tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business May 30, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
comedy. just act mr. de niro. stuart: brilliant actor. stick with that. >> some of the movies would fit that, tragic dumbass comedies. stuart: neil cavuto. neil: seems odd you would target a famous italian-american. stuart: did it just for you man, just for you. neil: okay, just checking. thank you, guys, very, very much. following up on a shake-up on the white house. this could be preview of coming attractions. not sort of a veteran of the trump campaign. came in right after the election. some would say, formally really after the inauguration. he is out there. now the queson is, is this just the kickoff to even bigger shake-up? blake burman with the latest from the white house. hey, blake. reporter: brought in here into the white house a few months ago to basically ease burden off of
sean spicer. spicer was both the press secretary and communications director. dubke was brought in to handle communications aspect. he has resigned from his post. he will stay on in the short term to ease with the transition as they try to identify a candidate for that post going forward. he is writing a already to his friends, reasons for resignation was, personal. all of this comes as white house is looking at two potential close aides to the president potentially bringing them into the fold here at the white house. names floated around, corey lewandoski. that of course was the president's first campaign manager. also david bossie, the deputy campaign manager down the homestretch for president trump. bossy was on "fox & friends" this morning and would not say he is specifically being targeted for this role to lead what is being labeled as a war room of sorts to deal with the negative russia headlines on a daily basis.
here is bossy from earlier today. >> i'm not going to say that there is something sitting on the table for me to pick. that would be a little -- i think that -- it is an on going conversation and i think that is a fairway, fairway to put it. reporter: neil, there have been several reports about this war room that might be established here at the white house to deal with russia. here is what i can tell you white house source familiar with the on going discussions described it as just that at this point, discussions. basically discussions trying to figure out how to get these russian headlines, this group would be able to deal with that aspect of it, the source telling me that a leader or potential leaders of that group has not yet been identified. neil. neil: thank you, blake burman. white house operations are also going on, don't miss that. this is full throttle affair to get agenda or take the offense back, the administration's goal. we have a white house reporter on what a shake-up could look
like if one comes to pass. what do you think, alex on that? >> i think it is real fluid as blake was saying. everyone i talked to they're working these out. i got off with someone who spoke with an aide at top level of the white house. his understanding that maybe white house wants to compartmentalize a lot of what the communications side is doing. so you have the typical press shop dealing with the typical things that a white house press office would deal with, those issues, the agenda, while at the same time have separate people dealing with crises, russia stuff. perhaps they're talking to corey lewandoski and david bossie coming in being crisis managers in a war room sort of thing but the people i talk to emphasize it is fluid and under discussion what sort of role they would maybe take on. neil: i always wonder when i hear names like that being advanced, ronald reagan went to someone like seasoned pro, howard baker in his latter years
in that capacity to right the ship. and it did work, someone universally respected on capitol hill, could work with both sides on capitol hill, whatever team trump decides or more to the point president trump, seems that would not be in the offing an individual like that, am i right? >> yeah. there is skepticism too from people i talk to bringing in lewandoski and bosscy. these are campaign guys. the communications director on his way out, he was a establishment republican sort of guy, reince priebus and sean spicer. lewandoski, bosscy, they are anti-establishment guys coming in. but they are very different than a might dubke. neil: i think the market will continue its ways here. there are three wild cards. north korea could be one. no advancement or concerns about the tax cuts getting done this
year, and last but certainly not least all this internal turmoil within the administration, sometimes i think is overdone but having said that, if this drags on, in other words, the esident focuses on individuals within tt team w hfeels are not getting the job done, whether they are or not, i mean the perception becomes the reality, and he can't escape it, right? >> yeah. i think that is probably what is going on here. keep in mind a lot of conversations about potential shake-up fueled by the president himself who in interviews complained about his communication strategy. blaming a lot of problems he is having on communications. saying perhaps he will change the way the briefings are done. not having a spokesman go out every day like a sean spicer, maybe he goes out there as president of the united states a little bit more often. kellyanne conway was asked about that sort of thing. maybe instead of a spokesperson, they will have cabinet officials or department heads talking about the issues of the day for the time-being, sean spicer is
scheduled to do a press briefing at 2:00, his first since the foreign trip this week. neil: right. >> as of now spicer is still going to the podium. neil: you know, you follow this more closely than i, alex, but a dumb question, would the president, whatever shake up might be coming, you're right something is come, the president has to listen to the people ultimately part of that? he has to confront, no more tweeting, at least run the tweets by lawyers, or people who know spell check. then do that, follow up on that? because when he does that, he does well. i mean his gut instincts generally are pretty good when he goes off extreme, railing or tweeting, it gets out, ronald reagan, depends listening to that person who is saying just that, is he capable of that. >> that's a great question. "the wall street journal" said there was talk having lawyers
vet the tweets. neil: yes. >> having somebody who he brings in, look what happened on the foreign tweet, you were too busy to tweet. you stayed on message. look at foreign trip for an example how it can be more often. neil: alex, very good seeing you >> sure. neil: you wouldn't know it but a lot was done on the foreign trip on president as first foray abroad. he got the 100 million-dollar saudi deal. he got nato members thinking about coughing up more, at least several are doing that. he might have publicly embarrassed and that might be politically incorrect and the end result they're digging into their pockets being shamed to do a little bit more. to erin he will more, former bush 41 campaign advisor mark serrano. mark, i'm taking a pro or con position, this trip has been ripped or questioned whether the president shoving his way to the
front of the line or being rude, taking a golf cart, not hanging out with the others seems to me much ado about nothing, but i think the substance of the trip was just fine. what do you think? >> i think the media demonstrated their biased, their political agenda in the coverage ever the trip, neil. look, he was hugely successful, particularly with the middle east -- neil: when you say hugely better than the president himself touche. excellent. >> thank you. for recognizing that. neil: start a high bar for erin. we'll get into that for a second. >> please hold her to that. the middle east portion was so successful, right? really the mainstream media downplayed the highlights and up played the lowlights. this supposed tiff with angela merkel with germany what they're playing off of. were you know what? there is political believe system angela merkel has with her open border policies i think devastated europe, that will disable her from ever being able to agree with donald trump.
so they will play that up tremendously. but look, he took it to nato, you folks owe the american people and taxpayer more. neil: all right. what do you make, erin, of the motion that stylelisticly he kind of rubbed some europeans, some of his fellow leaders the wrong way? does that matter? >> i think we saw peaks and valleys in president trump's presentation abroad. certainly he seemed strong in his speech in saudi arabia. once we saw him conversing with some g7 leaders we saw a little bit of rankling of allies egos, some contentious hand shakes, things like that. >> what was that about, especially with macron? i was going to show him a thing or two i guess squeezing his hand and breaking it. what was that supposed to mean and do? >> macron is looking to stand up to president trump, be something of an anti-trump voice in the eu. neil: that is fine but how is that point proven by shaking his hand like the rock. what is that all about?
>> i think all of it is noise. enduring question here is what kind of relationship president trump forges with our allies and our leaders of our states that we have more troublesome relationship with. i think a lot of highlights and lowlights we saw on the trip, whether handshake, small push to the side is just noise but the enduring question what kind of relationship will president trump forge. neil: what kind of relationship be, mark? which do know through democratic and republican predecessors and the like, same old, same old. we have expectations from leaders that attend the events. donald trump didn't fit that mold. maybe that is not such a bad thing to be the skunk at that picnic? what do you think? >> natural friction among allies which hasn't really existed for a long time because we have gone along to get along. donald trump -- neil: by t way i should stress we focus on our dierences behind closed doors. we make our treaties known behind closed doors and they ignore us. >> exactly. and they ignore us and we get
nothing out of it. look, the reality these european allies have relied upon america, the american taxpayer for decades to stand between them and devastation from the soviet union during the cold war and from the threat of russia, and that still stand today. the american military is the only thing that stands between them and the threat because they can't defend themselves on their own. he is saying to them, look, germany alone is paying a third of the defense that the united states is paying. he will hold them accountable openly, outwardly. if they get their feathers ruffled, if they clutch their pearls so what. that is donald trump. deal with it. neil: what did you make, that was one more of the iconic images i think, and i don't think in a bad way for the president in that some of those leaders were snicker, outright laughing when he was saying. i don't think aware they were caught on camera doing so as he was bemoaning they're not coughing up more at nato. but his message was clear.
i mean, i keep telling you guys, three of my predecessors told you guys this has got to stop, you don't stop it. you know what, i will do it at this event. what do you think of the tack he took there. >> president trump absolutely held european leaders to the fire, i can see american taxpayers cheering that statement. the question, with i approval rating hovering 40%, is president trump looking to appeal his base and broaden his coalition and broaden his support at home? the real question whether this trip is success or failure or anything in between was value of diplomacy. was president trump's job to talk to leaders and build relationships and get them on the side of america, get them to negotiate for american interests abroad, or was it to stand up for america first as he said in his campaign speech? or was there room for both? >> but those are not mutually exclusive. >> right. >> those are not mutually exclusive concepts. the reality europe has to get their act together. they need to donald trump's lead
and get out of the way because he will demonstrate entirely different approach to the world order, to the middle east where he demonstrated he can cut deals to get the middle east to finally fight this fight against terrorism. now he will do the same thing with europe. diplomacy not what donald trump is about, he is about cutting good deals for the american taxpayer. >> right but at the same time alliances are not something we forge for the allies stakes, the u.s. has a stake in it as well. the month after 9/11, america took advantage of intelligence service. >> they take advantage of us and not investing in their own defense. >> that is the line president trump needs to walk negotiating for president's america's economic and political interest. >> he is running through both. neil: would we expect any differently from the president? all of sudden if he would suddenly going to be a calm,
staid diplomatic figure would that be anymore enticing? really what you expect. meanwhile president trump is calling on the senate to change a lot of those rules. how about everything and anything, 5votes, no supermajority, ne of that. in other words the senate really no different than the house, after this.
neil: look at amazon, right now, briefly going up $1000 a share for the first time in its history. a lot of people think amazon itself is ripe for a stock split here. the last time it did so was way back in 1999. it has split three times since going public but 1999 was the last time. it more tries to emulate warren buffett berkshire hathaway model and not split but that could change. jeff bezos hasn't indicated he is open to anything and everything, not telegraphing what he is going to do but that, he might do it. won't make. of a difference for investors in terms of whether they get more or less. seems like they get more if they split but we'll see. alphabet getting a lot of attention and tesla, netflix, mcdonald's. a lot of people downloading that
puppy, "house of cards," a lot of times all episodes at once. if you see people skipping work you know exactly what they're doing. meanwhile president trump is calling on the senate right now to make 51 votes the thing for everything, from health care to the tax cuts to prettyuch anything and everything. s&p global president ceo doug peterson testified on the hill pushing tax reform. let's go to this issue, doug, if we can, thanks for coming. >> thanks, neil. neil: what do you make of that? then i wouldn't see any distinction with the senate over the house because obviously this is supposed to be the more ernest, deliberative body and, it might just be the house with 100 representatives than 435? what do you make of that? >> well anything for being able to get tax reform underway would be valuable. obviously this is a theme that goes much broader than tax reform. maybe a way the president thinks about breaking logjam of being able to get more of his agenda
underway. neil: do you think though that -- i thought the way things stood, the way they were structuring this deal, is that it would be a simple majority. the tax deal i should say. was it not or what? >> the way i understood it was being arranged they could handle the tax bill through reconciliation which doesn't necessarily require the full 60 votes. neil: in other words, if they had their druthers, the president certainly had his druthers, it wouldn't be a matter of reconciliation? >> it would be outright vote from what i understand. neil: what do you think of that? >> i think right now, let me give you a couple of interesting statistics. in the recent business roundtable survey 71% of the ceos said that tax reform would be the way that you could see the fastest path to growth in the united states. after that, you had infrastructure investment and regulatory reform. but the business community i looking attacks reform as one of the most important tools to invest in innovation and growth
in the united states which also creates jobs. having an agenda which is successful from washington is also important to create confidence in the economy. so when it comes to changing the rules i'm not an expert, i'm not a constitutional expert. i don't want to necessarily give you an opinion about 60 votes versus 51 votes but getting an agenda that is going to build confidence in the economy, that will find ways to create jobs, all of that would be very positive. neil: you know, doug, a lot of things apparent apparently having trouble with, paying for the tax cuts and finding offsets for them. anytime you seek an offset, a way to pay for them, even though not all of them, it limits the bang for the tax-cutting buck, doesn't it? >> well, one of the things you have to look at obviously ace long-run view. if you look at whether or not the tax reform would impact over one year, three years, ten years, there are ways that you should look at the impact of the tax cut to see what kind of growth it will create, what are
some of the ways we could eliminate certain subsidies. i call them subsidies. a lot of times deductions are a a -- our tax code is complicated. it has couple hundred thousand of pages and thousands of pages of interpretation. in addition to lowering the rate and coming up with a territorial system which is what i've been talking which would make us much more competitive on global basis, having simplified tax reform would be valuable. you could pay for tax reform by simpficationnd elimination of subsidies. neil: real quickly if it i't big, in other words, not a substantial tax cut, if they have to cling to offsets and it isn't so simple, wouldn't that limit its impact? wouldn't it be said, obviously for many people a tax cut is better than no tax cut but a small or pale one could be just as bad as far as goosing this economy?
>> i think any tax cut is going to be seen as favorable. a larger tax cut with some sort of a territoriality system and simplification would be far superior. a couple of examples. we know that in the united kingdom they're lowering their tax rate from 1917 by 2019. canada lowered theirs to 26. ireland is 12 1/2. we have the highest tax rate of any major oecd country in the world at 35% and 39 if you take into account state taxes. neil: but not everyone pays that, right? >> not everyone pays that. as an example in our case we pay between 30 and 32%. with he book most revenue from the united states. even a lot of our offshore sales we book offshore. we also pay taxes in the u.s. for those. and you have a lot of companies obviously that are not. that is one of the reasons we have $2.5 trillion more than
that earnings being held offshore not repatriated that creates a disadvantage for economy that much cashing and capital sitting offshore, not being brought back, in the way the incentives work you rather keep the cash offshore, you invest it offshore instead of bringing it ck to inst in the u.s. there is a lot of different ways this tax reform could be beneficial to the economy. it is complicated. neil: yeah. >> it is hard. but we would love to see it get done. neil: all right. doug peterson, s&p global president and ceo. very good to see you. >> thanks, neil. neil: in illinois they're having a heck of a problem with taxes and spending and so much so they can't get a budget together. it is causing major kerfuffle there. jeff flock in springfield with the very latest. hey, jeff. reporter: right in the midst of it right here, this is a march on springfield which is the illinois state capital has been taking place over the course of past two weeks, 200 miles march. many of these folks you have seen done it, just getting you
know way right now. we followed these marchers, a lot of them, got pictures along the way, the problem is no budget. the state has been without a budget believe it or not for 700 days. that is one year, 10 months and 30 days. part of the problem is the state is in such huge financial difficulty, we are almost you now, $1,389,000,000,000 -- $139 billion. how much east household would have to pay to get out of the pension debt, well, 2002, looking at numbers here, it was about $7,000? now it is about $27,000. that is what happens when you don't do anything about it. i'll tell you this, neil, this is not just progressive, left-wing folks that are here. i met a guy, looking for him, al clinger, 91 years old. u.s. military veteran. weren't to medical school on the g.i. bl. wounded in germ i in.
he is marching too. i mean this is, outrage on the part of people against both political parties, both the republicans and often been governor of this state and democrats often controlled the state legislature. they're about now to head from the old state capitol on to the new state capitol, the capitol building. they say, i don't want to harken what happened in the texas over the weekend, over the holiday but i do want to sayings, they are planning to occupy the capitol. the legislature is still in session. they would like to see them do something finally. that is the latest from springfield. neil: jeff, if you can hear me, weren't they toying with idea of another millionaires tax or rich tax? that was shot down i think by both sides, but can you update me on that? reporter: yeah, you're absolutely right. this crowd, if we had to characterize them, i would say vast majority say the tax system in illinois is not fair. they want to do lasalle street
tax, which is on the commodity exchange taxes, the exchange trades you know, the exchange says you do that, we just may move out of the state. this is, this is the debate. this is in the street debate, how much do you tax people to try to bring in revenue? how much do you try to reduce taxes to kind of spur economic growth? these folks said, you know, what we've been doing is not working. we've had budget deficits for years now in illinois. we need to do something different. maybe just need to tax the wealthy now. they're very frustrated as i saidt th political parties right now. neil: seems that way. jeff, thank you very much, my friend. jeff flock in springfield, illinois, the land of lincoln. meantime let's say you leak stuff and borderline treasonnist stuff? let's say, you not only lose, you go to jail. then for a long time. they're considering it, after
♪ >> whoa. bryce harper wants a piece of hunter strickland. here they go! strickland land as punch. harper lands a punch. benches empty. neil: you've seen the video once or two twice. now we know the rest of the story. had nothing to do with pitcher beaning someone of the has everything to do with that pitcher discovering they don't have fbn. [laughter] shameless. i know, i know. we have another half to go and another hour later today.
president trump is on the hunt right now to find leakers of intel. that is lot easier said than done. fox news correspondent and top former defense attorne gregg jarrett what it would take to stop all of this. i always love talking gregg own this because he can answer my dumb questions. first of all i guess it depends on the leak, right? >> yeah. neil: john kelly saying some of these border on treasonnist. >> oh, yeah. neil: that was, that's severe but how is it handled? >> some leaks are more illegal than other leaks, believe it or not. if it is top secret or classified, then you're talking about serious punishment upon conviction. if it is military matters and national security, that's a different federal statute but also a crime. even non-classified government leaks can be a crime, although generally it is administrative, civil penalty, you lose your job, so on, so forth.
right now it is such a torrent of leakses bedeviling the trump administration. neil: certainly more than we've seen. >> i have never, i've been doing this for 30 years. i have never seen it like this before. neil: why can't they do a lie-detector test or something like that. >> they can and often fumes they do. because of electronic communications -- neil: how reliable they are considered in the court of law. say you're thrown out because a lie he detector test you've been lying? >> circumstantial evidence. a lie detector can not be used in a court of you law but other electronic communications can be so -- neil: would the president be free to fire you even though it might be considered circumstantial based on -- >> sure. the president can fire anybody in the executive branch for a reason or no reason at all. witness james comey. he is entitled to do that. in fact he has the constitutial authority believe it or not to tell comey to stop an investigation. you know past presidents have done that dating all the way
back to thomas jefferson. jfk, lbj also did the same thing. neil: so we do have precedent for leakers and how to deal with them and all but we also have, when the national security is at risk. with the pentagon papers you and i were remembering. the courts ultimately ruled in the favor of "washington post," "new york times" releasing this stuff. what was their argument at the time? >> well, that was a prior restraint case and the court issued a test. if the government interests outweighs the public interest in receiving the information, then that's a crime. for example, if you disclose troop movements at time of war, it is hard to justify the public's interest in that. you're jeopardizing human lives. so that's a clear-cut case in which it's a crime. but it is a balancing test. look, the courts have been rather mixed on this. neil: with the environment, vietnam war was very unpopular. the pentagon papers revealing a
level of deceit, confirmed our worst suspicions. >> right. neil: in this case, gregg, how far do you go? let's say you were able to round up those giving secrets what do you do to them? >> you prosecute them to the full extent of the law because some of this information as it relates to you know, the counterintelligence probe by the fbi, all of that is classified information. for example, the worst of it is the leak of michael flynn's name and the information contained in his communication with sergey kislyak, the russian ambasdor. that is incidental collection. that is classified information. >> what if a lot of people are doing it? >> prosecute a lot of people. we have empty jail cells. let's prosecute that. neil: yeah. >> look the leakers don't necessarily have a first amendment protection. you know the courts have generally said, sorry. neil: they don't call themselves leakers. a lot of time people see this as watching another news channel
leaning slightly left, these guys are whistle-blowers, that is what they are. >> we have a whistle-blower statute that lays out the way you give information. >> you don't have whistle-blower protection leaking to the media. you must give it to congress or administrative agency. neil: you don't round up a lot of people f the past is any prologue, we don't. here we have the potential too because a lot of people are doing it t might have been happening before the campaign, during the campaign, after the campaign, right through the early months of this presidency. then what? >> well and it is especially tricky since some of the information took place before donald trump was sworn into office. so he is technically not a government employee. so it depends on the nature and who is doing the leaking and so forth but you're right.
look at the valerie plame affair are and patrick fitzgerald who is doing the investigation? there was only one prosecution, scooter libby. yet there were dozens and dozens of leaks. neil: big riff between vice president cheney, the guy wasn't exonerated. >> hard to find leakers. it really is. neil: do you, let's say you do, gregg. do you think the embarassments of publicity, one, two, several, getting cited would stop it? >> yeah. you would think so. it has a chilling effect on the leakers. if they get away with it for so long, they figure there are no consequences. there has to be legal consequences to stop these leaks. it is classified information. it's a crime. neil: well-put. gregg jarrett, thank you very, very much. microsoft, we're keeping an eye on that, one of the tech heavyweights. we focus on big, big names. i mean big as expensive like amazon and alphabet. microsoft in and out of a
all-time high, over $70 a share. amazon briefly gone over $1000 a share at 993. the last time this thing split itself was back in 1998 t has only done so three times. jeff bezos said he never saw a need to do that. it's a badge of honor, macho thing among executives never to split their stock to see how high it will goll a la warren buffett. it is going high, very, very high. we'll have more after this. 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.
♪ neil: all right, the north koreans are not too happy with news that we are working on a shoot-down of a missile a test to see if we're able to do this on a more consistent, regular basis. they already called such an act provocative one to say nothing weekly launches seems of late of missiles of their own, the latest landing in the seas off
japan. to lieutenant colonel tony shaffer on exactly who is provoking whom. tony, what do you make of that? that they're outraged about this, which would be like being outraged you not he eating a sa? i wouldn't think i would go there but nevertheless they are going there. what do you think of that? >> your analogy is correct. they're upset about the idea we can stop them. that is frankly the issue. no one to this point in time besides president trump said enough is enough. neil: can we stop them? i know our history of shooting down is not exactly 100% but at least we have that ability? >> there is three things that we should address. the thad system that has been deployed on the ground, that will catch a system in boost phase. if we are seeing a missile going somewhere that will hit something we'll take action. we'll not shoot down anything
but certain things we will. the aegis system, the system on aegis cruisers, with certain software that can hit the stuff in boost phase getting ready into orbit. based on what i'm aware of, based on people that worked in the programs, i think there is a good deal of confidence we could do something if we really want to. there is a area we don't have capability, regarding orbital counter missile. something called brilliant pebbles developed back under "star wars" in president reagan but never fielded because of president burke 41 and president obama did not choose to go, 43, and all the bushes said no. so did president obama but the idea here is, neil, we want now, we think we should go forward with a global orbit tall-based system to be able to down the things in mid-flight. we don't have that. depends what we think we need to hit them, how capable we are stopping them. i know that is a complex answer. neil: i know what you're saying.
i would think your reaction that would be a provocation when they ignore the fact that their constant tests are provocation. >> right. neil: having said that, what do you think the reaction would be? forget about an orbital system, say we find a way do do it from ships on land or whatever, successfully shoot down their next missile over the south china sea? how will they view that? how more to the point will china view that? >> that is countering a provocation. like you said they're poking their fink in our chest, how long do you expect to be poked before you break the finger off. that is at t iue. inese will react what they do. chiding us for d it but they will understand the necessity saying enough is enough. frankly neil, they said recently they want to denuclearize the korean peninsula which ace good move. they more than anyone else, the chinese more than anyone else, you're an economy guy, you're a
business guy, the chinese will take a bath more anyone anyone else if anything goes wrong in the region. they will be motivated to understand what we have to do. president trump needs to maintain the course, breaking failed paradigm of clinton, bush, everything else we've done in the meantime of actually not doing what we said we needed to do to stop their aggression. so will come a time we probably down one of these because it may hit something. yet again the north koreans know if there are certain targets we fire at, we'll know pretty early in the trajectory we take the risk. i think we should do it and i think the chinese understand why we're doing it. neil: you hope. all bets are off in their scenario. >> right. neil: colonel, always good seeing. >> you thank you, neil. neil: by now you know he tiger woods is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. now a lot of folks are wondering whether that will have any influence or millions of dollars worth of endorsement deals? can he kiss them good-bye? after this.
we asked a group of young people when they thought they should start saving for retirement. then we asked some older people when they actually did start saving. this gap between when we should start saving and when we actually do is one of the reasons why too many of us aren't prepared for retirement. just start as early as you can. it's going to pay off in the future. if we all start saving a little more today, we'll all be better prepared tomorrow. prudential. bring your challenges.
opening and pirates, gave him a lot and get out of financial. guardians of galaxy, "baywatch" didn't do that. "alien" a little disappointing. not all panning out for these guys. it did for johnny depp who need ad break. people that overanalyze movies. it's a fun flick, everyone calm down. that does not apply to the tiger woods report that he was asleep in his car at the time of the arrest. witnesses say prescription drugs, no alcohol. sports agent doug eldridge whether this time a lot of those lucrative endorsements deals of his go away. what do you think, doug? >> it's a bit of duck theory we call. above the water the duck is moving calmly across the surface but beneath the surface the legs are churning fervently.
that is dichotomy of the press statement and what his team is doing behind the scenes for many hours now. neil: what i wonder, how much hits a career can take? he's absorbed worse in the past but a lot of people people are thinking all that stuff is in the past. does it change when people say oops maybe not? it's a great qution and here's why. we say bad decisions don't make bapeople. it is have you been versal truth. problem with high-profile people, politicians athletes, every time you have successive events it becomes like compounding interest. meaning the same successive incident doesn't have value as first but increases at increasing rate. as we look at the end of the runway for tiger woods' career, the looming question does he have enough runway to get the nose up on ultimately the final chapters of his career? neil: i think winning changes everything. when you're doing very well it become as moot point.
he is getting up there, not so much in golfer years. you can still have a very good career in golf well into your '40s but he is not a kid anymore. does he have that to fall back, he still has troubles or back spasm that kept him playing on and off for some years, then what? >> well you hit on a great point there, neil, it was al davis famously coined, just win, baby. winning curse almost everything, almost. the key there is winning. i think what you really pointed to, number one, age aside, does he have the health, does he have the literal and figurative endurance to remain on the course? he has had four successive major surgeries, each seeming more impactful than the last not least of wish a fusion. one of our olympic athletes had the procedure around it was ultimately career-ending. i hope that is not the case for tiger.
i hope he gets on the course but more importantly get on the tevision sets. the thing that set tiger apart heighof his career, that created aft glow, what happened in 2009 would have sunk many athletes but didn't tiger was cultural impact. so many ways what we're seeing with elite top level blue chip athletes. they transcend boundaries of the sports page and become pop culture story-telling points. kitchen table always will be hole of every family where moral life lessons are taught. more than often parents point to prominent athletes both positive and negatively to teach kids about life paraables. tiger was such a positive influence and positive role model he became one of the very few things, a one-word celebrity. we simply referred to him as tiger. revolutionized golf and more importantly he was trojan horse to take values of virtues of hard work to take to a generation of the entire country. if no other reason i hope tiger
takes back to the course to retake some of that stock. neil: there are young people owing to our times that have never heard of him. that is interesting too. >> it is interesting when you look at impact he had on the game. this is so many ways almost paradoxical. on one level he opened door for jordan spieths, ricky fowlers, jason days to take huge endorsement contracts. that was all built on back of tiger woods. the dichotomy and paradoxical effect is on the other hand. when we see tiger step away from the course, going back to 2008 the last major win and incident with elan in 2009, we've seen precipitous drop in television numbers and clubs across the country and youth involvement. that is ultimately where it will be judged. neil: thank you very much, buddy. more after this.
new business friendly environment. lower taxes. and new universi partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov ♪ ♪ neil: all right, we're less than an hour away from a white house briefing. we haven't had one since before the president's trip to the middle east and to europe, and all of this occurs on the same day that we've learned the president's communication chief is leaving the administration with hints of further shake-ups to come. whether that will affect the role of sean spicer, whether he'll do these on a regular bay bay -- he is doing the one today. hey, how much longer do you think you'll be doing this job? anyway, that's the kind of stuff you get at these, and it's been a couple of weeks, so you know
they're going to be thirsting for blood. meanwhile, growing outrage over this kushner back channel thing, but it's happened again and again in administrations including the obama administration, the kennedy administration, richard nixon, back channels will have been alt the rule of thumb. daily caller reporter or carrie picket who says the hypocrisy here is a little bit astonishing. carrie, very good to have you. i didn't know the degree to which until i was reminded, particularly with kennedy and using his brother as an intermediary to reach out to the soviets before his inauguration. but again and again, we've had these roles. what is the differentiator here, if any? >> well, right now the democrats are still trying to give justification as to why hillary clinton lost; hence, why we're seeing these multiple investigations up on cap until
hill -- capitol 4eu8 and while why we're likely seeing the special counsel even though it was appointed by the justice department. still, as far as what we saw with the obama administration, there are plenty of back channels that were going on even before barack obama came to office. this was there robert malley who was an informal add advise -- can adviser to barack obama during the campaign. even though he ended up meeting with hamas members during the campaign and he had to sort of step down from that role as a result of that news, the obama administration brought him back on in 2015, gave him a major role at the national security council. and by the way, he's still there. bill miller, he was a retired ambassador. he ended up doing a back channel to iran, and, you know, that was during the campaign as well. so this is one of those things where the standards that were set during the obama administration are just not applying to what's happening during the trump administration, and we saw that even during the whole issue of, oh, well, heaven
forbid trump gives classified information to the russians. but, you know, when obama did it, oh, you know, he didn't deliberately. and i asked adamship about that, and hi said what about biden when he ended up revealing about seal team six. and he said, oh, well, you know, we should be talking about the present, not about the past. neil: talking about the ranking member of the house intelligence committee. one of the things i don't understand is some of the differentiors u hear about jared kushner is that, if these reports are are true since they never quote anyone and you just accept it at face value but it's all we have to go on, he then wanted to work through the russians and a russian back channel even at russian offices to do so. does that change the complexion of this debate? that it's almost as if the russians would have control of that channel. you could argue that the russians then would be exposing
themselves as well as us, but what do you make of that aspect of this? >> well, i believe one of your reporters just came out with some interesting news that it wasn't jared kushner who asked for a back channel but, in fact, the russians who asked about that. so right now this is more of an issue about trying to find out what the actual facts are of this case before anybody jumps to conclusions about who wanted to set up back channels. and as far as looking to set up relationships before any administration comes to office, you know, once again this is something that's been going on for a number of administrations and, frankly, to make it seem like this is some sort of shady situation that's been going on and that's unprecedented is just a little bit disingenuous. neil: yeah, i was thinking of the richard nixon angle and doing all these clandestine
meetings regarding vietnam and what have you that to the point where the secretary of state was saying what gives, but the president was free to do that, and that was interpreted as pitting staff members against themselves. t was reay working this ba channel thing. are back channelthemsees -- i'm showing my ignorance here, but are back channels themselves illegal? >> it doesn't appear to be illegal. i mean, let's even take some recent news that we've seen at a wikileaks e-mail that showed that barack obama wanted to have madeleine albright and a former democratic congressman go to the g20 summit in mid november after the election. and also talk to some foreign dignitaries. i mean, if donald trump was very open about doing that, people would have been up in arms. but apparently, that is
something that has just come out recently today. so let's talk about, you know, who's setting the bar here. apparently, everyone is saying everything is so unprecedented. not exactly. neil: very well put. kelly, thank you very much. i want to go right to ambassador john bolton on this, our former u.n. ambassador. so much to talk about, but this first off, john. what do you make of the dust-up here? from what you've heard -- and, again, these are all sourceless, nameless individuals being quoted here about this jared kushner role talking to the russians, but given the precedent involved where other presidents have done the same, very different examples i understand, but what's your knee-jerk reaction here? >> well, i honestly don't see anything of substance here at all. i think people have gotten now in the past week used to using the word "back channel" like it's a real kind of official term. next they'll start tking about trade crafanthings like that. look, it's a word that covers a
multitude of sins. you were just talking about henry kissinger cutting out the state department. that's not a back channel, that's a bureaucratic turf fight. i think it's entirely plausible that the russians and the person of sergey kislyak, their ambassador in washington, first raised this possibility. the russians have had excellent ways of direct communication with the white house in the past, and they have all been mistakes from the american point of view, in my opinion. if you go back to the kennedy example where the president's brother, robert f. kennedy, during the cuban missile crisis was talking to -- neil: [inaudible] >> -- some munchkin at the embassy, if you were kgb and you wanted an insight into jack kennedy's mind, other than sitting in the oval office himself, talking to his brother was a gift from god. if you want a back channel, the back channel ought to be a munchkin in the u.s. embassy in
moscow talking to nikita khrushchev's brother or son, something like that. neil: well, in that case it was a back channel to avoid a war, but you're quite right. go ahead. >> actually, there was a secretary of state who could have done that too. but my point is the russians were gathering incredibly sensitive intelligence watching robert kennedy's face. i wish we were getting the same in moscow. so i think mike flynn, if he was in the room when kislyak suggested that, should have said, no, right there. now, on this business was jared kushner or anybody in the transition wrong to be talking to the russians? absolutely not. or the british or the french or the chinese or the x or the y or the z. that's what transitions do. they're trying to get ready to take office and be up to speed. every embassy in washington during that transition period is getting cables from their foreign ministries at home saying what's the new administration going to do -- neil: right. >> it's perfectly natural.
people in washington need to get a life about this. neil: let me ask you a little bit about the president wrapped up his foreign trip, and the french president, cron, is taking a bow for that infamous handshake in which he bragged about why he held on tight and to make a statement, he said. now, i'm thinking to myself he's 39, the president's 70, he is bragging about making a statement, squeezing a 70-year-old's hand. i had to just move on and think, all right, what was he saying? that he wouldn't take bluster from the president? what'd you think of that? >> right. well, he said publicly it was to show no compromise with trump. and then later it was reported that in the kind of public gatherings where they're all standing around waiting to have their picture taken, he spoke only french to trump. but he spoke english to theresa may of great britain. that's another way of -- neil: what does that prove? what does that prove?
i mean, do you base your views of how you'll take on someone diplomatically based on their handshake? >> i think the question that both these things raises, who is the child in those encounters? who is the child? neil: exactly. >> and it's not donald trump, that's for sure. neil: all right. but yet we've seen antics like this, the snickering while he was talking about nato members paying up. i understand, i think you and i have chatted about in that at least three of his predecessors of different parties have tried to get nato members to cough up a little more, but they're done so behind the scenes hoping that that was the way to go, and i guess these members ignored us. so the president opted to use a public venue like this to do it. what did you think of it that? >> i think it was entirely appropriate. i've been part of several administrations' efforts to get the allies to do more of their fair share. it was done very successfully in the george h.w. bush administration to pay for the
first persian gulf war. it was called the tin cup exercise. and we basically came out of it on net exactly even. there was nothing covert about it. it was well known we were doing it. and i think trump has looked at the failures that you just mentioned and said, well, doing it behind the scenes hasn't worked. these people need to live up to their own commitment and relieve the american taxpayer of implicitly subsidizing, let's say, the german welfare system. and if the allies don't like it, if they don't have barack obama, you know, life is hard. in america, we call it democracy. neil: yeah. for the life of me, the handshake thing, i cannot imagine basing policy on a handshake, but -- >> childish. absolutely childish. neil: all right. blew me away when i heard it. ambassador, thank you very, very much. >> ah story. neil: all right. would it change your views based on the handshake? >> no.
i think isis can do terrible things, and i worry a lot about what is happening with the muslim faith. and i worry about a whole lot of things about it. but it's the russians who are trying, who tried to destroy the very fundamental of democracy, and that is to change the outcome of an american election. neal neil all right. so john mccain saying forget about isis, putin is a far bigger threat. a former u.n. military analyst disagrees. bill, you don't think that's the case. >> no, absolutely not. i do not think this is the case at all. i actually have no idea what john mccain is talking about. one of the first things that i can say is that russia is a rational actor and isis is not. it's in completely different, it's a completely different ball game. neil: all right. and you could argue that, you know, both the russians and ourselves, we're going after isis, albeit different ways, but we have a shared interest there in eradicating them. but what do you make of the fact
that john mccain doesn't let go of this, he's a frequent critic of the president. many people could look back to the campaign and criticisms donald trump had of the senator when he was a prisoner of war, etc. but this bad blood is not getting any nicer, is it? >> no, it's not getting any nicer. but -- and, listen, i have great respect for john mccain, obviously, as a former service member. but the fact of the matter is that talking about the disruption of our democracy, there's no comparison. russia may be trying to influence our elections, certainly the united states has been known to influence elections. that is how the game is played. i think he is aware of that. when we're talking about isis, we're talking about an existential threat. isis could -- isis tries every day to set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities and is constantly looking for ways to attack us in our democracy. i think there's no, there's no question that isis is more of a threat. neil: but, you know, a lot of
people could look at the russians' role in so many elections including tampering in the recent french election for which he got a sort of mouthing off from president macron. i don't believe it was a handshake issue there. excuse me. one of the things i did notice is they keep doing this. what do we do? >> you know, listen, we have to step up our game. our intelligence community, i think, has been politicized. i don't think we are as effective as we have been in the past. and i think we need to step up our game. listen, this is how it's played, and we need to step up. neil: let's say the russians keep doing what they're doing, and they're kind of having the best of both worlds because whether hillary clinton got elected or donald trump, both would be behind the 8 ball in a sense, right? and that by that definition, the russians would appear to have the pr upper hand, wouldn't they? >> yeah. listen, again, we have to, we have to up our game, we have to go after them and, listen, this
is an ideological battle. and i think that the united states should step out and say, listen, we are defenders of freedom, we are defenders of the free market, of capitalism. donald trump is, in my opinion, an icon of capitalism. i have no idea why russia would want to put him out front. listen, i think it's, i think there's a lot ado about nothing there, and i think john mccain is very much wrong. neil: all right. next time tell me how you really feel. i really couldn't tell. thank you, my friend. good seeing you. >> absolutely. good seeing you. neil: the white house is hunting for leakers, and you just herald herald -- heard gregg jarrett in the last hour, there are lots of charges of treason which could a land you in the shower. to former congressman nan hay worth and dennis kucinich on these attempts to undermine the president. ere e many who are looking at this and saying, all right, this is nothing new.
what is new, and maybe you studied this better than i, is how many times it happens and the frequency and the number. how do we get to the bottom of that? >> well, first of all, we need to get to the bottom of it. what we have here, and this is with apologies to lincoln at gettysburg, is government of the leakers, by the leakers and for the leakers. it's a secret agenda that's being driven to destabilize a presidency, perhaps to even knock out a president. but this is bad for the country. and it also raises questions about journalistic standards as well. the continued use of these secret sources, anonymous sources to bring out these huge stories about what's going on inside of our government is really, you know, requires journalists to come forward and say, hey, here's a name and a face to that story. neil: you know, nan hayworth, one of the things i've seen here -- and both parties play this game -- leaks were a very
big issue during the campaign. not so much now. republicans, the leaks weren't a big deal during the campaign, very much so now. so i know how this can be played by both sides. but we do have a serious problem here if you have the appearance of a sort of a rogue intelligence system that is almost like a shadow government doing stuff. how do you police that, punish that? >> right. well, neil, i think, you know, they have anker irresistible zel because i think these folks in the media and also so many holdovers, unfortunately, from the prevus administration feel somehow, i think, they are reliving, like, 1931, 1932 in germany. they see the president as that kind of existential threat. they are not going to stop. neil: yeah. they also don't see themselves as leakers -- >> right. neil: i was watching another news channel -- i have to do my homework -- and they were calling the, you know, as if they're trying to get after something that is bad. >> right.
neil: in a role that they're releasing as a constitutional duty. finish. >> right. neil: and that's what this is about. >> and it's toxic and it's wrong. they're wrong about the president, they're wrong about his mission. but it's incumbent on the white house, it's incumbent on the president, number one, to lean on all his cabinet members and department heads to find these leak arers or to hold -- leakers or to hold those in supervisely -- neil: what about a lie detector test? >> well, i think any means, and i know you were just talking about that with gregg jarrett. i don't think that's unreasonable. whatever means they need to do. they'll know it's effective when they stop the leaks. but the other half of it is this administration really has to kick up the effort to staff the executive branch. they are behind on staffing, and they need to concentrate on that. neil: well, good luck with that. no, you're right, but, you know, dennis, one of the things i've seen is if they -- the leakers see themselves as doing something honorable a because they don't like this guy, they interpret themselves as
whistleblowers. to the point i raised with the congresswoman, and maybe you saw this in congress, some people felt compelled to relay information much as we had at the time of the pentagon papers of the defense department foisting lies of the progress back then of the vietnam war, that they have an obligation to report some of the incidents that disturb them. do you agree with that? >> if you put your name and face with it. daniel else burg came forward. -- els berg came forward. neil: well, he didn't come forward -- >> but eventually, we had a name and a face. and you look at snowden, at chelsea manning, at julian assange. they were all charged with criminal conduct or being -- criminal conduct's imputed to them, and if that's true, what about the people who are trying to do this anonymously to try to bring down a government? i think there has to be accountability, and if you're a
real patriot, you'll step forward with your name, your face and say we have to do something about this and stop it. that's what assange has done, that's what snowden did, that's what manning ended up doing. so, look, what about these other people? you can't call them patriots if they're in hiding and they're throwing rocks from cover. neil: does the media have any responsibility, congresswoman? you keep quoting the same people who you know might have an agenda here, are you responsible? we learned in the pentagon papers' case with "the new york times" and washington post, no, they were not. they were just parroting or copying that information and giving it to the people. >> well, look or, when the media participate in expanding on and promoting these stories, they are participating in acts of sabotage against our national interests because these leakers are doing -- as you so aptly discussed with gregg jarrett -- these leakers are doing things that are against our national interests, that are crimes. so the media are lending
themselves willingly, those who participate in this, as, in essence, accessories to crimes. we need to follow our national interest. we need an administration that works and that can do its work in the way it always has. if it's going to be effective, it can't -- we can't have an administration full of people who feel their job is to bring down the president. that is an act of sabotage, and it's not acceptable, and the media should not promote it. neil: congressman, you wanted to say something? >> yeah. nan makes a good point, and think about this. while we all support the first amendment, here we are, there's also been supreme court cases -- notably a 1996 case, shepard v. max well, that put some limits on what could be said that would place somebody under suspicion or even imply guilt in the media without any attempt that people could have to defend themselves. so, you know, people have their constitutional rights to be free of suspicion without due process
of law, and that's going by the boards. people are convicted in the media and particularly in the case of kushner here. neil: guys, i want to thank you both. you argue your points very eloquently. i appreciate that. in the meantime, we're going to have a white house briefing. haven't had one in a while. now we're going to have one on the same day the communications director has said he's leaving and more could follow. after this. ♪ ♪ . . think again.
♪ neil: all right, about half an hour away from the first white house briefing we've had in couple weeks. sean spicer doing honors as his boss, communications director stepped down today at the white house, indications that there could be a bit of a house cleaning in the trump white house led by the president's directives himself. we don't know if that is for sure but we do know that likely will come up as one of the many questions thrown at mr. spicer. we shall seen. meantime the "washington post" is hitting the president for pitting staff members against
each other but it was jfk who was among the more recent presidents who did just that. the idea was to keep staff members on their toes and not assume their job was a birth rate. former president bush 43 special assistant, brad blakeman, who as described the view and turnover is healthy and perspective, not thinking your job is a given is expected as well. thank you for coming in. >> a pleasure. neil: much is made of the president having a short leash on some advisors but that would not be new. what do you think is going on here? >> look, it is a normal white house situation. it is one of the lar start-ups after new government of any business created on earth. 4,000 people leaving. 4,000 people coming. it's a dynamic with the staff. when we would meet as senior staff, there were 16 of us, there were times discussions got very tense, but when you leave the room, you leave united.
you got a fair hearing. everybody respected each other. didn't take things personally. service is opportunity, not a career. you have a finite existence. the average tenure of a senior staff person is only 18 months in any event. neil: it is burning out. a lot of you guys, maybe in your case are 60, to 80 hour weeks are certainly very common. you're also on call 24/7. that comes with the job, i understand. that this president has volcanic temper we're told and will quickly lash out at advisors. we're told john contend he did i contained that but he let his displeasure known. >> sure. neil: richard nixon would let his displeasure known. depends on the president. lyndon johnson would famously pit foreign policy advisors against each other in more controversial days of the vietnam war in his latter years. there is nothing really
dramatically different here but the fact that the president himself is looking at low poll numbers and wants that to change, doesn't that require him to change as well? >> look, the president is the leader and staff serves the president, it is not the other way around. it is not for the staff to come up with a plan for the president. the president comes up with the plans and staff implemen those plans. look, th is a fluid situation being president. there are things that you can absolutely have control over and things you absolutely not have control over. but one thing is for sure. in order to be effective as as president, you have to be a good manager and surround yourself of people with differing opinions. having a competition within the staff, especially the senior staff on opinions and solutions is a healthy environment, provided that nobody takes it as hard feelings, when a decision is made, everybody is marching in step to that decision.
neil: are you worried, obviously the president wants to get to the bottom of those leaking. surely he suspects it is people around him, how can you not, because it happen so frequently across the board from whole economic issues and russia stuff and president what he knew it, even involving one-on-one meetings with the case of comey, no one else was there. now obviously charges that comey released that after he was fired but that this keeps happening, even phone calls, i remember in the early days when he spoke with the australian prime minister, of course that bottom leaked to the press as well. someone at state department did that as well. you would need a big ol' shake-up to stop that or lie detector step to stop it and you can, right? >> you absolutely can. what you need to do, the president already done, task attorney general, fbi and internal people at white house, what you said, polygraphing
people, look at chain of command who had information at what time, how it was disseminated. theris no doubt we can find the leakers. they should be found and brought to justice, so far the crimes being alleged are dwarfed compared to the crimes that have been committed by these people who have hurt our national interests. neil: is very well-put. you're right about that, because it is far part the point after joke. good seeing. >> you pleasure. neil: i don't know how your credit score is looking or have a handle on your bills, if you're like most folks, you're doing okay. your credit score is up. the credit scores are highest in history we've been recording this stuff, we're coiled spring, ready to buy, do whatever we want with the money getting hot in our wallets. markets like that kind of stuff, at least most markets. there are other factors too after this. ♪ their experience is coveted.
>> i'm nicole petallides live on the floor of the new york stock exchange with names you know hitting se all-time highs including amazon crossing that one this dollars mark. some names hitting all-time highs include google, very close to 1000 bucks. hit 997 and change, microsoft and mcdonald's. when we look at amazon over the last 10 years look exponentially how it has grown. three stock splits, one in '98, one in '99. it had a tech run with technology in particular has been a group that has been driving the market this year, 2017, has seen the fastest amount of dollars moving into that group in 15 years. what does 1000 bucks get you at amazon, when you think of amazon? we're looking at five amazon echoes. we're looking at eight kindle paper whites and 10 amazon prime subscriptions. publicly listed companies amazon
may be a hot stock over 1000 buck, it is not largest. apple, 800 billion. alphabet google 650 billion. amazon 475. so tech certainly killing it, neil. it has had a great month. amazon up about 8%. google up about 7 1/2% this month. the s&p 500 with an up arrow up over one percent this month. neil? neil: not too shabby. thank you very much, nicole petallides. another bullish factor for the market, not quite seeing it in everything, the average credit score, 700. never been so high for so many like ever. they have been keeping track of it less than two decades. you ve to step back to look at this. nevertheless it is noteworthy where we were eight eight or nie years ago. to our two market watchers. gary, what do you make of market this big, credit scores high,
people have a lot of cash and take out cash out on home equity loans. they have got some he dough. the assumption they will spend it or do something with it. markets generally like that. do you? >> i do, neil. one aside, doesn't it seem like grade inflation? the average person has a score of 700? like the average gpa at harvard is a. but -- neil: there is that. that is a good point. >> just sounds a little high to me, but look it really doesn't matter the score. it matters if consumers are using that score and spending it. and they are. we saw it today. we had the highest spike in consumer spending in the last four months. if the consumer really ramps up, i think this, this market and this economy could really take off, assuming that this administration doesn't screw things up. neil: you know, to that point, josh, you have to wonder how long this is? fundamentally it is always good
for people to have high credit scores and all of a sudden they're ready to do some serious buying or whatever that would buoy the markets here but, what if they don't get tax cuts? or tax cuts are delayed? then what does that change or does it change though? >> we're a little cautious, neil, that we could see a record subprime auto loan crisis. i mean it is great that people are getting credit scores up but that cane easily manipulated. you ow of the things i tell people on our radio show, send as many letters as you can to the various credit bureaus, transunion, equifax and experion. you can get some of these negative things off of your credit if you continually send them letters, hey, get late fee on my, you know, gap credit card or brooks brothers credit card off my credit score. they will do that. a credit score is an easy then
to manipulate. the economy on the other hand is not. the price to, ratio is at the -- earnings ratio is second highest. it was 29.5 i last checked. could we have a melt-up before a meltdown, sure. i wouldn't say the credit score is indicative the economy. neil: they could sit on that because they know what it is like not to. >> could be sign of a market top. i think last time credit scores were this high, 2005. what happened a couple years later? that is narrative i'm telling my clients at our firm and radio show, the financial quarterback, one of the things we're telling them we could be the 8th inning of a 9th inning bull market rally. we could have 12 more months. we could see dow 23,000 by year-end, but this could be the
melt-up proceeding the meltdown. neil: do you buy that, quickly, gary. >> could be the 8th inning of a 24 inni game. we don't know. this could go on for a while. here is what i like in response to josh. regarding the economy let's just say worst case what you mentioned, neil, tax cuts don't get done, health care stays the same. neil: right. >> we pretty much have an obama economy but remember under obama, even that malaise we had in the economy, the market went up 125% or so. so, there could be a lot more good times ahead even nothing happens. neil: good point. gentlemen, thank you very much. i thank you both. we'll watch that. watching this too, a lot of concern right now after his dui arrest. what happens to tiger woods but what happens to all the big deals as well, after this. at fidelity, trades are now just $4.95. we cut the price of trades to give investors even more value.
and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,
insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply.
so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. ♪ neil: all right. you know, even though he has not won a major tournament in years, if you command the sponsorship to this day tiger woods still enjoys, although that could be on a shorter shelf life right now. connell mcshane with the latest after the whole dui thing. what are you hearing, buddy? reporter: may have been some of
these big-time sponsors, nike and the like looking overthe police report to get it. now we have our hands on it in adtion to the mug shot over the weekend, we know tiger was asleep at the wheel. that is what the police report told us. the police had to wake him up down in florida. he had had slurred speech. arrested on. he passed a breathalyzer test, that his assurance this was prescription drug-related. we're still asking, like deja vu all over again, what is the business impact of this? i remember being down in florida to cover all the fiasco years ago on tiger's big conned dal, some big sponsors stayed with him. sponsors like nike during the sex scandal stuck by tiger a number about of companies lost him. he lost a lot of money. this is list of companies that left, at&t, accenture, gatorade, buick, titleist, american express, gillette, on
and on, general mills. tlc, tag the watch company he used to do a a lot of commercials. they all left him. he lost half of his sponsorship money. nike is still the big one. we reached out to nike. we haven't heard back. he signed a new deal even though he wasn't playing well in 2013. they didn't make the details public. if they signed in 2013, there is possibility it could be over to being over. "golf digest" says he makes 20 mil a year from that other reports more. that is remarkable. tiger has not been effective doing what he is supposed to do play golf well. he had three back surgeries, four back surgeries in three years, something like that. hasn't won a major since '08. we'll see. roll lex, bridgeston tailor-made, nike is the big one. we hav't heard back from them. neil: thank you, connell mcshane. we're waiting for white house briefing. sean spicer doing the honors. we don't know how long because of course today president's
communication chief resigned. no indication whether that is the start of a shake-up in the entire staff or whether it ends there. no doubt many questions will go to sean spicer in that regard. journalists can be a very cool and cold bunch, how long do you think you're in your job? with us making money host charles payne. this will be closely scrutinized. president gets high marks on deals. not so much on the personal approach with the european counterparts but, i tend to quibble with that i'm not saying as a fan or whatever of donald trump, whether you like the guy or hate the guy. if you expected him to be just like the rest of them, he wasn't going to be so what the is surprise. >> there were no your prices. the -- surprises. the trip was as advertised. he went with a public agenda. he ran on parts of this agenda, to get nato to do their fair share, to lift their own weight. there was zero surprises with respect to his position.
i think people were pleasantly surprised, particularly the first part, first leg of this, that saudi arabia part, meeting with a 50 muslim leaders. that went as well as could be expected. neil: the deal was eye-popping. you could quibble is it really $100 billion? billionses more than we typically get with those things? if you feel compelled to talk about the other controversies it wouldn't kill you to mention that. >> it wouldn't kill you to mention that. that was not mentioned too often. the ing particularly with vocal in the last 24 hours than we had seen her. so maybe it continues. she had a tweet, pulled back a little bit on nato. there will be push and pull for a long time. neil: you and i might be old enough to remember ronald reagan now. he was first received on the world stage, not well. very different styles, i grant you that but eventually very well. i think presidents are reflection of their popularity back home. if they're extremely popular
that translates to trips abroad. this might not move the needle very much, what do you think? >> i think the europeans will be tough. i think they will be stubborn. even theresa may was propelled to her position from "brexit" aligning closely to donald trump and his populist message here -- neil: even though she was originally against it, if you go back in time. >> she was fortunate the way everything fell. she woke up one day, she is in 10 downing street. okay, i'll take it. what am i supposed to be for again? i'm with you. [laughter]. but i do find it interesting, i really do, because germany in particular is between a rock and a hard place. they want to keep the eu together and euro together and have their whole different agenda from a whole lot of countries. the uk became hip to that, that is one of the reasons they went through "brexit." neil: you mentioned "brexit"
last year, i was out one or two days last summer, you might recall, all right, so you had to work a little hard, we were up in the summer of 20163 1/2% despite the whole "brexit" horror, you know? maybe because of it in the end. so, among the more recent summers that have been okay for the market. that is the period between memorial day an labor day. what are you expecting. >> i'm feeling really good. neil: you are, even with the run-up we've had? >> i feel good because the run-up feels justified. 90% of the companies reported earnings. the numbers are absolutely phenomenal. the best quarter going back 11 years with respect to earnings increases. neil: you see it increasing this summer? >> we had consumer confidence numbers out, consumer spending out, absolutely phenomenal. wages are starting to go up. that will be key. i see big spike in wages. neil: he saw all this coming and i copied it, made it my own. we'll have lot more with the
. neil: real quickly, we're learning as we wait for the white house briefing. first one in a couple of weeks. blake burman heard the d.o.j. is telling him, john pistole, the head of the tsa is going through the interview process for the fbi director job. no indication how long it is or how many others are interviewed
but usa today is reporting that pistole is interviewing presumably for the fbi job to replace james comey. we'll see. trish regan, a lot going on in your hour. take it away. trish: we're going to hear from the white house any minute from now the latest so-cled bombshell report on the russia investigation. top adviser and son-in-law jared kushner wanted a secret channel between russia and the trump administration. i'm trish regan, welcome to the "the intelligence report". a live picture from the white house, we do expect white house press secretary sean spicer to field questions on this whole alleged backchannel any minute from now. this is sean spicer's first on-camera briefing since president trump's overseas trip. all of this coming as president trump's communications director mike dubke resigns. so is this just the start of a major shake-up at the white house?