One Week To Go; Polls Tighten On FBI News; Stocks Down Ahead Of Jobs Report; FBI Poring Over Huma Emails; U.S. Issues Travel Advisory For India



Report; FBI Poring Over Huma Emails; U.S. Issues Travel Advisory For India

Amid Fears Of Islamic State Attacks; RPT: CNN Boss Jeff Zucker Calls Leaks

To Clinton Campaign "Disgusting"; FBI Making Inquiry Into Trump's First

Campaign Managers Ties To Russia; NYT: Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious

Method To Avoid Paying Taxes - Part 2>

Moore, Howard Kurtz, Charles Hurt>

Weiner; Karen Dunn; John Podesta; Cheryl Mills; FBI; James Comey; WikiLeak;

CNN; Donna Brazile; Paul Manafort; Wall Street Journal; Dow; S&P; NASDAQ;

General Motors; Fiat Chrysler; Hulu; 21st Century Fox; Russia; Congress;

Economy; Elections; Government; Media; Policies; Politics; Polls; Stocks;

Supreme Court; Television and Radio>

You know, you mentioned these -- the track record is that the market tends to be down in the months before an election when the incumbent party loses. I don't think you can go by any historical track records in this election because, I mean it is .

REGAN: So much.


HILSENRATH: So much has happened that's just so hard to follow or to base on anything that has to do with history. I think all we can say right now is that the market is pricing in the uncertainty that Trump a possibility .

REGAN: Yes. Look uncertainty, that's the name of the game, right? I mean investors hate the idea of change. And let's face it, Donald Trump represents a lot of change. Steve and, you know .


REGAN: He's not exactly a fan of "Wall Street". You know, despite .

MOORE: Right.

REGAN: . her talking against "Wall Street" as she does over and over again. "Wall Street" had been a big bankroller of hers has paid for many, many .

MOORE: That's for sure.

REGAN: . you know, speeches, et cetera. She is into a certain extent in that "Wall Street" camp. So it's understandable that corporations would be getting a little nervous here, investors would be getting a little bit nervous about a change?

MOORE: Yup. Well, look, I mean first of all the reason the stock market is been so flat now for the last, what, year, year and a half has been corporate profits are terrible. Let's not forget it all really comes down to the profitability the companies in terms of the stock market. And that's a reflection of a poor economy. For those people who are worried about a Trump for a presidency or for our investors .

REGAN: For the profits are weakening but, you know, I would still say, you know, earnings have been relatively stronger, there's been a ton of cost cutting, there's been a lot of mergers ..

MOORE: Yeah, that's true .

REGAN: And so we're sort of in this no man's land .


REGAN: . that hasn't resulted in much prosperity for the middle class.

MOORE: I agree with that.


HILSENRATH: This quarter's earnings numbers they've been rolling in for a few weeks now. They've -- they're rolling in right they have .

REGAN: There is it but the sessions high .

MOORE: Yes, they're like.

REGAN: . I mean like you can have all the earnings in the world. My point is that people are, you know .

MOORE: Yeah.

REGAN: . working and getting paid .

MOORE: OK, that's fine.

REGAN: And concerning to the economy you get trouble but anyway go for this point.

MOORE: Got it, OK. So let me make my point about why investors should not be so nervous about a Trump presidency. And why I think actually the Trump presidency just for as -- for investors and the stock market is better than Hillary. And here comes down to taxes. I mean, we're going to cut the business tax by over half.

REGAN: Right.

MOORE: So that means the after-tax earnings, right Jon of companies are going to rise .

REGAN: Yeah.

MOORE: . under a Trump presidency. They're going to follow under a Clinton presidency. She wants to race the capital gains stocks out in the income tax rate .

REGAN: But it's change. Another if didn't change that's it. These are used to gridlock in Washington absolutely nothing ever getting done, Jon. And investors are seemingly OK with that because they get Janet Yellen and company helping things along the Fed aggressively acting to try and help -- by the way really quick because I'm sure then kind of I want to talk to you about Sheldon Adelson. He's going all in on Trump he's pouring 25 million bucks into an anti-Hillary Super PAC. That's a lot of money to be spending here in the final week before the election.

Steve, why now? Why didn't he do it earlier?

MOORE: I think a lot of Republican big donors we have been on the sidelines for the last six months because, A, they don't agree with Trump that in a lot of issues and, B, they didn't think he was going to win.

I think the -- that you're seeing some late money surge into the Trump campaign as an indication that this is now a toss-up race, essentially. And people now who thought it was hopeless are saying, look, with a little bit more money, Trump can actually win this thing.

HILSENRATH: I don't know if I would call it a toss-up race, but I say it isn't over. A couple weeks ago it looked like it was over and it's looking more and more like a close call.

REGAN: We told you it was and right here on "The Intelligence Report" we said, you know, what don't, don't.

MOORE: We did.

REGAN: Don't start, you know .

MOORE: I saw that two weeks ago, Trish.

REGAN: I know, you can't have the victory laps until it's actually all done and over. And frankly it's not right, it's not right to the American people to let them, you know, basically be thinking it's over before it's actually over. Anyway Jon, Steve, thank you so much .

HILSENRATH: Great to be here.

REGAN: . guys here. CNN under a lot of political fire here and fire in general amid news that Donna Brazile has been caught passing on debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign manager. This as another CNN political analyst is caught sending biased e-mails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. This is not going to help them shake that hold Clinton News Network nickname anytime soon. We'll see you here with that story, next.


REGAN: CNN president Jeff Zucker, weighing in on the controversy over Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta before a CNN-hosted debate. Report say that Jeff Zucker called these leaks disgusting and unethical during an editorial meeting today.

"Media Buzz" host Howie Kurtz joins me with more. Howie, yeah, I think disgusting and unethical. But, you know, if you think about it Donna Brazile just sort a, you know, working her own book there and, you know, it seems to me that as a network, you need to make sure that you got some precautions in place to make sure that, you know, someone like Donna Brazile isn't getting the questions and leaking them to the candidate.

HOWARD KURTZ, MEDIA BUZZ HOST: Right, I mean Donna Brazile, what she did was -- is cheating there's just no question about it. She did it twice two different CNN town hall forums. She damaged her own reputation. She betrayed CNN where she worked for many years. But CNN is also not handled it well, I mean Jeff Zucker shouldn't be having his adjectives on a staff conference call leaked to the media. He needs to come out and publicly address this. Will there be an investigation? Who leaked the questions to Donna Brazile? Will anyone else be fired? You know, this goes to the heart of the network's credibility.

REGAN: Yeah, you know, I think about how things are done here for example at Fox Business we had our debate and I was one of the debate moderators. So in a Republican under card debate and it was very, very closely held. In other words there were people that were involved in the planning, et cetera, that saw questions that myself and my co-anchors had. But they were people that had been very, very heavily vetted and that they had no political bend or were connective in previous way in any lifetime for example to the RNC, et cetera, et cetera. And there were precautions that we took. Did CNN not do the same thing or that -- I mean what's your thought on that?

KURTZ: Well I think CNN like any network doing this they had a small team. Because you can't have a whole gossipy newsroom knowing with all the questions are in advance. But somehow there was a leak perhaps multiple leaks in one debate there was a partner TV1 which may have been responsible but the other in flint, Michigan that was purely a CNN production. And then it's also compounded by the fact that Donna Brazile, in an interview with me and interview with Megyn Kelly and others. I mean she was vehement and denied that she had done this. She wasn't able to explain the wording of her e-mails which were part of the WikiLeaks disclosure .

REGAN: She doesn't deny the e-mails .

KURTZ: . of the question that are saying .

REGAN: Per se, right. She doesn't deny the e-mails or she'll tell you it's all Russia, but she doesn't deny the e-mails. She just denies that she actually did this?

KURTZ: Yeah, but in both cases the wording in her e-mails was almost verbatim the way the questions were asked. And this why I think, you know, it's not just a problem for CNN or I think that Zucker needs to get hold of this. It kind of takes all the community .

REGAN: How if we do it.

KURTZ: . there lots of people on Twitter feed who think, this is routine to give candidates questions in advance.

REGAN: It will, and by the way may goodness Hillary Clinton, I mean if you're given an opportunity to cheat on the test to you really do it, I mean I don't want to get all poll on everyone. But, you know, shame on her by the way for also taking the questions. And shame on Podesta for taking them from Donna Brazile. What is Jeff Zucker do now? How does he salvages? Can he salvage this? Seems to me that reputational damage has been done?

KURTZ: Well I don't know what Hillary Clinton do, all we know is that the e-mails from Brazile went to some of her top aides, whether she used that, didn't use it, I don't know, its one a be cautious here.

But look, I mean in a lots of news organizations every placed I've worked just had, you know, this ethical problems that have erupted. And what you do is either you bring in a couple outside lawyers to investigate or you put an ombudsman in charge and you'll make the findings public. And you go -- and you give interviews and talk about it on the show.

REGAN: Maybe an investigation right?

KURTZ: Very seriously.

REGAN: Maybe it's time for an investigation there into this.

KURTZ: Yeah.

REGAN: Not just a whole bunch of hot air.

KURTZ: Yeah, also ABC like Donna Brazile as a contributor, what is ABC going to do after they watch it? Open question.

REGAN: All right, Howie, thank you so much.

KURTZ: Thanks Trish.

REGAN: All right, don't forget everyone check out Howie on "Media Buzz" on the Fox News channel, 11:00 a.m. eastern every Sunday.

The FBI announcing it's launching the inquiry into former campaign chairman Paul Manafort's ties to Russia. You know, the timing is curious on this one. Why is it that they we're just here about this one now? We know the Clinton campaign is pressured the FBI into investigated Trump's ties to Russia, but it turns out the FBI found nothing.

So could the FBI be throwing a bone to the furious Clinton campaign or is there something here? Here we've got it, next.


REGAN: OK, the sell-off not as steep as it was, but still in the red, by triple digits on the left look at off market right here, that's off 144 points, just 136, we'll update in a second, there you go, down 148 right now.

Crude closing out the day moments ago, there's been some uncertainty over an OPEC deal and it's closing down almost half a percent. Then just moments ago the internet streaming service Hulu has announced that it signed deals with Walt Disney and our parent company, 21st Century Fox. This deal now allows Hulu to offer ABC, ESPN, Freeform and the Disney Channel. All those sales flipping in the month of October decide discount.

General Motors and Fiat Chrysler were hurt by fewer selling days in cut back in fleet sales.

All right we're going to be right back with much more on the news of an FBI inquiry into Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his ties to Russia. Is there really any there there? That's next.


REGAN: All right, we've got some reports coming out that the FBI had launched an inquiry into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's ties to Russia. The investigation reportedly began months ago, prompting the Trump campaign to cut ties with Manafort. You know, there were rumors about that at the time.

Manafort has issued a statement calling this an outrageous smear. And here he is, he says, "It is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to take the focus off to FBI's announcement of last Friday on the FBI's renewed interest in the Clinton e-mail scandal and the WikiLeaks release of DNC and Clinton campaign e-mail", as he goes on to say basically this is just presidential politics as usual.

Well, the FBI did look into Trump's ties to Russia and the FBI found nothing. So what's in this one all about? I want to ask our new Fox news contributor and Fox Business contributor Charles Hurt. Charles congratulations on that.

CHARLES HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you very much, Trish.

REGAN: Good to have you here.

HURT: Good to be with you.

REGAN: What are your thoughts on this?

HURT: You know, I mean we're looking at a time right now where, you know, the FBI, their reputation is on the line. It's taking a terrible beating. I'm slightly sympathetic to them because they're in a very tough situation. Hillary Clinton and all of that, you know, everything that she's has done up to now with the server and the foundation and everything else has put the FBI in a terrible, terrible situation. You know, the idea that Comey had to come out in July and then come out, you know, last week to say that they've had to reopen this investigation.

REGAN: Do you think he did the right thing, Charles, on that? Though we were just talking with Julie Roginsky this here and said, you know, this is just political hackness basically and that, you know, he had no business bringing this up. He did 11 days last Friday before the election.

HURT: I am very sympathetic with people who don't like what he did. But when you look at the other options he had no other options, it was all he could do. And the Clintons are the exact people who put him in this position, and they're the ones who were paying the biggest price for it, I think. But they are the ones who put him in this position.

And I think that, you know, if you look at it this way, if he, you know, if he does this, you know, now that he's done this and Hillary Clinton winds up not getting elected, I think that would be less of a constitutional crisis than if they had, if he had failed to do it and then she gets elected .


REGAN: . what the heck? Why didn't she tell us?


REGAN: But, you mentioned that the FBI is under all the scrutiny and certainly getting a lot of criticism from all directions because I think a lot of people are looking at their first investigation saying, we -- OK why do find a Weiner computer in the first place?

HURT: Exactly. Exact -- that's the most and I think that's the harshest thing you can say about the FBI right now is, why did you not find this stuff earlier? And, you know, why didn't you raid Huma's apartment, raid the Clinton's house. You know, interrogate them under oath, do all the things .


REGAN: Maybe there's just wasn't quite the same, well I mean that's it with some people wonder. Anyway, let me ask you quickly about Manafort. I mean this investigation was initiated months ago. Why are we just hearing about it now, Charles?

HURT: All right, my suspicion is that this is something that is leaking out of the FBI or DOJ and is leaking out as a, you know, partisan effort to, sort of, bring equal parity to these two things. And this was my original point, Trish. Which is this makes the FBI look a thousand times worse and this is doing real damage to the reputation of .

REGAN: Another is the second investigation. Yeah, I mean if I'm Comey, I'm incentivize to not have to do this right? Because all it does is basically put the microscope back on me and my organization and people say, wow, you guy sure did a sloppy job the first time around.

HURT: Exactly.

REGAN: So there's not a ton of incentive for him, at least if he's trying to be self-preservationist about this. He actually come forward but nonetheless he did which, you know, people say he's very much, you know, by the book and wants to do the right thing so .

HURT: It was a -- terrible, terrible decision, but I think all the alternatives were worse, and again, there's -- that if you want to blame somebody, the only person you can blame is Hillary Clinton.

REGAN: OK, all right.

HURT: It's a responsible for all of it.

REGAN: Charles, thank you, and congrats .

HURT: Thank you Trish.

REGAN: . we are thrilled to have you here.

HURT: Thank you.

REGAN: All right the "New York Times" headline today, Donald Trump used legally dubious methods to avoid paying taxes. That's what the "New York Times" is saying. But here's to think, the accounting maneuver he used, it was totally legal at the time.

So just exactly what's illegally dubious about that? I mean if it's legal and you're doing things legally right, I mean, shouldn't you want to minimize your tax bill? The latest in media bias, after this.


REGAN: All right, let's check on the markets as you can see, again, still in the red. You can see tech, health care, all suffering here. Telecom as well, down 155. There's some thinking right here, that investors are concerned about Donald Trump winning. You saw that polls are tightening considerably. He is now ahead by one point, and that's making some folks on "Wall Street" a little nervous because if he were to get elected it would obviously mean some change, and they like the status quo, down 21 points there on the S&P. Again, off the lows of the session, we'll see how this one shakes out in the next hour.

So I want to take a quick look here at the "New York Time" headline today. Here it is, "Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes". That is the headline. The "Times" reporting that Trump avoided paying taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars and forgiving debt act the 1990s by using an accounting maneuver that was actually perfectly legal at the time. So just exactly what's so, quote, "legally dubious" about that, I mean, who doesn't want to try, and within context of the law, minimize their tax bill?

Former prosecutor Katie Phang joins me right now. Katie in a legally dubious, it's kind a loaded term, is it not?

KATIE PHANG, FORMER PROSECUTOR: It's a loaded term. And I'm not surprise that came out around Halloween, because like debt and taxes, the "New York Times" does not want that Donald Trump tax issue to die any time soon. Talk about zombifying an issue.

Legally dubious, what we got to focus on is the word legally. There was nothing wrong with what Donald Trump did back in 1991, when he did a partnership equity for debt swap. Eventually 13 years later in 2004, the IRS would say that it's not kosher. But Trish back then, when he did it, it worked and saved him literally hundreds of millions of dollars in taxable income.

REGAN: You know, he's conveying the point over and over again. And these rob some people the wrong way. But his point is like, yeah, of course I'm not going to pay any more tax than I have to. I understand the system, I use it to my advantage, because, you know, I think he might have said, I'd be stupid to pay more tax than I have to.

But, you know, you can understand in some ways. I mean, unless you decide you want to donate your money to the government, and by all means, if that's what you want to do. Why wouldn't you aggressively be looking to minimize your tax bill through legal means.

PHANG: So the problem is, it looks like Donald Trump was double dipping. And what do I mean by that? Well, when you basically have debt and it's not paid back to you, you write it off as a loss on your tax return. Cancellation of indebtedness income means, Donald Trump, for all the money he couldn't pay back through his companies, for the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, that were filed by those casinos, you know, that he ran through his corporations, all of that cancellation of debt income should have been tagged against Donald Trump on a personal level. But because of this partnership equity for debt swap.

REGAN: It was legal.

PHANG: . he did it was kosher because he did it the right way.

REGAN: It was legal.

PHANG: Everything he did was kosher. Yup.

REGAN: All right, "New York Times", and his dubious remark, perhaps once again showing some of that bias. Anyway, Katie, thank you. We'll be right back.


REGAN: I guess what I'm doing this weekend? I'm right here, I'm right here with you. You know, this election has been full of so many twists and turns, and that is why all of us right here Fox Business, we are going to be live this weekend. We're not going anywhere, we're staying here, we're camping out, because it is countdown time.

Final days of this election. We are live. Starting at 6:00 a.m. eastern, I'll be here at normal on "The Intelligence Report" at 2:00 p.m. eastern, and right now we're heading into the last hour trading, down 152. Liz is taking it up from here.


(Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2016 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.)