time, spending measures are never submitted on time, this is by both parties and there ought to be a law against that? >> i do, i do. in fact, my predecessor in congress who happened to be my uncle introduced legislation long ago that would essentially take away the shutdown tool and basically say that there would be by operation of law an automatic continuing resolution. much the way, back in 2011, they set this sequestration structure in place, which is done by operation of law. neil: right. >> i think we could do this.

and it may take away some of the incentives for people of both parties, from time to time, to drag their feet in getting the budgets done. my view is, we get this problem solved right now, the moment that we're in, but then we have to absolutely act to try to prevent this from ever happening again. this is a great country, but it's pretty embarrassing across the globe when we have to shut down elements of our government because we have a disagreement. neil: dan killdee nice talking to you. the house deputy whip, a lot of good ideas, common sense ideas. let's get the read on the shutdown just finished and my next guest hopes we don't revisit it in three weeks. it's cape may brewing company ceo directly affected by the shutdown. we're so focused on the federal workers, and we forget about

them and getting brews approved. explain how you're affected. >> we have to go through the t it tb. >> and what's, ttb is the tax bureau, we have to get the approval feel and make sure we're not putting out false claims and health benefits and that sort of things to protect consumers. neil: i like to think when it comes to beer there are benefits. >> there are social benefits. neil: go on. >> we need their approval and normal timeline it's two weeks. that and process we build into the release calendar for release of beers. and crucial for breweries is release of new beers. and at cape may, we need label

approval. and when they shut down, our calendar and what we worked hard on into a tailspin? now what, you have the three week workout period i guess they're calling it, what happens if it happens again? >> we'll release beers we've done in the past and go to a beer festival in boston, and we had a special beer we made for the festival and we had to use a name we had registered a generic name called beer name, that's the name, it's a unique beer that we spent a year working on. neil: that's pretty good. what do you think then, i don't care what it is, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, it is silly, isn't it? it's a shame, a lot of unintended consequences and great people that are affected. neil: did you have to lay off anyone? >> no, we have 80 employees and proud of them, living wages and full benefits. we think it a--

it's a great place to work and we're prepared and contingency planned, but 7,000 other breweries in the u.s. direct had i affected by this. if it continues, it's a scary thing for some people and could affect jobs. neil: are you making contingency plans in case in three weeks, they don't come to a deal? >> absolutely. we're several months in advance of what we're trying to do. we have to order cans directed by the aluminum and we're hit by all of these facts. neil: amazing. we don't think about that, and cape may brewing company, the big cheese there. we'll follow that and also follow what's going on with roger stone. if he looked worried about getting cut up in this mueller mess and facing potentially the rest of his life behind bars, i don't know if you saw him yesterday at the florida courthouse, with the nixon, you know, arms in the air kind of thing, even had the nixon tatoo. he didn't seem panicked. i'll get the read from the former counsel after this.

♪ carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee? like schwab does. guarantee? ♪ carl, can you remind me what you've invested my money in. it's complicated. are you asking enough questions about how your wealth is being managed? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

but to be a pro at travel just takes tripadvisor. we offer up-to-date reviews and 360 hotel photos to help you find the right hotel and search over 200 booking sites to get you the right price. tripadvisor.

on average, we'll live move more in eleven homes. in the world. and every time we move, things change. apartments become houses, cars become mini vans. as we upgrade and downsize, an allstate agent will do the same for our protection. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

>> all right. i want to show you something, roger stone yesterday. it looked like a guy who was worried that he might spend the rest of his life behind bars. the nixon v for victory thing. well, he didn't indicate that, but bob mueller's team indicting him on seven counts, obstruction of justice and gillian turner with the latest. >> good morning, neil, roger stone is slated to appear tuesday morning, according to the latest from court officials. he was released on a quarter million dollar bail yesterday and showing the world he's in a fighting mood. >> i will not bend. i will not bear false witness against the president. i intent to fight because this indictment is fabricated. this indictment is thin as can be. >> the president reacting this morning with a new tweet, deflecting attention from his

long-time friend saying if roger stone was indicted for lying to congress, what about the lying done by comey, brennan, clapper, lisa page and baker and so many others? what about hillary to fbi and 30,000 deleted e-mails? what about lisa peters deleted texts and weiner's lab top and much more? and the white house echoing the message there's nothing nothing. >> i'm not an attorney, i haven't read the document. i know this has nothing to do with the president, nothing to do with the white house. >> but the speaker of the house is sticking to the old addage, you can tell a lot about people by their friends. >> the kind of people that the president of the united states has surrounded himself with. this connection to the indid he go integrity of the elections we have to get the truth about.

>> and charges that he's lied to congress and obstruction, and the special counsel has indicted or guilty pleas from 34 people including the president's former attorney, national security advisor and campaign chairman, neil. neil: thank you, nice reporting there. what does it mean in the ongoing probe that never seems to end? former white house independent counsel robert wray. >> good morning. neil: straightening out messes like this. what did you think of the stone arrest and the way it was handled, everything else? >> well, roger stone is unrepentent, i guess that's the safest word to use. neil: all, but telegraphs is. >> always an argument that the fbi is heavy handed in doing an early morning arrest for someone willing to surrender. but in charges of obstruction of justice, a concern about potentially further impeding the investigation or further destroying evidence and that would obviously give them cause,

the fbi cause to do a search warrant in the morning, incident to arrest, which would be something obviously inconsistent with a voluntary surrender. so, that's why what was done was done. there's no escaping the fact, i don't want to give excuses for violating the law and making false statements under oath, lying to congress, obstruction of justice and again these are process crimes. while there's obviously a concern about what it is he was lying about, the argument from the democrats that, well, these are all the friends that the president associates himself with is a little akin to saying that being merely present when a crime is committed means you're complicit in the crime and as everyone knows, every prosecutor knows, that's not the law. neil: so he indicated both yesterday and outside the courthouse and with tucker carlson, he's not one to blab or snitch on the president nor does he feels he should because he doesn't think that the president did anything wrong.

>> few people have the fortitude to stand up to the full weight and authority of the united states government and go to trial, but i think he's probably reached an age where he doesn't really care. he probably-- >> or does he think he's going to be pardoned? >> well, that's obviously something that any of these individuals caught up in this have thought about. neil: did you deal with that when you-- >> sure. neil: when you were investigating the clintons, did you worry about that? >> i knew at the end of the rainbow for some people there would be the prospect of a pardon and indeed it did happen. i was part of two independent counsel investigations with are they got sprinkled over both investigations, but some people who thought they could count on them didn't receive them. web hubble thought he would be pardoned and he wasn't pardoned. you don't go to the bank saying to yourself i'm a defendant and i'll go to trial, even if i lose, the president will pardon me in the end. you never know what happens in politics, it's a political judgment and depend when the

pardon comes up whether someone would be surrendering to jail. ask scooter libby. all of these people who think don't worry i'm going to be taken care of on the back end. neil: and that led to a rift between the vice-president at the time dick cheney and-- >> and these were repercussion. neil: does that explain paul manafort not turning on the president, and michael cohen turning on the president. >> if you were a lawyer you would certainly be providing proper legal advice to a client, don't count on it. neil: i don't know what is provable collusion. the individuals indicted or already heading off to prison, more have to do with lying or lying to investigators, lying to the fbi, lying to congress. >> right. neil: lying about business dealings and the rest. >> that's where these investigations start. the question is do they ultimately heed to what it was

they were lying about and is what they were lying about provebly a crime. neil: or ask collusion specifically with the russians or-- what is from that? >> i think we should be cautious about that. it seems to me that you know, what this indictment doesn't say, it doesn't say that there's proof that anybody within the campaign knew that the russians were behind this before the acts of, for example, illegally obtaining e-mail from the dnc or from the-- >> there were over 100 types of kinds of contacts leading up to the inauguration, robert. >> well, contact, that's not enough. that's part of the way in which you get at the truth, but you'd have to be able to prove that the people who were involved and who were the actors in this on the campaign side of things were actively involved and knew that what wikileaks was doing and in turn shall the russians were doing was actively illegal and that they were nonetheless participating and aiding them. neil: the question, is sharing

the wikileaks material with either a russian operative or passing it along to a trump operative a crime. >> i don't think on its own is enough. it may be unseemly and we've seen enough to know unseemly and unsavory when we see it, but i think that bob mueller was appropriately cautious enough in the language of the roger stone indictment not to suggest those activities on their own would constitute illegality. whether he has it or not, we don't know, but i'm just saying based on the face of the document. what you don't see lurking behind that is an allegation that that underlying activity was criminal. neil: all right. you've mentioned bob mueller rarely talks to the press or leaks information out, but for his office to get involved in this buzzfeed story and rumor that the president had directed michael cohen to lie to congress, well, his staff did not say, specifically was a lie. they said generally the story

was wrong, that would seem like the charge itself was wrong. what did you get from that? >> it was an extraordinary moment and it's a different time that we are living in. i think bob mueller's office probably appropriately reacted to complaints from the president's legal team, including rudy guiliani, that this was unfair and untrue. and i think, you know, given how the rest of the press got carried away with that story, a-ha, a gotcha moment and we now have the president, the office took it, took action. neil: and comments in the middle after press report, you felt were so wrong, you had to say something? >> i did, maybe not quite as serious as that. there were occasions along the way leaks to the media you say to yourself hate, wait a second. neil: did you make a public comment on that, or your staff. >> i had to. there was a situation in which it was actually leaked by a judge on the special division about the fact that there was a

grand jury investigation pending against the president, a politically sensitive time when al gore acceptance speech for the democratic domination and i ended up unavoidably forced to come forward and comment on something i would not have otherwise done, i had to comment to the fact that the leak did not come from our office. it's difficult to do and not something that prosecutors ordinarily do, but we're living in new times and now the media attention is heightened. some stories you can let go and this i couldn't. and that's when the office of special counsel decided they need to correct. neil: walter ray, former whitewater counsel. and the president wants the border wall and some democrats are not inclined to go along with that.

but the mainstream media's push that he caved or blinked, some kind according to a well-known historian that can work in their favor. doris kearnes goodwin after this. our goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. we live like no one's watching, ♪ laugh like there's no tomorrow... ♪ ...and welcome you... ...to do the same.

♪ the united states virgin islands. the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a few years old or dinosaur old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car and say hello to the new way... at carvana.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work.

at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> all right. many of the mainstream media, the president caved, that after 35 days he didn't get anything from this deal that reopens the government. and not a dime for the border wall that he desperately wanted so they more or less are pouncing at the nation he failed. our political panel with us, attorney jenna ellis, fox news contributor, and kat, he failed is what they're saying, he caved. did he? >> he sort of caved. i think if there's a middle ground between caving and not caving, he's right there because

we are right back where we started. he didn't get anything he wanted and the government is open in that sense it is a cave, but at the same time he has options. i wouldn't be surprised to see that he shuts down the government again after the few weeks are over or trying to go the emergency route and tries to do that instead, so-- >> he would have done that prior, right? >> it's interesting that he didn't. i'm actually surprised he didn't, but i think that some of the pushback that she's seen from people that have influence over him, such as funny enough, ann coulter seems to have influence over him and-- >> and she said after george h.w. bush has long been the biggest wimp to serve the country and now essentially it's donald trump. >> she's very, very upset. very upset. >> and another tweet and ann said maybe the issue isn't the deporting illegals and one jared kushner and a lot of the president's supporters for the border wall first and foremost

have been pinning this on jared kushner and ivanka in this space and saying, these the advocate for amnesty here and how we got backed into the corner and if he goes for the shutdown. neil: he's not going to do it. >> it's politically impossible for him to do that if he wants any chance of being elected. and the caucus would be up in arms. the meeting with mitch mcconnell and mike pence, where mitt romney and others were shouting things. why did you do this to us and mcconnell says i didn't want to. they said you're the leader, you've got to sort this out. >> we need to look at the bigger picture overall here, this is about president trump saying, okay, i understand that now the house is in control of the democrats, and looking the a genuinely serving conservatives and the american people and so three key words yesterday were country over party. and he is reaching out and saying, okay, i am willing to be the adult to come to the table to talk about this, because this isn't just-- >> he was the adult to start.

>> this was not just about border security, this is also about religious liberty, this is about sanctity of human life, about all conservative priorities, as we look to 2020 we need to realize conservative priorities are preserving and protecting the rights of all americans. neil: and do you think that shutting down the government and-- >> i think he will and i think he was very clear that he's still looking at the national emergency act. we have precedent for that from reagan, from bush as well. neil: article 4, section 4. >> absolutely. neil: we've learned about. >> there you go. neil: and you know what's interesting, nell they'll avoid this, i could be very wrong, but it's how the die is cast for the next couple of years, nothing is going to get done. >> no, i don't think there's going to be a wall, a lot of his supporters will be very, very upset. a lot of people really want this wall. ann coulter and friends really

want this wall, but the democrats are not going to budge. >>, but the president has budged on the notion of a wall, first of all, 2,000 miles, no. does it have to be cement. >> no, it could be steel slats. >> from your interview with steny hoyer. >> he didn't think the wall was immoral like nancy pelosi. >> and that was this year, it feels like, couldn't be physical barriers and some are looking at a proposal for smart technology that has people and drones and not physical barrier. neil: they're more in agreement than these issues. >> they are. neil: it's like professional wrestling. everyone has a scripted part and throwing chairs, a then they're high-fiving. >> we have to stop with the two parties warring at each other. that's not congress. we've agreed in the past that

border security and a case for nations is genuinely congress is the know only constitutionally responsible for, but morally. neil: and people call it the wall, cottage cheese. >> curtains. >>, but we have to also, important to what you're saying earlier here, take the role that the f.a.a. played in all of this and that's what robert rice-- turned it, if the airports are shut down and i traveled all last week and the tsa agents were incredibly kind and appreciative of that. neil: did you travel commercial? >> i did. but he took away my military plane so i had no option. neil: thought so. >> but when laguardia shut down for an hour. neil: i think that tipped it. >> and the ex-labor secretary was advocating for it on twitter. he says it will go down with the airports. you must call out sick to end this and it's what happened. so if he tries this again, they will do the same thing, the

government-- >> you're crediting robert rice and his twitter feed for ending this. >> a lot people retweeted him. >> there's an extension for three weeks and that's a very, very important piece here. neil: ladies, thank you all very, very much. the bottom line, the president has been humbled. not the first president to be humbled, not the first president to have to step back and see if he can make lemonade out of lemons. these two gentlemen, john f. kennedy and ronald reagan did. what happened after they did. doris kearnes goodwin after this. more than half of employees across the country bring financial stress to work. if you're stressed out financially at home, you're going to be too worried to be able to do a good job. i want to be able to offer all of the benefits that keep them satisfied. it is the people that is really the only asset that you have.

put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential. bring your challenges.

>> well, if it's deemed that the president caved and the democrats got the better of the deal. a reminder from presidential historian doris kearnes goodwin, there's a way to come out of this and make both sides look good. some of our presidents in the crisis have paid careful attention even in victory they didn't make the other sides look like loser. she joins us with her multiple best seller book is still on this list, "leadership in turbulent times". >> thank you, neil. neil: what did you think of the way this went down. >> clearly shall the question is now what goes forward. everyone had their say and this could have happened 35 days ago,

the big thing you lose is time. it hurts for the federal employees. it's time for your agenda, the state of the union, time for moving op infrastructure and final is something that you can never get back. i think that's the biggest loss in this thing for the white house. neil: i'm reminded of the presidents who have scored big victories that even come through defeat, but cognizant of the fact that whatever they wanted they wanted to make sure they looked like the other side got something, too. could you give me examples of that. >> saving face is such an important thing. i mean, think about ronald reagan early on going strong against social security and it was a mistake because the public approval was too great for the big changes he wanted to make. so he sits down with tip o'neill. why can we not have that in this day and age and they come up with a commission, alan greenspan is the head of the commission and come up with changes to social security, the cost of living. and they increased the

retirement age and both agreed on it, it was bipartisan and ronald reagan stood up and said this is the nation's iron clad guarantee to social security. and at this point o'neill, what a great day for the nation. that's when you see the art of compromise. neil: and john f. kennedy with the cuban missile crisis to resolve that even though it was a big victory for him to get khrunichev to back down. he didn't want to rub the russians, the soviets at the time in the dirt. what did he do? >> he did two things, in his public declaration even as the soviet union was saying we're taking the missiles out, he said we will not invade cuba. that was the worry that the cubans m and a secret declaration that khrunichev could tell people about, that he was going to remove our missiles from turkey almost as if he was doing something to save chew

khrunichev, and reached such a paint of scariness-- scarines scariness", that it worked and save face. that's what teddy roosevelt did, he was winning the coal strike, six months of people without hospitaand there not be a commission without a labor person on it. they wanted a business guy and a judge and the strike was going on and on and teddy roosevelt, okay you don't want a labor person labeled as a labor person and what if we call him a socialologist and put a labor person in there and they said, yeah, that's fine. and it was ridiculous we could have gone on a strike for months and instead we called tweedle-d tweedle-dee tweedle-dum, and

both sides can save face. neil: and i would call it cottage cheese. and there was a disagreement between the democrats. steny hoyer, he didn't find the concept of the wall immoral or a problem with the president giving his speech. you can argue whether he's right or nancy pelosi was right there was more common ground. i've said it before, doris, i get a feeling today, politics today is like professional wrestling. they all have their roles. and i'm in washington, and they're laughing, back slapping, and see me with the cameras and it's i'm going to-- and needless. >> and when they're face-to-face talking with each other, what can we do to increase border security that both sides will agree on. it's much more likely than when

we've got their sides in the boxing match and talking to the cameras. i suspect something will come up. i certainly hope it doesn't end up being a declaration of national emergency, that's a real power that a president has and it has to be used wisely and in limited form. if it becomes a tool when there's a policy disagreement, then the next side is going to use it in the next time. >> and i wonder with this president will he's exhausted and you lose that, you don't get it back. >> no, and in fact, fdr declared a national emergency in 1941 in the spring. because he argued that our security was dependent on what was happening in europe many americans were isolationists and only england standing alone against the nazis, and he said we have to do something about it, increased the army and november and factories to push war production ahead of cars and a big thing. he prepared to speech for five days and he spoke for 44 minutes

over the radio, and he changed public opinion. he educated the country as to why our security did depend on what was happening with hitler and the polls changed. he got the mobilization going and it was critical because we had those seven, eight, months before pearl harbor to get ready before we actually got in had the war. so if the president is going to declare a national emergency, it can't just be thrown together. it has to be a major speech. that's what he's going to have to do. neil: all right. doris, all fun having you. good luck to your patriots even though they cheat every single year. >> oh, no! i'm-- i'm proud that boston is now hated by the country for the red sox and patriots. we are what the yankees used to be. neil: oh, that was a long time ago. all right, doris kearnes goodwin, thank you very, very much. just kidding about the patriots. >> very well. neil: we'll see. the new orleans saints they're furious they're not in the super bowl so they're suing and their lawyer is here because they think they've gotten the shaft.

now, what will come of that suit? we'll ask them. i used to book my hotel room on those travel sites but there was always a catch. like somehow you wind up getting less. but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks. i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay.

>> well, it's hard to let go. the new orleans saints fans are suing the nfl over the controversial no-call last weekend's nfc championship match. they said without that, they would have been in the super bowl. but they're not. that could change as this next guy has his way. don't know it's likely to happen. the lawyer behind the case, frank. good to have you. >> thank you for having me. neil: explain what this suit is about. you're suing the nfl over a botched call and asking what? >> well, it's a little more than that. we're suing the nfl on what's called a rit of mandamus. in louisiana there are two kinds of rit of mandamus, one against a public official to follow the rules of public office.

the other is against corporations to enforce the rules of the corporation. and in this case, it's the bylaws of the nfl, which constitute the rules of the game. neil: all right. and what kind of damage relief would you seek? >> well, this isn't a suit for money damages. neil: i understand that, but, corrected and make it right. what would you be pushing to make it right? >> yeah, rule 17 gives the commissioner plenary powers. he can do whatever he deems necessary to remedy the situation. first what he has to do. he has to ask two questions, is this the kind of thing that's so extraordinary or unfair that it impacted the outcome of the game? once he makes that determination, rule 17 says, he must conduct hearings, he must review videos. he must make all of this available, and he must do whatever is necessary to remedy the situation. in this situation, the commissioner's doing nothing.

crickets. he's avoiding the media. he's not answering why he isn't using his powers under rule 17 to correct this obvious travesty. neil: all right. now there has been a push to sort of replay the last 90 minutes-- not-- 90 seconds, two minutes. game where this came into play. how do you feel about that? >> well, rule specifically says, the commissioner has the authority to reverse the outcome of the game, order the game be replayed in its entirety or go back in time to the spot of the foul, enforce the penalty, put 1:41 seconds back on the clock, and play the game first and goal with the saints having the ball and the rams having one timeout. neil: none of that's going to happen. >> well, you say it's not going to happen that's because the commissioner isn't taking action. this lawsuit is going to require the commissioner to follow the

rule. we cannot tell the commissioner what remedy to employ. that's certainly one spelled out in the rule and he could do so if he deems necessary. but if he doesn't do it. neil: if every game was replayed in part or whole because of a botched call, there are many and you're quite right to point out that this is a botched call. we'd be revisiting countless games, right? >> yeah, i've heard that argument before and it rings hollow. we're not asking the commissioner to review every botched call. the rule is very clear, was the rule so extraordinary -- was the call so extraordinary or unfair. why did the referees deliberately not to make the call. >> and he was going to throw the flag and the side judge says, no. they look to the referee and crew chief for guidance and he says no. the question is, why? it's so obvious and so blatant,

and cassidy said before the senate, this is the most blatant and consequential no-call in nfl history. it's cast a cloud over the nfl, which questions the integrity and the fairness of the game. and the commissioner is silent. his silence speaks volumes and it only adds to the suspicion. neil: all right. we'll watch what happens. keep us posted, frank. very much. the attorney suing the nfl. we did put a call out to the nfl. i don't believe that we heard back. right? okay. we will have more after this. i'm a veteran

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> all right, welcome back, i'm neil cavuto. are you completely honest with your significant other? turns out, this is according to credit card.com did a financial survey of folks and found out

that one in five, 29 million americans are hiding a bank account and/or credit card account or something else from their significant other, which is called being deceiving with the other person. i've got susan lee back here. jonas max ferris and lindsey. i was startled, that's a big number. >> i wouldn't be upset that he had a separate account or credit card, but concerned what they're using that money for, where is that going? >> that's right. >> that's concern to me, is it premeditated? yes. i would be more concerned about debt than what actual assets. neil: susan, would you feel better if was illegal and you didn't know if the police game? >> what was he hiding. >> oh, stop it. >> and we have a life together. >> all right, lindsey, what do you make of this? >> if i found my husband had some secret credit cards i'd be

more upset than secret bank account or checking account assets. because debt to me is no good, it's bad, it's negative and it's a big secret. again, what are they spending on and what's the purpose of this. neil: when it's pretty clever, the bills are going to the post office or-- and that's a layer upon layer of deceit, too. >> and it's all about the deceit, too. >> i don't know, i think the survey said that most people wouldn't divorce their spouse if they had one of these secret accounts, but i don't know. a lot of debt, it just drives me crazy. neil: but if you establish a pattern of deceit on any level, it's deceit, right? it could lead to other things. >> i agree and that's the thing. i mean, money is hard enough to talk about with your spouse anyway. >> right. >> because you don't want them thinking you're judging them, it's a tough topic. neil: this is more common in two-earner couples, which makes sense.

but there was a time when joint accounts and everything else, but that's gone. >> yes, that's right. so, we just, we were talking to jessica who's parents always had a joint account. in 2019, as a woman we're taught to have a separate account. joint account to pay out rent and expenses and you should independently manage your own money as well. neil: did jessica say her parents now changed that policy? >> we don't know. back in the day that's how it's done. neil: i'm sure that they've got a washington rally protest on it, something like that, kidding, kidding, kidding. it does say something in this day and age that it's rampant. >> i don't want to rip the survey apart. they're including spouses and just live-ins. okay, not-- >> oh, no. >> you sound defensive. >> there's a difference if you're not telling your spouse about an account and telling your girlfriend who is living with you. that seems relatively normal. >> you're sharing space, and

sharing-- >> sharing space and sharing your assets are different things. you'd be married, right? and look, there's also the issue of-- >> you're saying that marry and-- >> would the number-- >> when you're coming home today, what's that? >> and there's a-- >> i would say spouses who don't work should actually have a run away fund is what some people call it you don't want to feel trapped necessarily in a bad situation where you don't have money for a few months, it's not necessarily. i mean, you're having a hedge account for a divorce. a lot of marriages end in divorce and if their house burns down. neil: well, yours is looking pretty shaky now. >> put a ring on it, max. neil: all right. guys. thank you very, very much. poor jonas gets home today. it's going to be a long day.

that will do it for us. we're keeping track of the ongoing government opening up after the shutdown and what happens, three weeks to decide this and three weeks goes by fast right around valentine's day and well, forget about who is paying for what, right? go ahead, ask it a question. tecky, can you offer low costs and award-winning full service with a satisfaction guarantee, like schwab? sorry. tecky can't do that. schwabbb! calling schwab. we don't have a satisfaction guarantee, but we do have tecky! i'm tecky. i ca... are you getting low costs and award-winning full service? if not, talk to schwab.

saved an average of $412," syou probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online. esurance, it's surprisingly painless.

>> the partial government shutdown maybe over, but it could be days or even weeks before money filters through the agencies kept in limbo since december. this as the fight for funding the border wall. leland: and roger stone is free on bail and telling fox news, he will not testify against the president. >> the united nations security counsel meets for a security meeting on the ongoing crisis in venezuela. we'll go live to the u.n. welcome to amer