tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business May 8, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
in your homes. we had a jam-packed show. a lot going on. more for you tomorrow night. charles payne is here with "making money." charles: after you, condi rice is one of my favorites. thank you very much. good evening, everyone, i'm charles payne. significant stories from wall street to capitol hill, on the street by the way, the nasdaq and s&p soaring to more record highs. more for you on that in the show. on the hill, the senate judiciary committee just wrapping up its hearing and featured former acting attorney general sally yates, james clapper, the witnesses were pressed about a slew of hot-button issues swirling around former national security adviser michael flynn and the alleged russian election meddling. more on that. i want to start with this point, what the obama appointees had to say about the unprecedented flood of leaked classified information. >> how did the conversation between the russian ambassador and mr. flynn make it to the
"washington post"? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> nor do i know the answer to that. >> as far as you know, has any classified information relating to mr. trump or his associates been declassified and shared with the media? >> not to my knowledge. >> ms. yates. >> not to my knowledge either. >> have you ever given information to a reporter that you didn't want to have your name connected with but wanted to see it in the paper? >> i have not. charles: here to discuss, nan hayward, carl higbie and michael maltby. you have been the hearing, obviously they pressed hard, we know there were leaks and still this is an area we can't get resolved. >> well, yes, but clapper and yates made quite clear, it wasn't them, we don't know, we
will probably never find out. leak investigations rarely come to fruition. it's worth looking at but a bit beside the point what i thought was the heart of their testimony which was the warning to the white house. charles: the warning about michael flynn? >> yes, sir. charles: okay, nan, what are your thoughts? i thought it was interesting that they drove home the point that you have, a difference between unmasking which happens in the course of a 702 when we're surveilling someone outside of this country and a u.s. name pops up during the course of that and leaking that information. i think we were intertwining the two. nevertheless, it's pretty clear that michael flynn, his information was leaked and just hit the "washington post." >> absolutely. and look, we all know that washington is just as securesa a sieve. someone obviously leaked that information.
director clapper unfortunately has been found to have been less than fully forthcoming in testimony in the past. so -- charles: should we have taken that into account today. do way pay more so with a grain of salt things clapper has to say now after he himself has stepped on it a little bit? >> i think we have to. and whole questions, the motivation isn't hard to find. folks probably wanted to embarrass president trump. it's clear that president trump comes along so far not having done anything wrong whatsoever, except having been loyal to someone who had supported him through challenging times, and who rightly exited the administration. charles: and carl, that's going to be the mainstream media's take on this. president trump was warned by president obama that there was more than enough time, more than enough evidence for him to get rid of plan to sooner rather than later. the day sean spicer reminding us it was the obama administration that actually
gave michael flynn the security clearance in the first place? >> correct, going back to the whole thing, the integrity of entire agencies is on the line here. up to the get this solved? you find out who's in charge of the agency, who was responsible, if you have to go up to clapper to the top. then you hold them accountable. if you don't give up who did this, you're going down for it. as soon as they see their own hides on fire, they're going run for water. >> i don't believe he's conducted a leaks investigation. i don't believe it's ever going to be resolved. i don't see that -- charles: why? is that for lack of political will? obstructionism? why won't this be resolved? >> it's human nature. it's a lack of prosecutorial capability. a lack perhaps of political will, but i can't think of almost any leaks investigation that ever has said, uh-huh, here is the leaker. you can spend -- >> you hold the top of the
agency accountable null find out who rolls on him? >> maybe, it's not going to happen. charles: maybe, michael, the idea that the obama administration, as they were exiting the white house would make it easier for a lot more people to have the ability to unmask and therefore leak the information, certainly suspicious, isn't it? we went from a very narrow range of folks who had the ability to a whole lot of other agencies and something of a free-for-all, or to nan's point, it became a sieve. >> i don't know that it became a sieve or didn't become a sieve. i don't know nor does anyone know the extent which information was unmasked. i don't think you can impugn intent to leak by the process of unmasking. unmasking occurs for a host of reasons, many of which and most of which are legitimate. charles: right. >> and so i think there is an objective that may be political here to say that, but i don't think you can factually support that. charles: nan, i'm not saying that the goal is to leak through unmasking.
i'm saying by allowing so many people the ability to unmask, increases exponentially the chances of it being leaked. >> charles no question. human nature, human behavior. we know the senate was sitting on the president's appointees, right? these agencies have been populated largely by members of the previous administration, place holders for the folks who are supposed to be here. i would lay this in part at feet of senate democrats who did not act to help the president, to get his team on board so that we could have the kind of security that we need. charles: i want to ask you about this, during her testimony, ms. yates claimed she had raised the alarm at the white house about then national security adviser michael flynn not being forthcoming about dealings with russia, roll that tape. >> the russians also knew that general flynn misled the vice president and others. from the media accounts it was
clear they were repeating what general flynn told him. this was a problem, not only did we believe that the russians knew this but likely had proof of this information, and that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the russians. >> here's the problem, carl. she could never tell us exactly what the underlying conduct was that flynn committed. so that leaves out a lot of room for assumptions and the sort of spinning that we've been seeing. >> large assumptions. i know michael flynn to a fairly good degree, always an honorable guy to me. during the campaign, he was responsive, he was extremely loyal, fiercely loyal, and this guy served this nation for three decades. it's going to take a conviction for me to understand in any capacity he did something wrong. charles: if there were mistakes, if he did something wrong, would you say unintentional? >> from what i understand, yes. like i said, there is still an investigation which i encourage
going forward, i understand michael flynn to be an extremely honorable person. charles: nan? >> i think president trump and general flynn did the right thing in separating him from the administration. i think under the circumstances, that was necessary. >> i think it's fair. >> didn't mean general flynn intended to do anything wrong. >> correct. >> but clearly there were lapses in his judgment along the way and the president did the right thing. he did the smart thing to separate. charles: michael, would it help with respect not only to the public's curiosity but the credibility of our intelligence agencies who i would consider is at an all-time low, to have more information what the conduct was that flynn might have engaged in that made him such a liability, if you will? >> well, we do know, i believe, that mr. flynn said he one did not have conversation with the russian ambassador, and two, when he had to admit they had conversations that they were not about sanctions. we know that was not true.
and so just in and of itself, that lie, if that's what we want to call it, the misstatement that he didn't engage with the ambassador and didn't discuss sanctions in which i expect nsa wiretaps or cia wiretaps or fbi wiretaps picked up is reason enough for us to understand why he was separated. so i'm not sure that we're missing what the lie was. that there were secondary lies or misstatements or mistakes, i don't mean to impugn general flynn by any means but he didn't register as an agent for the government of turkey. seemingly did not disclose to the defense intelligence agency paying for his speech and did not report that on his financial disclosure statements. those are a lot of things substantive which when sally yates said to white house counsel, you got to be careful here, and when the president of the united states, ex-president of the united states, president
obama, warns the incoming president of the united states, president trump, that this guy is a liability, and be careful, i think there's a lot of ways that are substantive. >> number one, we don't know the exact content of the conversation, i hope we never will between president obama and president trump. we don't know what went on. we know this much in context. we know president obama was discovered via a hot mic assuring then president of russia medvedev that he would have more leeway after the election. charles: i think the quote was we'll take care of you, something like that. carl, i want to change, it another topic was sally yates refusing to enforce president trump's travel moratorium. she was defiant. the best line was who apoint you to the supreme court? senator john kennedy? in other words, how the hell do you get on interpret and act on interpretation of the supreme court over a ruling from the president of the united states? >> right, your job is not to interpret, your job is to enforce as told.
if it's illegal, you go from there. it was not illegal. i know a judge found that he didn't want to enforce it. the fact is here both of these people on the committee, clapper and her, found in capacity to be basically bad eggs in some way, shape, or form. either lied before, misled before or fired from their job. that should go a long way in their testimony. charles: let's leave it there. coming up, first the netherlands and of course now france, and i guess one of the big questions coming into the week has the populism movement has it peace in europe or just getting started? love to hear your thoughts on cv payne. we'll be right back.
the shlike a bald penguin. how do i look? [ laughing ] show me the billboard music awards. show me top artist. show me the top hot 100 artist. they give awards for being hot and 100 years old? we'll take 2! [ laughing ] xfinity x1 gives you exclusive access to the best of the billboard music awards just by using your voice. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st eight seven central only on abc.
. charles: it was the day after a lot of protests breaking now the paris after centrist candidate emmanuel macron's victory over far right candidate marine le pen in the french presidential election. macron garnered almost twice as many votes as le pen. big question is what does this mean for populism, the entire movement in europe? here to discuss, michael gonzalez and ford o'connell. ford, you had the netherlands defeat, this, germany, more than likely merkel will win, maybe italy is the last stand, do you feel the populism juggernaut is fizzling or rebooting here? >> i think it's absolutely rebooting here. look, le pen and the other folks went down, but voters' concerns are still real. here's what i know over the next few years, the job market in europe is going to be in the
ground and essentially ravaged by the effects of globalization, until political elites in europe understand and treat the people with respect and stop treating them like a disease that needs to be eradicated. they continue to gain stream. charles: michael, so mind-boggling with the people, with the terrorist attacks on the first round of the elections and chronic unemployment in france that it wasn't better this round for le pen. >> i agree with ford. these ideas, i'm not going to get into what populism, is i don't want to get into the semantics of it. the idea the nation a sovereign, the democracy and human rights live within the context of a nation-state, of a people, of citizens and citizens have a responsibility with each other. these are ideas that continue to be very alive.
le pen just happened to be a very bad vessel for these ideas. she couldn't really -- when she gave a speech on may 1st on the issue of sovereignty and the assimilation of immigrants, she borrowed it, plagiarized it from a speech that a conservative candidate gave on april 15th. i think he was a much better spokesman for the ideas, but the ideas are not going away, partly because macron doesn't have solutions eefrjt he's not going to fix 10% unemployment. 23% unemployment among youth and the fact that you have societies and the immigrants have not assimilated into french culture and something needs to be done about it. >> charles, let me add in on this point. i agree 100%, le pen was a terrible candidate going forward, and a lot of the stuff is not going away, the answer is how is macron answering the
questions it could prime the pump for another nationalist candidate who is media friendly and doesn't have as much baggage. charles: i disagree with le pen, the platform was murky, parts of the platform, bigger government and things like that, i don't know but guys, i don't like, and i think she's worked hard to shed the image of her father, and that doesn't come easy. she doubled the election outcome from last time, so i'm not sure that she was the imperfect candidate as much as perhaps france may be the unperfect place. michael, let me ask you this, what would push france over the top? they've had a series of terrorist attacks. open borders forever, chronic unemployment forever. they're used to it. why would they change any time in the future? >> they're not used to it. macron is not going to solve the problems, these are problems that are not going to go away and as ford said, could get worse. le pen was his credit, they have baggage, they are going to
change their own name. when the party changes its name like the communists after the dissolution of the soviet union, they realized they discredited. ideas about sovereignty and national identity need a new party and a new person to carry them forward. charles: ford, where is the next flash point in europe we could see victory that proves your point that this movement has stalled but certainly not over? >> i think what's going to happen here is see exactly how england handles brexit and whether or not it's successful. if they're successful in moving forward more with controlling their own future, you're going to see a lot of people not so scared of this. the greatest things that opponents of populism have people striking fear into the hearts and it is a waste of time and people are going to die because of it. charles: silicon valley powerhouses isis enablers? there is a new lawsuit that says yes, they are responsible
for the san bernardino massacre. we're going to discuss it next. think your large cap equity fund has exposure to energy infrastructure mlps? think again. it's time to shake up your lineup. the alerian mlp etf can diversify your equity portfolio and add potential income. bring amlp into the game. before investing, consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. read the prospectus carefully at alpsfunds.com/amlp
i count on my dell small for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ ♪ i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes
or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
. charles: big tech companies are under fire for the families from san bernardino, the terror attack victims. they're suing three of the industry heavyweights, facebook, google and twitter, alleging the companies, quote, knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist groub isis with accounts to use social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits. i had a chance to talk with family members taking part in the suit earlier today. roll tape. >> i believe they not only knew about it but support it. let's take a look what's gone on over the last say about four, five years, you know,
even when the terrorists were chopping off american soldiers'ed hads, they sensationalized that on youtube and all the other platforms of social media and the world got a kick out of it. charles: joining me to discuss, jillian melchior, emily, that was greg, his daughter sierra was among the victims in san bernardino. he said these guys supported it, wasn't one of the incidental things or out of their control, they use it to sensationalize their platforms and profiting from it. you can feel his pain and the argument is not far out? >> yeah, he's in a heart-breaking situation and raising really serious questions about what facebook, twitter, google, youtube, are actually doing about terrorism spreading. the crux of this lawsuit is where it says that knowingly led to the acts. that is going to be really difficult to prove. this is of course against the
rules of conduct on facebook, spreading terrorist ideology, against the rules of conduct. i think the most interesting allegations are against youtube saying they're allowing isis to profit off of ads that play before videos, that's a serious question the lawsuit tackles. charles: interesting enough, jillian, in the last quarter ad groelth went down 5%, lot of big advertisers pushing back because of stuff like that. what are your overall thoughts? >> tricky thing for tech company to deal with. seeing this not just with terror but for example facebook live, murders that are happening, sexual assaults are happening, being live streamed and facebook is ramping up everies to crack down on some of this. charles: right. >> the tricky thing with the terror threat this is not easy sensor, easy to crack down on, like the monster when you chop off one of its heads, two more pop up. fascinating how twitter went about putting the accounts out of business and very easy to
spring up and continue propagating. charles: could you argue they could have put more resources on this by now. facebook hiring 3,000 people, the effort could have been stronger particularly after the terrorist activity that have been conducted via social media. >> i think this lawsuit is going to light a fire under the tech companies to start doing this. we're already definitely seeing it with facebook ramps up efforts. but it is really difficult problem to address, and i think seeing the court hold the companies liable, it's a really important case. charles: you know, emily, forgetting about the legal aspect of it for a moment. see how that's adjudicated, but from the court of public opinion, what do you think? do you think that people who see someone like a greg clie born talk about his daughter, talk about the sensationalism that we see on the social media sites would feel he's got some kind of a point. whether it's legal to get a remedy in court, but making a solid point in that they owe
more to society, you know, because of their positions and platforms? >> yeah, i think we're wise to separate the legal from the court of public opinion, it's possible we might need strictero laws, might need to replace the laws with things that do not exist right now because they are changing so quickly. we almost find social media posts from the perpetrators of the attacks that hint at extremist ideologies and makes you wonder why wasn't this tackled by the company, the platform that it was posted on or by the people who saw it themselves. >> one of the challenges with this is also going to be as you crack down on them on social media, is that actually going to be something that inhibits our ability to track terrorists and to crack down on terrorism. charles: ladies, thank you all, both very much. appreciate it. coming up, the latest hurtle in the effort to replace obamacare. it's called the jimmy kimmel test, and a republican invented it. next. [vo] when it comes to investing,
looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock.
is intensifying as the gop bill now heads to the senate. republican senator bill cassidy proposing the jimmy kimmel test on pre-existing condition. i spoke with him earlier today. roll tape. >> premiums, that's a huge thing for middle america, and at the same time achieve what i call the jimmy kimmel test, which is if somebody has a pre-existing condition, would she have the coverage for herself or her family member that would allow her to get the care she needs? lower premiums, but can you provide access to the care that's needed. charles: well, this all underscores a potential new reality that health care has now become an american right. here with me now, nan hay worth, elizabeth harrington and ford o'connell. elizabeth, i mean, the gop bill, even the house bill sort of suggests this is a new american right, and if it is, you're going to have things like the kimmel test associated with it. >> well, i think senator cassidy
is smart and adept to use a very compelling story that's in the media that's designed to make republicans look bad. and cassidy is very smart to turn it around and say, hey, actually we're doing this in our bill. but getting back to the point of whether health care is a right, i think republicans have kind of lost this argument now with the passage of obamacare. it's the only popular part of the law is that pre-existing conditions are, you have to cover them now. so they really have to build that into whatever republican plan they want to move forward. but i still don't think fundamentally health care is a right, and it doesn't necessarily mean it is if you think about all the rights that are guaranteed in the bill of rights, these are all freedoms from government. government can't do things to you, they can't take away your speech, your right to practice religion. it's not about what the government can give you in the form of health care, and covering pre-existing conditions is still a long ways away from socialized medicine.
charles: this reminds me of the four freedoms from fdr more than anything else. nan, senator cassidy took pains to remind me he was a medical doctor, so are you -- >> i served with him. charles: when you start to layer things on like the so-called kimmel test, it does feel like a trap of sorts. by the way, we should let the audience know senator cassidy's going to be on jimmy kimmel's show tonight. >> ye. and, charles, the points you covered were well taken. and senator cassidy's right, there is a great concern now that americans are accustomed to looking to the federal government for their pensions and benefits in so many ways. i don't think that was in the constitution. but it's hard to argue in any sympathetic way that that's not part of what government does now and that it points up the fact that we have to make insurance affordable, we're going to have to figure out the optimal way to
cover pre-existing conditions, but we have to accept as a society that the more we ask government to do, the more we ask government to pay for in health care, number one, the more expensive it's going to become. and the reason for that is number two, the more political it bams. so what you're -- it becomes. so what you're going to see with the health care legislation as it goes through is this is very political. you can just predict it based on the state or district i they represent. >> charles, the left is absolutely killing it. i come at this from a political messaging perspective, and when emotion meets logic on a neutral plain, emotion's going to win every single day of the week and twice on sunday. the democrats have showing people -- are showing people dying and, frankly, no. you're right, health care is not a right in america, but it is moving that way. that is the goal of the entire left. and every single time the republicans are just trying to hold off the inevitable and, basically, obamacare created an entitlement with pre-existing conditions that republicans are
scared to pull back because they don't want to lose at the ballot box. charles: today our very own liz claman had a chance to ask charlie munger about pre-existing conditions. roll tape. liz: does it cover people with pre-existing conditions? >> well, that's what i hate. how can you say, be in the insurance business and some guy comes in where you know you're going to get a $10,000 premium and lay out $150,000, how can you ask somebody to do that in the insurance business? it's bonkers. you're running against human nature. it's crazy. charles: elizabeth, that gets to the main point here. the only reason insurance companies stayed in obamacare the fist couple years the taxpayers happy up for -- made up for losses. how can this truly work? >> exactly. i think we need to stop calling it health insurance. that's not how insurance works. you buy insurance because you don't want to have to use it. you don't buy insurance every time you get the flu or, you
know, a broken arm or anything. the whole system in itself has been so detached from the free market and what insurance actually means and what it should cover. so i think he's absolutely right, but the problem is it is a political problem. it's, hey, the one popular thing from obamacare because i think republicans, they won't lose at the ballot box if they get this republican house bill through because obamacare's not popular. it's not. people don't like the high deductibles, they don't like their premiums going up. but the one thing they did like was this pre-existing condition -- >> elizabeth -- charles: all right -- >> and donald trump saw that, and that's exactly why we're in this position, because his political gut is very, very smart on this. charles: in the meantime, major averages eking out slight gains today but keep in mind new record closes for the s&p and nasdaq. the dow is next. my market commentary, that's next. be right back. ♪ ♪ this lovely lady has a typical airline credit card. so she only earns double miles on purchases
she makes from that airline. what'd you earn double miles on, please? ugh. that's unfortunate. there's a better option. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day. not just airline purchases. seems like a no-brainer. what's in your wallet? try new flonase sensimistgies. instead of allergy pills. it delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances. most allergy pills only block one. new flonase sensimist. with sleep number, there's an adjustment for that. tilt your tormentor and put those snores to sleep. does your bed do that? only at a sleep number store find final clearance prices on the best beds for couples.
♪ fly me to the moon, let me play among the stars -- ♪ let -- charles: the technology moonshot keeps going and going, living up to these fanciful lyrics of the classic, "fly me to the moon." let's face it, it was all about the nasdaq composite, surging yet to another record high, carried by the usual suspects. and what they've done is they've actually created a virtuous cycle amongst these tech names, and it's created the perfect storm. the higher the rally, the more big money managers must own these names. institutional ownership significant.
google alphabet, 71%, amazon, 64%, apple, 63%. and more and more guys have to buy this stock, otherwise why weren't you in it? market winners today, they do, however, continue to mask anxiety in the market. i've got to tell you, today's session there were 40% more losers than winners on the nasdaq and on the new york stock exchange, and the volume was even more lopsided. is so this gets back to the notion of chasing winners which i get can be unnerving, but less so if the underlying fundamentals are rapidly improving too. and on that note earnings have come up huge against very high expectations coming into this round of releases. so far the s&p 500 first quarter earnings scoreboard, 83 companies have reported, 66 have beat on sell/revenues, 75% have beat on earnings. only 18% have missed on earnings. overall, earnings are up 13.5%, that is the best since the third quarter of 2011. the dow jones industrial average today eked out a small gain, it seesawed most of the session.
it's obvious the blue chip index is now something of a coiled spring. it's ready to leap, but it's looking for the right catalyst. by the way, for those that insist on bottom fishing, i've got one beaten-down name that i think looks really attractive from a risk/reward scenario, express scripts either can rebound or be taken over. manufacturing making a big comeback in the united states, but will economic trade and globalism hold us back? we're going to discuss that next. ♪ ♪ my name is pam. i'm 51 years old. when i was diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia, it was huge for everybody.
she just started to decline rapidly. i was rushed to the hospital... my symptoms were devastating. the doctor said, "pam! if you'd have waited two more days, you would've died." if i'd have known that a vaccine could have helped prevent this, i would have asked my doctor or pharmacist about it. buttrust angie's list to help., [ barks ] visit angieslist.com today.
and the first lady announcing that, because of his great leadership, we're going to invest this $2 billion. we're very enthusiastic about him. president trump is one of the huge reasons that we made the pledge. i think there's a great sense of anticipation and confidence since president trump was elected. charles: that was pratt industries' executive chairman anthony pratt praising president trump and discussing his company's plans to invest $2 billion toward expanding in the united states. well, he's not the only one who thinks the economy is taken off. bill gates told liz claman the same thing earlier today. watch. >> the u.s. economy is doing well, innovation in the u.s. is doing well. i think this is, you know, a period where the u.s. formula looks great. charles: you know, i've got to tell you, there's so much news in the first week of may last week, and lost in the mix of the spending bill and obamacare bills and jobs report was an announcement from a company called emphasis, an indian consulting and i.t. giant. they said they plan to hire
10,000 workers in america over the next two years so, clearly, it's a win for the trump administration, but perhaps with a caveat. you see, it's more intriguing because the company uses the h-1b system more than any employer in america, the program many see as a way of bringing in cheap, international labor. in fact, of the top 25 h-1b employers, big tech companies pay on average $112,000 versus only $76,000 for their indian counterparts. $250, seven employees their first account in america, 1983, came from data businesses. and as they say, the rest is history. so while we should celebrate any new job creation in america, i think it's interesting that a company that ushered in the key tool for globalism, outsourcing, would make such a strong commitment to the united states. now, the bottom line manufacturing is coming back, and we should continue to embrace it.
but what are the costs, and should we be concerned about, perhaps, trade wars and globalism? coming in now, john tamny and shelby holday. everyone jumping on the band wag began, two or three major players every week say we're going to bring jocks back to america -- jobs back to america. >> it makes sense. taxes are expected to come down, minimum wage probably isn't going up. so doing business here in the u.s. is more lucrative. i think this announcement points to the fact that there's a lot of fear out there about the trump administration's policies, cracking down on immigration but in a way that could be helpful to the tech community. because what these companies like infosys do are flood the h-1b vis a vis program with applications. it's a lottery system, and they get all their workers here in the u.s. and crowd out other very skilled workers for facebook, google, apple who want to pay people with very rare skills, and they can't get them in here. charles: right. >> so them coming to the u.s. is
kind of a win/win for everybody really. charles: john, i know some republicans introduced a bill that 300,000 would be the minimum paid for h-1b workers. overall though, anthony pratt was saying they doubled their commitment to this country for one reason only, and that's donald trump. >> well, yeah. it's great when investment comes here for the right reasons, hopefully this renewed interest in the united states is based on good economic policies. i would just point out that if president obama had job-owned a foreign -- jawboned a foreign company and said we'll only give you h-1b visas if you bring jobs here, i think republicans would have properly made noise about it. charles: you think it's unsavory of the president of the united states to use strong-arm tactics to create jobs in this country? >> yeah. i don't think the president should be doing that. i don't think presidents should be intervening in the natural workings of a marketplace. i don't think we'd like it under
a democrat, we shouldn't like it under a republican. in a broad sense, if he's seeking to reduce the regulatory and monetary barriers to production, thumbs up. charles: real quick, shelby. >> i will just add one thing. for a long time outsourcing companies have said they want to hire merges, and -- americans, and they've continued to employ a lot of indians, so there's skepticism. charles: and that's why president trump was elected, to get rid of that stuff. i do have breaking news, guys, that's why we have to cut this short. president trump tweeting about the hearing involving james clapper and salary yates. -- sally yates. there is no evidence of collusion with russia and trump. sally yates made the fake media extremely unhappy today. she said nothing but old news. the russia/trump collusion story is a total hoax. when will this taxpayer-funded charade end? coming up, as the war in afghanistan continues to drag on, our commander in chief
charles: breaking news -- breaking news, president trump just tweeting again. director clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media, already knows: there's no evidence of collusion with russia and trump. another tweet says sally yates9 made the fake media extremely unhappy today, she said nothing but old news. and then there's this, the russia/trump collusion story is a total hoax. when will this taxpayer-funded charade end?
and finally, biggest story today between clapper and yates is on surveillance. why doesn't the media report on this? hashtag fake news, exclamation point. here to discuss, carl higbie. there was over and over where clapper said there's no evidence that donald trump was in contact with the russians, even coming into the hearing senators like dianne feinstein saying the same exact thing, and yet you know that's not going to be the headlines. >> it's so difficult to know what to believe about this. we heard pretty much what you, i think, expected to hear today which is, as trump said, mostly what we already knew about this situation. but at the same time, james clapper is somebody who has sat there in front of congress before and literally lied to the faces of members of the u.s. senate. so it's difficult, honestly, to know what to believe from him. the sally yates situation, obviously, trump has his opinions there. this is something where the media has taken the story and run one direction with it. the truth is somewhere, i think,
in between what trump wants it to be and what you'll probably read in some of those headlines tomorrow. charles: no doubt something of a witch hunt, and it feels like when they start asking the questions, they sniff out what might -- first of all, there's things that can't be concluded during hearings but that maybe can be sensationalized. it all revolved around michael flynn and the timing and what the trump administration knew, why they didn't get rid of him sooner, those kinds of things. the reason they had this whole investigation in the first place was to prove or disprove whether or not russia was in contact with the trump administration, and it seemed like that answer is a resounding no. >> definitively no. to debt date, with the information -- to date, there is zero evidence that they colluded with the campaign, had any effect on the administration or the election in any capacity. guess what? it's not there. charge him or move on, but they're going to drag this out until the 2018 electionses and use that against republicans running.
charles: one of my favorite parts of the whole thing was, of course, sally yates having to explain why she ignored a direct order from the commander in chief, okay, with respect to implementing the travel moratorium. finally, senator john kennedy got so frustrated he asked, what appointed you to the supreme court? >> yeah. i think the whole exchange there, and to the point that was just made, this is all going to be politicized. this is all, the members of congress, sally yates and anybody who is now looking to spin this for headlines tomorrow or later tonight is looking ahead to the 2018 election and the 2020 election. this is all about either undermining the president right now or it's about setting people to run for re-election or swing democrats back into control of the senate in various races. the question about whether or not the trump administration, what they knew and when they knew about michael flynn and what they should have done, that honestly has kind of been sidelined because it is all -- it's the political witch hunt, and it's about setting up people to run for office which, unfortunately, is where everything eventually revolves
down to in washington. charles: that's the nature of the swamp, huh? karl, there's some scuttlebutt perhaps president trump mulling over the idea of adding more troops in afghanistan. a lot of people who supported president trump don't want to see us commit any more troops to this theater. some believe it's general mcmaster who's pushing this. >> nation-building. charles: right x. they would like to see him out of the administration. if we add another 3,000, this is how it starts. this is how the snowball becomes that boulder. >> do it or don't do it, but if you do it, you've got to do it right. president trump, when he was building buildings, he knew how many floors, how many people, how much it was going to cost, what the goal was. define that in this instance, then decide whether or not to do it. but until you define an end result, don't add a person. charles: not anyone. >> not until they define the result.
gentlemen, thank you both very much. thank you for watching every night and here is lou dobbs and he's the best, keep it here. >> good evening, two former obama officials testified in a senate hearing on the obama spying scandal and russian influence in the election. among the these, james clapper admitted in one instance unmasking of members of congress just one time. any political motive in the single unmasking.