tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business June 7, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
here on fox business. we're going to see the market reaction to this. some say there may not be any reaction that does it for us tonight. thank you so much for having us in your hos. charles payne he with "making money." charles: thank you very much, elizabeth macdonald, charles payne, breaking news. president trump and former fbi director james comey, charlie gasparino has the story. charlie? >> reporter: sources are telling the fox business network, donald trump's private attorney marc kasowitz was planning to go to war with james comey depending on the testimony that would come out tomorrow. written testimony came out. his written remarks came out. testimony will be all day tomorrow, but now, after reading those written remarks earlier today with his client, with president trump, from the sources are telling the fox business network that kasowitz feels totally vindicated as does the president. they believe that comey's words can be used as a positive to
basically show that president trump did not obstruct justice, did not demand that investigation should be ended against general flynn, as you remember, that's one of the things that robert mueller, the special prosecutor is looking at, whether trump somehow tried to impede the investigation, tell comey to drop the investigation. if you read his remarks, comey didn't really say. that he said trump told him he would like this to go away. the other interesting think which i think they feel vindicated about is the fact that trump himself is not under investigation. trump has publicly said he's been told by comey on three separate occasions he is not under investigation in the russia probe investigating russian meddling in the 2016 election, whether trump administration people or people part of the trump election team were openly conspiring to rig the election, to put out negative stories about hillary clinton, his democratic
opponent. what we understand is they feel vindicated that comey's testimony helps them on that score as well because he basically says a couple times that donald trump is not under investigation, and that he told the president that. so that's ere we are right now. we're ing to have a story on foxbusiness.com shortly. this is interesting. marc kasowitz, if you know anything about him, very, very tough litigator, close to donald trump for many years, handling many private investment cases over the years, and, you know, he's a guy that likes to fight, but he likes what he also sees in comey's testimony and from what i understand, they're going to take a softer approach to. this they plan on using the testimony as a positive thing rather than going after the credibility of comey tomorrow. so we'll see what happens. remember one thing, charles, these are written remarks that we're parsing through right now. comb see going to be asked about a lot of stuff, including the strange statement, if you
read the remarks towards the end where he quotes the president saying you and i have this thing together or something along those lines. i have no idea what he means. i'm sure he's going to
be asked about that. charles: he will, no doubt, charlie. great breaking news, we appreciate you bringing that us to. i want to bring you now to our guests here, for more insight, tammy bruce, byron york with us as well as matthew whitaker. the buzz word now, vindicated. president trump after looking at this, saying he and his attorney, feels vindicated. a lot of things he told the media corroborated with what we've seen so far, tammy. could this put this thing to rest? >> it could, aot of this relies on president trump's response to this now as mr. gasparino indicated they're going to take a softer response. the president was told three times he was not under
investigation. that has now been proven as well. here's what's interesting when it comes to the nature of what donald trump as president is allowed to do. he has ever right in the world to express a wish, an opinion, a desire and even a suggestion but he's the president for crying out loud, that is not rise to anything close to what the media's been claiming now within gossip as news for the last several months. keep this in mind. if he was supposedly willing to interfere with the michael flynn investigation, why wouldn't he then have tried -- if you're going to put yourself out there in impeachable offense, why wouldn't you do it with a larger dynamic that might affect you like the russia investigation? why would you take that step and not do it bigley? why would you do it on flynn? the action itself clearly makes it apparent that this is about, this is a nice guys, everybody likes him, he's made a mistake,
already been fired. wouldn't it be nice if this could go away. the president is completely within his rights to express that. charles: byron, how do you see it? >> this is not going to put anything to rest. you're going to hear democrats, already hearing democrats say this is virtually proof of the president's obstruction, comey did confirm the reports that donald trump asked him to please let go of the michael flynn investigation after, by the way, flynn had been fired and confirmed other reports that trump asked for, quote, loyalty from comey. so, democrats are going to treat this as a confirmation of the -- of the accusations they've been making now. it was interesting tammy was suggesting this doesn't rise at all to the level of obstruction of justice, and certainly a lot of lawyers say that is exactly correct, which is why you're going to hear a lot of democrats talk about impeachable offenses which could be anything.
so trump can claim vindication and certainly the part about comey telling him three times that he wasn't under investigation was true, he can claim that, but democrats are not letting this go. charles: we know they're not going to let it go, matthew. again, corroboration by comey that indeed he was told, he told president trump more than once, on three occasions, he was not the center of an investigation. i guess it might give back to the situation with michael flynn and how you parse these words. hope you can see your way clearer to letting this go. how do you see it? >> i see it similar to that. what i also see is what jim comey did at the time. he admits he didn't report it to higher-ups which would be inference he didn't believe the president was trying to obstruct justice, and in his prepared testimony that jim actually says that the president, you know, wanted to know if anybody in his campaign or his administration had done
anything illegal and did want those pele fred out and potentially prosecuted. so i don't think this looks anything like obstruction of justice claim or even impeachable offense. charles: matthew, what do you make of the comment that comey said that he thought it was an effort for me to ask for my job and created some sort of patronage relationship. is that unsavory? illegal? or common place? >> i mean any presidential appointment ultimately is a patronage job, and you know oftentimes they go to people involved in party politics or t the president's party, and i don't think that's different over the last 200+ years of american history. i think that's an interesting editorial by jim comey to suggest the purpose of that dinner but i think it's an editorial comment and nothing untoward. charles: they had nine communications, tammy, three
face-to-face, and six by phone, comey saying he was unnerved. he didn't feel the need to write down and take detailed memos with this engagement with president trump. certainly democrats will jump on that as form of intimidation. >> clearly james comey behaving in a variety of manners like a peacock and a show boat which means he's not intimidated by anyone. he only mentions five of them in the written testimony we've seen, and i think byron mentionethis ao, as recently in a tweet, are these -- what about the other conversation says in is that an invitation for the committee to ask about those? so i think there will be more that come out tomorrow. look, they wanted him to testify in private. he's doing that, but insisted on having a public testify as well. he wants once again to be the center of attention, so i would think there might be surprises tomorrow, but i think he needed to be fired. i think his behavior at this
point indicates president trump firing him was the right thing to do. charles: do you think, byron, tomorrow, he could actually say in his testimony that he did feel some form of intimidation or pressure to halt any version any of of these investigations, despite -- though it might contradict what we read today? >> i think if he testifies under oath that he felt pressure, i think you're going to have a situation which people are saying why didn't you report that? why didn't you tell congress? why didn't you tell the top people in congress who have a responsibility to oversee the fbi. and one more thing about comey's memory here. he's clearly, i think, in writing this testimony, relying on the memos that he wrote, but remember, the fbi, the department of justice, comey himself have refused to turn over those memos to congress, and you have the republican chairman and the democratic vice chairman of the intelligence committee asking for them.
top republican, top democrat on the judiciary committee, you have everybody asking for these memos and tomorrow you're going to have a situation which comey knows
what's in the memos. he can talk about whatever he wants to but the questioners don't. it is not going to be an even playing field. charles: all right, guys, thank you very much. by the way, one topic today on capitol hill that did garner bipartisan support. spying on all of us. both parties want to do it. we're going to discuss it right after this.
will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough forex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours.
if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. thithis is the new new york.e? think again. and get medical help right away. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates
can agree on, they want to keep spying on us. talking about section 7 of the fisa foreign intelligence surveillance act that targets persons, inevitably, many american citizens are scooped into this, and mostly through incidental collection. so the big question is the price of privacy particularly with respect to national security. here to discuss, mike baker, boyd matheson and ford o'connell. i'm going to mike because he's in studio. everyone from both sides of the siefl like 702 is important, even though it's abused, people are snared in this thing more often than not. is it really that important that they have this much ability to spy whether 702 or someone leaks as referred to in a comey statement. >> it is important. people will say look at my background, i'm subjective. i'm here to tell you that over
almost a decade, they did not, and look, they have not found an intentional misuse of 702 of the act, and essentially without it -- charles: mike, when you say, that though, does that include what we're seeing with the unmasking and leaking of information to the newspapers? doesn't that come in that? i heard that statement today? how do we know mike flynn and some of the adventures of mike flynn, possible adventures of mike flynn without leaking and abuse of the 702 program. >> i can't speak to the unmasking issue, that's coming up. it would be speculation to say that. from operational perspective, the reason 702 is important is we talk about how terrorists or the jihadists use our liberties, use our freedoms against us, and oftentimes that's a theoretical concept how we live our lives and the openness they take advantage of. 702 how they use it technically. they understood it was a gap. and if they used u.s. providers
for e-mail and communications, then they were afforded the same protections that u.s. citizen would be afforded. and that was why originally this gap was closed, and they created 702. and it has demonstrably saved lives. no question, people agree to that. should there be checks and balances on any system? of course there should. from an operational perspective, this is very important. charles: from 702 and spying capabilities of our government. people think really, the key problem with big government and the kind of power that comes along with it. >> absolutely, and part of the problem is that you have a lot of this data that's collected for foreign purpose bus it gets stored and often gets searched for domestic issues without a warrant. so that's problem number one. the other thing we have to look at is political espionage clearly is a thing, and it happens. in fact, there was a report by
senator church back in the 70s that showed every presidential administration from roosevelt forward had abused information from the agencies for political purposes or political espionage, and so yes, we need to have that checks and balances, absolutely critical. i also think it's really important that what senator cotton is proposing is to make this permanent, and because there is such a propensity to abuse this kind of information for political purposes week need to review this on a regular basis, especially as technology continues to change. when i hear there's never been intentional violation, my ears stand up. i know that is big government double talk through the deep state. my primary concern is whether or not the fisa court is an adequate safeguard with relation to u.s. persons.
i think we can all agree tha 702 is invaluable tool in the war on terror. but we got to make sure, when we are giving up individual freedoms for national security, we do so on an honest basis. charles: gentlemen, you're coming back. mike you want to comment. you definitely don't want to be partnered in deep state. we're going to talk about president trump's travel ban. that showdown is heating up and we've got 16 states that are actually stepping up to support it. we're going to talk to the leader of that movement next. 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. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. ifover time it canr fromlead to cavities and bad breath.
the ban prevents the federal government from enforcing national security and immigration policies. the leader of this coalition, texas attorney general ken paxon joins me now. attorney general paxon, thank you for joining us. i remember you saying the travel pause is lawful and protects the homeland and now of course president trump saying they should have stuck with the first version of this. how did you get these states together, and what's the main, the main issue that you want to get to the public here? >> so, you know, we started all the way back in the 9th circuit when this began week had texas and 4th circuit case, we had four states join us there and 15 states, our argument is simple, there is a statute that governs what the president has done. statute's been used i believe about 44 times, never been controversial, and it's on its face strictly gives the president the authority to limit the entry of nonresident aliens if he views it as
detrimental to the country. charles: how do the courts suggest that if any other president had put forth the travel moratorium, it would have been lawful and legal but because of comnts ma on the campaign trail, that it has an entirely different meaning? how do they come up with that? >> you know, unprecedented as far as i know. if you look at the face of the statute they're relying issue onning the president is relying on. face of the travel ban, this is clearly lawful and said the court went outside of the bounds and went outside of the campaign has nothing to do with what is happening in the travel ban. charles: of course, the travel ban in itself, the term travel ban, initially the trump administration wanted to stay away with that, the 9th circuit pointed that being a catch phrase and now president trump embracing it, saying it is what it is. in your opinion, does this help or harm case when it goes before the supreme court? >> yeah, i don't think it matters. what matters here is the law, and the fact, that's why we're a part of this case.
we feel strongly, involved in this litigation trying to protect our citizens from potential terrorist threats. other refugees coming into our states for literally years. what matters is law and nothing else. not comments by anybody in the administration but what does the law say and how should it be applied and historical context of this is very favorable to the administration when we view this as a case that should be won. charles: there are a lot of states now that you have states, particularly border states, how much of an impact will this have with respect to the supreme court? does it weigh on it a little bit? does it help? >> it absolutely does. a lot of times they've given the impression, the media, that the president is out by himself on this issue. what we wanted to emphasize is no, this is not an issue relateto one president, that there are lots of states in this country are that are concerned about the safety of citizens. we've tried to address this with the past administration, we got nowhere, and we're grateful that we have a
president willing to do something about this. charles: ken paxton, thank you very much. you're always doing the work, perhaps that others should be doing in higher offices. we appreciate you coming on. >> i appreciate it. charles: i want to bring in emily to discuss this as well. of course, 16 states is impressive, particularly border states, but have you other states that have pushed back dramatically, have you silicon valley. you've got a lot of major political and business opponents on this, against the president as well. >> yeah, absolutely. and i think i'm completely on ken paxton's side on this argument. if you read the brief, it fills a hole we had in the political conversation which is it's not necessarily effective enough for conservatives to say listen, this isn't a muslim ban. the brief gets into detail and says listen, this is about 10% of the world's muslim population. it's obviously not a muslim
ban. burden to prove discriminatory intent is strong and referring to a campaign statement does not meet that burden. it lays out a substantive case for that, it makes it clearly and benefits the overall conversation about this ban. charles: emily, the supreme court not scheduled to hear this for some time. there's a slim chance they may hear it but possly up to s months. do you think that could change in light of the series of terror attacks we've seen in europe? >> i wouldn't be surprised if that does change. it's something that you can make the case of immediate importance to the population, i wouldn't be surprised if that changed especially given the way we're seeing the world struggle in the past two weeks, that would not surprise me at all, charles. >> i am surprised that of the top five nations thus far this year, refugees top five, somalia and syria on the list, and i wonder if that helps or hurts president trump, particularly when you add the successful foreign trip that
began in saudi arabia where he spoke to leaders from 50 muslim countries and was well received. >> that completely helps the president. when you look at the actual ban, read the text of the ban itself, the opponents are relying on interpretation of it not the literal sense of it. it helps president trump going forward. see how it plays out. but i think he's in good standing on this, and what the attorneys general did here was help him make the case with more substance than others have been doing. charles: emily, appreciate it. >> thanks, charles. >> coming up, the main event is tomorrow, today a lot of bobbing and weaving. we saw rope-a-dope. now, you can decide who the dope. >> i've never been directed to do anything in the course of my 3+ years as director of national security they felt to be inappropriate nor i have felt pressured to do so.
it was fireworks on capitol hill as officials testified before the senate intelligence committee. the ultra sensationalism of russia's probe is not looking as sensational as it once did. >> has anyone ever asked you now or in the past to issue a statement to be false? >> i stand by my previous statement.
i've never been directed by anyone, nor have i felt pressured to do so. >> have you ever been asked to say something that is not true. >> i stand by my previous statement. >> the question is are democrats any closer to a smoking gun or are we seeing just the exact opposite. >> i know you been busy, thanks for joining us. >> you spent some time with present trp last night. >> i was over at the white house for dinner, joined by my colleagues from congress. we were over there for about two hours. it was a discussion focused on foreign-policy. i was really impressed as the president came back from his recent trip just how much he has absorbed over these past few months of being very up to speed on leaders, economics, sanctions
, strategy. it was a good dinner and great conversation. >> it was also a good trip based on what we heard from the hearing. >> you heard key witnesses saying they haven't felt any pressure to do anything illegal or immoral. they sharpen the question to say have you been asked and none of them could say yes or no to that >> senator rubio and senator cotton were there as well they take their job very seriously and they want to get to the brutal honest facts so they can move on. senator rubio asked the best question that he can think of. they want the american public and congress to get to the facts and in form their own opinion
and move on. >> what you think about combing opening statement. we heard that the president and attorney feel vindicated. >> with regards to the director 's testimony for tomorrow, it's clear there is nothing in those notes. the maxine waters of the world, the obstructionists who were calling for the president's impeachment while his hand was on the bible, as they looked through that opening testimony and they look toward tomorrow's hearing, they are just looking in search of any crime because they want to nullify last november's election. as you look through the opening statement, you can try to pull something out and criticize it because it is important for the department of justice and fbi to have their independence per there's nothing in there that's going to get them any closer to
nullifying last november's election. >> thank you. we always appreciate you coming on and your candor. marked, let me here with you. this hearing was explosive stuff what came out of that because it felt like the democrats lost on the key platform suggesting there was pressure on these intelligence folks. they are saying they never felt that pressure. >> the democrats and the media elites have had to primary claims. and obstruction of justice.uss these very esteemed leaders said unequivocally there have been zero pressure on them whatsoever and call me says the same thing. there is no claim of obstruction whatsoever. i think the democrats are all wet in these claims. what should happen now is not
only should it be renewed but we need some safeguards in it. i think we will see filibuster over that and senator graham as well. i believe they are all wet in this claim and those esteemed leaders kill that argument today >> mike baker, first of all, you're not part of the deep state. we will take that off. the combing opening statement, explosive stuff, all sides are taking it and running with it. they have their own interpretation. as someone who understands intelligence, what you make of it because it does feel like a couple things are clear. it didn't seemed like president trump, certainly with respect to the russian investigation, he didn't obstruct that. he was told he wasn't under investigation. >> i think what's going to
happen is the hard left, the far left, the resistance, they will be very disappointed in the lack of their testimony tomorrow. they will be looking at the leaders of the democratic party to blame. they got out ahead of their skis and they talked about that and created a frenzy. when there's nothing there they will be looking to blame someone you saw nancy pelosi and others trying to walk that dog back already. they understand to be a little bit careful or they will blame the base even harder when this happens. the other part is it's not going to go away. when we talk about it we say there won't be any there there.
i've heard from folks on the resistance side who have read james comay's statement and have a different interpretation. they won't let us go. quite frankly, even if they did they would just be something else to take its place. they go to bed and have this dream that the president will be impeached when they wake up. >> mark, we've got to go. we will bring you back later. in the meantime they were watching us like everyone else and then they started to rally at the end of the day despite the fact that oil was crushed. i'll tell you about it and what stopped it. we have some infrastructure stats for you.
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. there's a very compelling session with three big news items. the metro-area petroleum news, a
shocking increase in crude oil reported today. it was increased 3.3 million for crude, 3.3 million for gasoline. inteedia was down more than 5% one ofhe problem is too many rigs. we have the continuing can turn of u.s. rigs and in the last year overall rate has climbed to 733. that's 126% and 52 months. as energy-related. [inaudible] then president trump began to talk up his infrastructure plan. key stocks that have been the best barometer of his plans and ideas, they did very well. you can see them on the screen.
then came the james comay statement and then of course there was a sigh of relief. the worst case in their was put to rest. even though some would be buyers stepped up, grappling with the potential of what will be the catalyst that gets us through all of this, still a lot of questions. joining us now is a list peak. the market could have gone anyway. up 37 points is nothing big except it could've been a lot worst worst. >> it's comforting. we've seen a lot of uncertainty out there about the british election, it does look like theresa may will be reelected so that's probably good for the exit conversation. the thinabout oil is it's problematic.
oil had stabilized around $50 and now it's stabilized and that's raised question and we have big production numbers. outperform in terms of producing oil. this is a problem for opec. >> it could also be a problem for us to. there certain areas where america can be profitable. you can't go through with major capital projects and higher people. i think it has to hold where it is now. what about washington d.c.? first the comay stuff -- james comay stuff. maybe we get those shenanigans out of the way and focus on the true task at hand. >> that's obviously health care reform and taxes. third is infrastructure. i am hearing more positive talk from washington about tax reform and the healthcare. that's very encouraging to me. we are getting deadlines, the media is so keen to portray the white house as completely chaotic.
i think he may have had some impact but republicans know, they need to have something in 2018 to say to voters we did this, you gave us the majority, we got healthcare fixed and we got taxes lowered. >> we know healthcare should come first, but healthcare, tax cuts, infrastructure. which one might they get done first. >> as you know the sequencing has been healthcare first because that lowers taxes. >> that's the most problem problematic one. >> it is for sure. that certainly helps tax reform. i think the big thing is they will move the goalpost. they will extend the time period under which it can be revenue neutral. that gives them more flexibility they want to get this done, they will get it done. >> thank you very much. in the meantime, media mayhem
>> the mainstream media continues. they're coming under fire for calling president trump a piece of [bleep] and an embarrassment to mankind. thomas roberts is asking if he is trying to promote provoke a domestic terror attack. training me now our our panel. there have been some other things and it's just an example
of a media gone wild. >> they are unhinged. the majority of those in the media are democrats. their liver liberals on the east coast and west coast and they are ignoring the middle america. they have their own little world and they hate president trump. that's the bottom line. they don't want to report anything positive that he has accomplished so far. >> when i first thought is a teenager reading newspapers, i learned to seek out the facts because they were all opinionated. but it was a lot less so back then. but now, there's nothing factual it wasn't built on a foundion of facts. >> this is what we are seeing finally, a generation that has been raised by the left in full bloom. twenty-five to 30 years, it's full-blown. we see it on the campuses, were
seeing it in media and the general dynamic of politics. we've allowed the left to control education and media, we are seeing what's happening on the bench, et cetera. now with new media we are at least able to pointed out and say this is what were talking about and americans have an opportunity to reject that. we started that rejection last year. i think there is more we will be able to do as a message that we reject what it is you're doing good. >> after the comay testimony was released, i saw many headlines including the including that he creates obstruction of justice.
i don't know where they came up with that. then a devastating account to congress wh ump. how do they make these assumptions, and how they have the nerve to make this a headline. >> it's outrageous because the media is supposed to be unbiased and provide the facts for americans to read and judge for themselves. what they're doing i think is a disservice to our country. a lot of them are just flat out lying. they're making up things. again, they got it in for president trump. they would rather have hillary clinton presidency, they don't want trump in office and are still throwing a temper trench him. >> i do want to update the audience, we have breaking news about south korea holding off on that missile system system because they are worried about the environment. we just heard that north korea fired more missiles. maybe south korea should rethink that. in the meantime, james comay will tell lawmakers that he wanted loyalty or he asked for
loyalty. what is that all really mean? we'll be right back. what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh. and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. try new flonase sensimist allergy relief it's more complete allergy relief in a gentle mist experience u'll barely feel. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one.
charles: james comey opening statement has been released ahead of his testimony tomorrow, it is full of a lot of bombshells. remember people asking president trump to slowdown with twitter. 78% said no, tweet more. 14,000 people responded. joining me mercedes and ford. mercedes, how do you see this playing out tomorrow? everyone is excited. i think at numbers are going to be through the roof, i feel like the smoking gun aspect has been put to rest. >> well, the count down clock is very intimidating, i have to say. there will be a lot of
questions on the obstruction of justice part. you have seen, it is not going to that, tent -- extent. and then questions about why comey would not have mentioned his conversation. you know at-this-point, i don't believe -- i think it is rather than a big fireworks display. it will be like one of those sparklers on july 4. i don't think that meadial get what they want in terms of there being more of what you already see in the already prepared statements, where it is not going to the point of obstruction of justice, that is where a lot of liberals and pundits are taking this to. >> based on his prepared marks, if they do a sequel "goodfellas," donald trump is doing a shoe in.
based on these comments, there no way that is obstruction of justice in legal sense, i it might have been improper or uncouth but it is not illegal. there is no evidence of collusio not only that, there is not even a statute covering solution. you -- collusion. you have to ask what the point of the russian probe. charles: what about flynn? that feels there could be debate. >> i don't think there is with trump asking comey. but with flynn, we might find a process crime. he might have violated registering as a foreign agent. flynn has his own problems. charles: people talking about perhaps president trump tweeting as had goes on. >> take the -- take his phone
away, his mobile device away, hide it where he can't hide it. there no need for president to tweet about comey. let the testimony go forward, at-this-point, i think it better too figure out what direction comey ises go to take this. at the end it is wiser for the president to stay quiet, this is why we have a special counsel in place, every time the president tweets, that is something that the special counsel can use in the investigation. charles: it is all about winning the pr game tomorrow, probably. legal issues seem to be off the table. did not obstruct justice. and on mercedes point, no more tweets about ongoing
investigations, or matters before the course, help yourself and your agenda. but i do love when you tweet about everything else. charles: thank you. mostly make it because, i am trying to make you money and keep you informed, now here is lou dobbs, keep it right here. lou: the contrast today could not have been better for president trump nor worse for hapless dems, president trump on the road talking to the folks in ohio about tax reform. about health care. about rebuilding this country's infrastructure. doing the nation's business as the dems and the left wing national media -- the as washington post -- try to turn an intelligence hearing in senate to a political show trial with president trump as their targets. almost immediately however, the