tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business October 30, 2017 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT
>> republicans are turning into cowardly lions. charles: what is this about? they adopted all democrat talking points. >> good argument for term limits. these people are in washington too long. charles: neil cavuto, thank you very much. neil: now all of this could make idiots out of us come wednesday when details, brackets what is in, what is out, what is allowed to be a writeoff, what is not allowed to be a write-and-a-half is presented to american public. until then we're going by rumors. rumors they're scaling in gradually corporate taxes. "wall street journal" reporting that upper income, not looking a tax cut but rate increase. a high of 42% on top of cherished deduction. that is crowd is flummoxed how it would end up paying more
under this plan, maybe a lot more. you have a lot of concerns, including paul manafort, former trump campaign manager, a 12-count indictment will land him in court 1:30 p.m. eastern time. when he is there, we are there. turning himself in charges that predate his experience with donald trump and financials ties, misstating money. white house brief, at normal, one p.m. eastern time. blake burman, with the very latest from the while house. reporter: hi, neil. paul manafort and his business associate rick gates will make themselves to the courthouse in d.c. shortly at 90 minutes from now at 1:30. when you read through the 31-page indictment, 12 different counts. you can oil it down to the
following handful. the feds alleging that manafort engaged essentially in tax evasion and tax fraud. they say there was money laundering on behalf of manafort, to the tune of $18 million. they say he lied to doj investigators when asked about. they claim he did not register as foreign lobbiest. when you look through the 30-one page indictment, the name of donald trump is not mentioned. all of this had to do with man for the's involvement in the president's 2016 campaign. the president tweeted out this reaction. sorry, this is years ago before paul manafort was a part of the trump campaign but why aren't "crooked hillary" and the dems the focus? also he goes on to say, there is no collusion. speaking on "varney & company" a little while ago the president's first campaign manager, corey lewandoski, said, or at least tried to make the point he thought the fbi should have
tipped off the trump campaign that they had some suspicions on manafort. listen here to lewandowski. >> he was under a fisa warrant supposedly before and after his tenure at the campaign and the fbi never notified the leading presidential candidate for major republican party race? never notified him of a potential problem? this is a problem with the fbi, if you ask me. reporter: manafort came to the court room in 90 minutes from now. one advisor to the president trump campaign, george papadopoulos was charged with the feds for lying when interviewed january 27th this year. very clear fbi agents were deeply involved in the this case at the time of the presidential inauguration. democrats what they're saying, essentially this calls for the need for this special counsel to continue and do independently. neil? neil: blake burman. thank you very much. go to mike warren,
"weekly standard" staff writer there. he outline as interesting argument back and forth, many conservatives allege, just fire mueller, bet him out of there, because of conflicts and all the dust-up that he didn't go ahead and pursue hillary clinton aggressively enough earlier on, et cetera, et cetera. you make a great case, hold the phone here but explain your premise that essentially would be a waste of time. >> this is borne out, what i wrote, filed before we knew about who was being indicted. it is borne out by these indictments, should be noted george papadopoulos is guilty plea he issued. he said he is guilty of lying to the fbi about this. this is very interesting indictment, details of the case there. look, i think that it is shown that the mueller investigation knows a lot of things that we don't here in the public. that they're learning a lot of
things. and, there is more to be done. i think the argument that, that mueller is somehow compromised is pretty weak. makes the case that the fbi looked into something from this infamous trump dossier, and found a reason to continue investigating. somehow the fbi using a document that was originally put together for political purposes, somehow invalidates whatever they may have found that led them to start this investigation which has now become the special counsel investigation. that's the major thrust of what you're hearing from republicans saying mueller has a conflict of interest here. it seems pretty weak since mueller was last fbi director in 2014. neil: the bottom line the train has long left the station, right? you don't, the investigation doesn't disappear simply because the guy leading it disappears, right? >> absolutely not and i think
that maybe before these indictments today, the effort was maybe to say, it is not just mueller is the problem. it is the entire investigation but i mean now you have two indictments and a guilty plea here. i think there is a message here that mueller is trying to send, listen, we've got the goods. if you look at the papadopoulos guilty plea, they have emails, for instance with campaign officials that were not george papadopoulos that show an interesting effort by certain russian officials and russian national to have influence on the trump campaign, to have influence on the election. the train is left the station. this is the beginning of a lot more investigation, and a lot more revelations that have to be concerning for people involved in the trump campaign. neil: i think there are far greater issues weighing on the markets today, not the least of which is phase-in of corporate
tax relief. i can't imagine that this is helping matters any. confusion, not knowing where the investigation is going, to could be next, who could be indicted next, or turning up evidence or even prominent individuals next. what are your thoughts on that? >> look the president and republicans in congress are in a pretty precarious political position. that is part of the reason, i should say part of the reason they're in that position is this investigation. it is the general cloud of the investigation. you heard the complaints from the president himself about this, about this cloud. i think it's real. 38% approval in the last "fox news poll" for donald trump. that is not a very strong position. there are a lot of other reasons he is in that position of being pretty low for a first-term president, not even the end of the first year of his presidency, has to do with the fact, he and republicans in congress have been unable to get any major legislation done.
it certainly can't help. at very least it is going to keep things sort of in dismal position republicans find themselves in now politically. neil: mike warren. good seeing you. "weekly standard" staff writer. good thinker on these subjects. former white house counsel robert ray join me on these things. what do you think. >> nice to see you. the only silver lining for the trump five months, within five months after bob mueller's appointment he has taken actions brought charges. neil: moving quickly. >> moving quickly. neil: what does that make you think about the timetable here? >> i think what it suggests, also you have a guilty plea here. they're obviously applying pressure to attempt to obtain information to resolve the reason why he was appointed in the first place, to determine whether there or not there is provable collusion that constitutes a federal crime. we don't know the answer, no way to tell from the charges that
were returned. neil: at 1:30 when manafort appears, what is that process all about? >> just an initial appearance before a federal judge. arraignment on the indictment and plea of not guilty. that is the commencement of formal part of criminal proceedings. which will go on for months. this isn't going to happen, to be resolved in matter of a week or two. this will, the two cases that were brought will last for some time. the guilty plea will not last obviously for very long. we don't know where this is going. neil: not on part of manafort. >> correct. neil: do you, you've been through this, is part of the idea, here is what you're facing, what can you say about other people to be brought? >> sure. but that is not the only reason. in other words if this were a case handled by any of other 90 something u.s. attorneys across the country, this case independently would appear to have merit. you have got concealed bank
accounts. failure to register as a foreign agent. there are real issues about money laundering here. the attempted forfeiture of assets, including homes were purchased. neil: when the president tweets out as he did, this is all before he hooked up with me, i'm paraphrasing here? >> sure. he has a point. look at the first paragraph of the indictment. talking about the activity principle rally between 2006 and 2015. neil: right. >> we're talking about if crimes are committed, obviously defendants are presumed innocent, that is what they are arraigned on this afternoon, plead not guilty, talking about activity principally, of things that occurred before he became campaign chairman and the trump campaign. neil: of course they are looking who he could serve up? >> of course. there are things not alleged in the indictment. there are things in the investigation that special counsel bob mueller is continuing to look at. in some sense this is just the
first phase. but my, concern all along had been were lessons learned from independent counsels/special counsel investigations of the past? it is, i think, important to know today that again within five months, not a year, not 18 months or more, bob mueller has taken action. you can't get to the end of the investigation until you get to the beginning. this is the beginning of formal proceedings. i'm sure other things are looked at. i'm sure also that this is not the full extent of charges against paul manafort. one of the things that is notable, there are no specific tax charges, like tax evasion and other things. that may be because bob mueller does not have tax authority within his jurisdiction. i'm not sure about that. neil: he had enough else. >> he had enough else. no question, and it is serious and you know these are fellly charges. so i think the message today, let's not overstate what this means because it is the first
stage but let's not minimize the fact this is a significant development, significant charges have been brought. neil: if you're president of the united states, you're feeling that your former campaign manager, they're talking to you, and maybe trying to, strike a deal. >> sure. neil: should you worry? >> well you could be worried but it may also be, the signs so far from paul manafort have been either directly or indirectly, that he doesn't have anything to offer. i mean, he said i'm not going to lie. that remains to be true now that he is actually in the dock, facing federal felony charges, obviously the trump white house has nothing to worry about. if he does have something, it is clear this is a way to go about trying to find it, and my guess bob mueller will find it if it is there to be found. neil: do you think in timetable looking what we've got here, this is concluded within six months? or your own investigation, these
things tend to go far afield, right? >> they do but if you're ever going to have a chance at getting an investigation to a reasonable conclusion before the midterm elections, this is a good sign. that is the sill is very lining for the trump white house. in other words you can't get to that stage unless you get significant investigative activity leading to charges, to explore whether those charges are brought, to find out what the truth is. that is not the only part of the effort but that is part of the effort. there is no way to get to the finish line, unless you act expeditiously. it's a good thing for everybody, in the public interest, for the trump white house, for the country that charges now, we have now entered the stage of formal proceedings before a court. neil: every president has the power to disrupt the process and fire the person investigating, getting close on his heels or just ticking them off. >> or pardon people. neil: or pardon people. in the case of mueller and this
president, has that chain left the station? is it too late to consider that? you can always consider it. >> i think so. because i think there is public sentiment behind for the foreseeable future allowing on a bipartisan basis bob mueller to complete and conclude this investigation. so i mean i think that is where the country is right n.o.w. that doesn't mean that won't change. neil: what if they find evidence he is not looking into any of the hillary clinton stuff? not looking into this uranium one project and all that, republicans say, that is not fair? >> fairness is part of public sentiment, right? neil: right. >> the white house should appropriately be pushing back as they are. neil: do you know or think mueller is looking looking into that? >> we don't they. or whether we see significant investigative activity. it is fair in the political process to ask the question about fairness. neil: do you think he can be a fair arbiter? >> that is what everybody seems to be consensus about this. i agree with you.
train has left the station, criticisms of him when he served fbi director. the fbi's mission continues as the justice department. this is appointment of special counsel as the deputy attorney general as a result of that conflict. as a result of that conflict now you have charges pending in federal court as of arraignment this afternoon against the former campaign manager of now president of the united states. neil: big deal. robert ray, former whitewater independent counsel. respected and criticized by both sides. that is fair and balanced in legal word. the dow got into session lows worries than when he came up here. i'm not blaming robert. i'm just saying this is concern for the markets to put it mildly. as talk they might have to dial back some of those high expectations for big tax cuts, including corporate tax cuts might be phased in. if you are among the very wealthy in this country, talk that you're not getting a tax cut, that you will pay more. that is crowd you don't want to
tick off on a day like this. they're ticked off. more after this. whoooo. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if... ....there was a single site... ...where you could find the... ...right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares... ...prices from over 200 booking... ...sites ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.
pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. neil: all right. even just the talk the corporate tax rate is still coming but might be phased in over number of years, rather than
immediately year one has investors quaking a little bit. adam shapiro following these developments on capitol hill. adam, we'll get all the details, at least what they know of them on wednesday, but a lot of scaredy-cats right now, huh? >> a lot of people are very worried because they all have skin in this game, 320 million americans. here is the deal. we won't know officially what is the details until wednesday when house chairman kevin brady releases of tax reform. bloomberg reported, that they are considering, this happened earlier this summer, looking in phasing in corporate tax deduction from 35% to 20% over five years. falling from 35%, three% a year, 35, 32, 29, 26, finally getting down to 20% five years from now. 202 it. wall street not happy about
that. one of things this is considered, tax reform will potentially add 1.5 trillion to the national debt. republicans are looking to ways to minimize that. kevin hassett, chairman of the national economic advisors to the president, had to say earlier this morning on "varney"'s show. >> the economics of the repealing state and local tax deduction is very sound. not the case that everybody in new york will be a lot worse off but they will also see lower marginal rates. look at the two, very often people at least come out ahead, and in many states they come out way ahead. reporter: you heard him mentioning the repeal of deduction of state and local taxes. if republicans don't do that, kevin brady says they're negotiating on that, it makes it hard toker to bring in line the way the republicans are pleased to avoid deficits. here is what lee zeldin, the republican from new york, said about not losing deduction for state and local tax. >> we get less back on a dollar where other states get $2 back
on the dollar. i agree we need our state and local governments to be more responsible with their spending, but for us 60 days from now, going from 100%, to 0%, it is just bad policy. reporter: negotiations over tax reform continuing up to the last final moment. of course once we get the details on wednesday, it will go into committee. everyone will take a shot at whatever the chairman is going to reveal to us once it is in committee. neil, the latest, phase-in over five years, 3% a year, taking it down to 20%. neil: buddy, thank you very much, adam shapiro. rot per -- robert pettine gear. city your understanding wee get corporate tax relief, but to make numbers crunch it would be phased over a number of years?
if that is the case, are you aware of that? >> i'm aware that is the proposal. that is similar to what the reagan cuts were as well. reagan had to phase in his cuts, and as a result they had dramatic effect. i think it is prudent to phase them in for reasons previously discussed. neil: another rumor is that the upper income aren't not only going to get a tax cut, they are going to pay more. is that true. >> there is a lot of sensitivity that this not be considered a tax cut for the rich. i think the left, progressives will always try to provide that as a narrative. they don't understand growth. this is a jobs bill. this is not a tax bill. this is a jobs bill. we need to create jobs for the american people. we need to expand. every business that i talk to in my district, they are so thrilled with having greater capital to expand their business. that is what they want to do. that will create more jobs and
frankly more revenue back to the federal covers. neil: if that means that the rich will pay more, not just simply what they're paying now, that's okay? >> i don't think that is necessary, to pay more. what the rich pay, 1%, 1% of the rich pay 40% as it is today. i think, you know, there is this narrative that you have to tax the rich to appease people from the left. i don't think that is an accurate narrative. neil: not you, but what is it with your party, they seem to be on defense, maybe for good reason, but, man, oh, man, in the past, tax cut was across the board. the ones that were substantial whether under john f. kennedy that came to fruition after his death or ronald reagan other george bush, the tax cuts of weight and import were across the board. is it your sense that republicans are afraid in so doing they will look like they're todies to the rich and
they're don't want that label? >> some may be saying that. i believe what rich people do with their money, they go invest it, they build, they create, they expand. they don't sit idle on their money. is it is the better part of wisdom to allow more money back to expand our economy. neil: the national association of homebuilders, whose chief we'll talk to momentarily, sir, they will take a pass on this plan, because how unfriendly to the housing industry, no real housing credits and the rest that would make them more palatable to them. that is a group that could weigh congressional districts. are you surprised? >> no, i'm not surprised. we have been meeting with the housing folks the last six to eight months. we want more money back in the american people to have capacity to buy a bigger house or buy a
house period. that is really what is important. neil: congressman, thank you for taking the time. very good of you to stop by now. >> good to talk to you. neil: exclusive here, tv interview since the national association of homebuilders came out with the shocker, we can not accept this as it is, we oppose i had, the association's big honcho, jerry howard on why, after this. six in the morning.
we had everyone we needed to get our museum back up and running, and we opened the next day. neil: if the national association of homebuilders tells you it is not a fan of your republican tax plan, you have got problems. exclusive reaction from the ceo of that august group, jerry howard, who joins us right now. jerry, everyone was focusing on your simple statement in the end, it is a bad bill are to the housing sector. you walked away from it. why? >> well, we looked at what the bill did to the mortgage interest deduction, neil, and it doesn't touch the mortgage interest deduction. the republicans were very, very
clear about that but other changes to the code effectively watered down and dilute the mortgage insurance deduction, where the point only super wealthy will take it. we don't think a housing subsidy for the super wealthy is a good expend turf taxpayers dollars. we went to chairman brady. we talked to the speaker's people, a credit, indead after deduction, the benefits largely enjoyed by the middle class. it would spur investment in housing, good economic policy, good social policy. it costs less than the diluted mortgage interest deduction. we thought it was a great idea. i know chairman brady liked the idea. i think the speaker likes the idea but somebody in the republican leadership said no. we have to walk away. neil: i thought it was speaker ryan ultimately said no. you're referring to kevin brady wanted to keep you as a supporter, and now that you're not, i guess the question, can they win you back? what would it take to win you back?
i think referring back to the plan that it would double the standard deduction so a lot of people wouldn't have to separate is rattily write off mortgage interest, taxes and the like, the argument, the housing industry would benefit, but you're saying by that math, not really? >> not really. what is left of the deduction is for the super-rich. what spurs the housing sector is first-time home buyers. many of them will benefit from the standard deduction, taking the standard deduction plus this credit would have really a lot bang for the buck. neil: do you know how the president feels about this, jerry. >> i'm told the white house is supportive of the credit idea, yes, sir. neil: the credit idea would be a set dollar amount or would adjust for different income groups? >> it's a set dollar amount with a cap on it. neil: in addition to doubling the standard deduction, for a lot of families this would be on top of that? >> yes, sir. neil: all right. so their concern among the deficit hawks is, how the heck are we going to pay for that. you say? >> i say we're taking what is left of the mortgage interest
deduction, using tax expenditure that is in that part of code geared only to the wealthy, taking it back to put it for the middle class. neil: do you think housing need this is type of help? that housing appetite is to strong this country, maybe with low rates you don't need the kind of tax incentives that you have enjoyed in the past, especially at a time now with higher standard deduction? you will almost get it anyway? that is what proponents of this say? >> we're still at only 66% of our capacity coming out of the recession. those of our members long in the tooth, remember what happened after the '86 tax act, another housing recession. we want to protect against repeat of recessions. we want to promote homeownership of middle class. we also want to be good steward of taxpayers dollars. why give the money in terms of
deduction for the rich and not for the middle class. neil: if they put the credit back in double the standard deduction, go back compensating for mortgage interest and the rest what? >> we're willing to talk about anything. what we looked at, neil, when we came out in favor of the tax plan was looking first individual tax rates and burdens on americans, we love what they're doing. the business tax rates, we like what they're doing there. there has to be a solid, firm, commitment to housing, we've got to see that if we're coming back. neil: are you targeting republicans who vote for this? >> we're targeting everybody and urge them to vote against it. neil: but if republicans vote for this, are you going to target them for defeat in the midterm election? >> that is a possibility. everything is on the table. neil: that would include endorsing democratic challengers in that event? >> it is too early it talk about that right now, neil. right now we're still really focusing on trying to get the tax bill right so we can be
supportive. neil: have some of those congressman and women gotten back to you, if this is important to you, i make sure we adjust this, to your liking? >> we were talking to a lot of people. i was talking to congressman standing on the sidelines coaching my son's football game saturday. neil: how did the conversations go and your son's game? >> the conversations went very well. my son's team lost unfortunately although he played well. neil: that is encouraging. we'll watch what happens. jerry howard, national association of homebuilders ceo, thank you very much. that is a big seminal development, folks, when you have the head after very important homebuilder's association as things stand now i can't support this. you heard the other ripple this, the corporate tax cut would be phased in over number of years, up to five years, bringing it down from 35% to 20%. finally competing, this try tech at that, notion relief for --
try tech tax relief for upper income would not be relief, lose treasured deductions but their rate up. writeoffs, allowances, corporate rates, how they will be phased in, phased out, et cetera, we won't know officially until wednesday, hearing this all now, has markets shall we say, nervous. more after this.
neil: all right. you just heard from the guy who heads the national association of homebuilders we're not budging. their view we don't like the tax bill, because it doesn't carve out enough for mortgage tax deduction, even with doubling of standard deduction. that is among some of the factors roiling stocks right now. probably more substantive rumors have to do with getting rid of the corporate tax, phasing it in
a number of years, five years, bringing it down from 35% to 20%. the reading on all of this, barrons.com, editor-at-large, jack otter. the fear this could be unraveling or facing serious headwinds, do you agree? >> the question is, there are a lot of questions, seeing into washington, i just can't tell you, neil. i think it is so important for the republicans to get something done, there is fair number of democrats agree on portions of this, it feels like i'm too optimistic, that they will do something, exactly what that looks like, what horse-trading will go on i have no idea. neil: even worst-case scenario, doesn't materialize, very good columns in "barron's" last week, might not be at the end of the world. stocks might fall 5% but the rally since president trump's election is built on firmer
ground than one-time tax cookie. it won't die from lack of tax relief. >> if you look at big picture, this bull market started in march of 2009. it has been on an incredible tear since. we have new tailwinds of the rest of the world helping us out. for most of the bull market, the rest of the world wasn't growing. now it is. deregulation is certainly one of the tailwinds, we don't see that stopping anytime soon. i wouldn't worry about that too much. of course the tech juggernauts pushing it. financials are finally getting their footing. so there is a lot of reasons behind this bull market besides taxes. the funny thing to me, steve mnuchin said the market would crash. neil: he said it. >> but that essentially assumes it is baked in. so you won't see much of a pop. you can't have both. it is either baked in or it is not. i think -- neil: for tech, does that
matter? someone paying at advertised rate, if they don't get i think this great run-up we've seen could be problematic. >> it could be problematic. investors are not chasing tech because of tax reasons. they're chasing tech because facebook, google, amazon are dominating the world. neil: this is incredible. does it ever look too frothy to you? a lot of people make a great mathematic argument, your fine newspaper did, argue a on valuation basis these issues are still cheap but, man. >> if you gave me the numbers, said the stocks are up this much, earnings increasing at this rate, amazon popped more than 10% on friday. neil: right, right. >> this is more than half a trillion dollar company, i would say you're nuts but i can't give you a reason why it wouldn't. if you look at the real growth, amazon web services i think where they generate their cash to give you free shipping, that was up 42% i think? that is crazy. facebook, scott galloway, the
nyu professor, facebook has more adherents than christianity or capitalism. two billion users. neil: he got a lot of mail on that one. your argument notwithstanding, it has the look of a melt-up sometimes. >> it certainly does. we have to worry, for instance, are expectations going to get too elevated? wedbush came out with a note, thinks facebook will beat? do we expect them to beat but will they beat by enough. neil: we were off on expectations. amazon expected 3 cents, ended up being 52. that is not just a little off, jack. how does happen? >> amazon is unique creature. they barely show earnings, frankly when they do, it comes as a surprise. if they showed too much earnings, they want jeff bezos
to invest money. we still don't have the our heads around technology is changing the world. intel is surging not because pcs are slowing down but their chips are in cars, everything we do. i think this tech domination, the way tech is changing our world, maybe only in the early days. neil: you were briefly chatting with us during the break, whole manafort situation, in 45 minutes he appears before a judge, gets a details of 12-count indictment against him. president indicating in a tweet, this all before he knew me or hooked up as my campaign manager, where is this going? is this just worrisome noise, outside the box kind of development, what? >> i can't imagine the world at large, that the market is too surprised about manafort. there is too much smoke there for not to be a little teeny spark of fire somewhere. the question is how close does it get to the administration. again i have trouble
handicapping that. this a case where they're trying to get him to spill the beans? he knows something and using this indictment to get something out of him? unclear. what can trump do to hurt the market? nothing so far. he init is as guy with nukes, unstable 33-year-old. market goes higher. neil: "rocket man," i don't think elton john -- jack otter, with "barron's." we're awaiting a white house briefing. more about manafort that appears before a judge next 45 minutes. we have a busy news day, folks. a lot chased by rumors. bloomberg that says corporate tax may be phased in five years. i don't know why that is a jolt. ronald reagan's were phased in number of years. jfk can, same thing. just talk of that, homebuilders saying we don't like this is
adding up. people are pouncing on an excuse to sell. you know the drill, almost every time that happens, buyers come in. so i read in barron's. more after this. 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.
white house of any sort besides the president's brief tweet this morning to react of former trump campaign manager paul manafort facing a 12-count indictment. he will face the judge on all of that in about 40 minutes or so. to former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree. tom, steer me through this process. he goes before the judge. what goes on? >> i suspect he will enter initially a not guilty plea. that is typically how things will happen. he goes through the federal courthouse and run gauntlet of media cameras and people yelling questions and. they will not get into the substance. they will not get into legal arguments. really just to have the defendant appear in court, enter the initial plea. at that point things will pick up in any normal criminal prosecution, where there will be months and months of parrying back and forth, getting ready ultimately might be a try or of course could be a plea deal. neil: the fact that there were
so many counts to this, and i'm just going on, you know, conspiracy against the u.s. conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of foreign principal, filing false or misleading statements financial accounts, almost exclusively financial-related but, the president seemingly in his tweet today saying prior to his hooking up with the campaign, so is there any hint of anything that he might try to enter agreement with a judge or whoever, about involving any other trump associates? >> well there is certainly nothing in today's indictment that suggests that there was a link but between the trump campaign and russia. in other words, you're absolutely right what this indictment focuses on is business dealings that manafort and his partner had long before he entered the world of donald trump. that said, i think it becomes very relevant to what mueller is doing. what this indictment does it
gives mueller leverage, it gives mueller the leverage need to try to negotiate a deal with manafort or his partner gates who also was charged. neil: right. >> to trying to figure out if they have information that will be useful to mueller, that could make the link, may or may not exist, between the campaign and russia and if he can get witnesses to admit to that, to cooperate, he will be willing to offer reduced sentence. neil: what gives awe reduces sentence? , couldn't you lie about that, president would knew this or knew that or would be borne out in later court hearing? >> certainly can't lie. in other words, if you agree to cooperate with the government in exchange for a reduced sentence you're still under obligation, a legal command to tell the truth. mueller can not say in exchange for cooperation i want to you lie about this or spin a false story. neil: i'm not saying that. that seems a little jaded on my part. what is to stop him, especially
looking at 12 counts that could land me in prison the rest of my life, what is to stop him from making such insinuations? >> he will still be constrained by his requirement to tell the truth to federal agents and testify under oath if it should come to that. in other words, there will be a lot of pressure on manafort and gates to cooperate, but at same time, all of that pressure is limited, it can't be pressure to spin a false story or to lie. he will be subject to the obligation to tell the truth, whether it inculpates or exculpates people on the campaign. neil: robert ray, the former whitewater independent counsel was here, tom, he was saying one thing he did take note of the speed which mueller is operating now. what do you think? >> well, look, i think from one perspective this has been a very slow-moving investigation. it has been going on for months now. we now have an indictment. the manafort indictment doesn't get to the heart of what mueller was appointed to do.
so from that perspective you wish this thing would move faster and wrapped up soon. at same time we do know these investigations take a while. a lot of complex records you have to sift through. you have to talk to a lot of witnesses. it may may be mueller's strategy to flip one witness on another which will further elon gait the proceeding. although today's indictment is a significant milestone in the investigation, we're from the end of it and there is more to come. neil: republicans have been saying for a while and continue to push the fact that mueller should step down and didn't investigate clinton and the ties to uranium one deal. if it shows that mueller back in the fbi days was not interested in pursuing that, do they have a case? >> based on what i have seen so far, neil, i don't think it's a particularly strong case to say his past behavior should force him to recuse here. i think spotlight now should be
put on how mueller proceeds with this investigation. if there is going to be substantial basis to demand his recusal, it needs to be focused how he handles this investigation. whether he is staying within the lines, the special counsel, the authorizing order allows him to do or kind of going out of his lane, expanding his investigation into areas that he shouldn't and or neglecting areas he should be investigating frankly. neil: it always seems to veer from the original intent. tom dupree, thank you. >> likewise. neil: at least the president or the white house will outline a little bit how they feel about these developments here. a briefing but minutes away. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies, and data without insights. and fragmented care, stop getting in the way of patient recovery
and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges. at optum, we're partnering across the health system our recent online sales success seems a little... strange?nk na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground. that's why feeling safe is priceless. with adt, you can feel safe with an adt starter kit professionally installed for only $49.00. call today, and install an adt starter kit that includes security panel, keypad, key fob,
entry and motion sensors and for a limited time, get a camera included and installed at no additional cost. that's a $449.00 value, installed, for just $49.00. adt has over 140 years of security experience, with our commitment to customer service, and round-the- clock professional monitoring, you have the comfort of knowing that adt is helping to protect what matters most. call today, or visit adt.com to get your adt starter kit installed for just $49.00. adt. we help keep you safe, so you can feel secure. call 1-888-337-safe or visit adt.com and get your adt starter kit for just $49.00.
neil: all right, white house briefing minutes away, paul manafort about to appear before a judge at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. remember, he's facing that 12-count indictment, the president handily pointing out to anyone who wants to know that a lot of this predates, of course, his hooking up with the trump campaign. meanwhile, stocks are are down in excess of 75 points. the latest catalyst to the selloff is a bloomberg report that has corporate tax cuts being paused in -- phased in over five years, it wouldn't happen right away. there's also some talk out there that given the home builders association nixing this
agreement, what little they know of it on the fact that we just talked to -- [inaudible] and it's going to take a lot for him to change his mind, in fact, virtually impossible unless they change their allowance for mortgage interest deductions and the rest that this could be facing some serious headwinds. to fox business' charlie gasparino and americans for tax reform's grover norquist. grover, is this thing in trouble? >> no. this is exactly what you should expect. everybody who wanted something extra in the tax bill for themselves and didn't get it is going to throw a minor his city fit. -- hissy fit. the earlier part that you make, you know, delaying the phase-in, that would be a disaster both politically and economically. we delayed the reagan tax cuts phase-in from '81 to '82 to '83, and the recovery started in january of '83 which was almost a year after the '82 election where the republicans got hammered because you didn't have
growth. neil: right. >> so you want the election after the rates come down which means you want the rates to come down before, way before the november 2018 election. a delay is foolish. i don't think they'll do it. they're old enough to have lived through the reagan tax cuts where a delay costs republicans house and senate seats. so it -- i don't think that'll happen. but, look, lots of trade associations are going to complain that they want their thing in. neil: yeah. >> a tax cut, every year you have a republican house, senate and presidency, if you didn't get it in this time, come back next time, but a team player and help get this across the finish line. neil: apparently, part of the thinking here, charlie, was to get people who were worried about deficits, debt onboard and support -- not even so much an overture to democrats, just republicans. >> i'd like to hear what grover has to say about not just the corporate tax side which could be a disaster if they do this, but on the individual tax rates. let's just be real clear,
they're talking about five rates now. they're talking about a millionaires' tax. they're talking about getting rid of all these deductions and raising taxes at -- neil: on the upper income. >> the people who pay most of the taxes. i don't know why that's good economic policy. neil: if they go through with that, grover, "the wall street journal" spoke out about the possibility of losing those deductions, but what do you think of that? >> well, first of all, there are going to be lots of things that are discussed. there are many staff members on the committee, there are many members of the committee, all of them have staff, and people get phone calls where the press are desperate for something. and it's true, they might do x, they might do y. that's not lying, it's probably true -- neil: it was a trial balloon, and they're going to make you grateful if it goes down to 40%. >> grover, where do you think it ends up on the individual side? you're down there, you know what the swamp is saying.
[laughter] >> they may not reduce the top rate or only reduce it a little bit. they were supposed to take it to 35 from 39.6. the idea of raising it which would require every republican to vote for a rate tax increase, i think, is unlikely and would be suicidal since 90% of the republicans in the house and senate have signed a pledge not to raise tax rates. neil: but they've also said this is going to be a middle class tax cut, and the only way you can to -- can kind of do the math is curb the benefits for the pretty rich, right? >> yeah. they've said a lot of things. the president said some things and house and senate people. the most important thing the president has said and the house and senate leadership have said is their job here is to create economic growth and jobs and growth and growth and growth. and everything that hurts growth no matter how cute it looks in an op-ed, oh, look, we're not cutting taxes on rich people, none of that matters once the bill is passed.
once the bill is passed and enacted, the only thing that matters is did it bring growth. >> well, but the noise -- look, the problem is, listen, i agree with everything grover's saying, but the noise coming out of what they're talking about seems so absurd, particularly on the individual side. i haven't heard, i didn't see the bloomberg report about the phase-in of the corporate tax. i think that's really bad because i think businesses right now are factoring in that sort of -- neil: and anything phased in can be phased out. >> then the market reverses a little bit or a lot maybe. neil: right. >> but on the individual side, it's really scary that they're actually thinking of, like, sticking it to people who pay most of the taxes and that's good for economic growth. the one thing i will say is this: donald trump did not run on, you know, he liked larry kudlow and art laffer's plan which brought down the rates, but he really ran as a populist. and he wants a run here. neil: yeah, i don't think he's supply side. i want to bring in heather no rack coe on this. -- morocco on
this. if you had to handicap where this whole tax cut thing is going, what do you think? >> i think we will get something done by the end of this year. i think that corporate rate is very important from a market standpoint and giving investors what they want to match some expectations that we've had whether you believe the market is propped up all on the basis of tax reform since president trump was elected or not. you've got to agree that some of it was. neil: so let me ask you, charlie, i quoted this item in barron's over the weekend that said the bull wasn't born of tax considerations, and it won't die from lack of tax relief. in other words, this market rally will sustain itself and won't tumble if this thing doesn't materialize. >> i don't know. i think that was -- i think they're, like, a month behind the ball. listen, initially -- and i think i spoke to you about this -- neil: right. >> -- this market was being propelled by the fact that even without tax cuts, donald trump is better than hillary clinton from a regulatory standpoint.
he's not going to raise taxes. neil: well -- >> okay. [laughter] so, but now in the last couple weeks -- >> he's raising taxes on you, charlie, on the rich, right? neil: possibly, possibly. [laughter] by the way, wednesday we'll know. we'll know when the details -- >> but i think no, i mean, i'm sensing when i talk to traders and institutional investors that there is a price-in of tax cuts that's in this market. neil: yeah. >> and i think if they don't get us something good, i'm not saying -- it could marginal, and i think it'd be okay. but if it's bad, if they really do raise taxes on the, quote-unquote, rich who spend most of the money in this country or and if they phase in the corporate tax rate, i think you've got to have a market impact. neil: but, you know, some of the biggest taxes finish. >> i agree.. neil: -- were phased in. >> remember, you're starting off a low -- neil: absolutely. >> that was a bounce off a bottom. very high interest rates at the time, people were out of stocks and putting their money in
bonds. remember money market funds? neil: oh, please. [laughter] >> wouldn't you give your left you know what -- neil: stop it! let me get a sense, grover, where you think this is going then. because let's say it's delayed. i mean, one of the things i think being lost in this discussion is no one's talking about retroactive tax cuts this year now. that seems to be out. i don't know if that's going to make a big difference, but what do you make of that? >> i tend to think that less of it will be retroactive. they've given themselves less space for overall spending, tax reduction in this package. but the parameters that were laid out, the dramatically lower corporate rates, the lower rates for subchapter s pass-throughs, the individual lower rates including the top level, i think these will hold. it is what everyone agreed to when they voted for this package. and there'll be a lot of back and forth and a lot of people leaking things that are or aren't true or might be true
under certain circumstances. but this measure is going to pass because the republicans have to get it done for political reasons. the economy needs it as well. it could be better, it could be worse depending on how they draw it. but there are not much -- there's no pressure on the republican party to raise tax rates on individuals. the effort is -- neil: i don't know, they've grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory before. >> it's not impossible. neil: you're right. heather, is it your understanding that the people you talk to are still confident that a deal, some sort of a deal gets done, the president signs off on it and that this rally continues? >> absolutely. and we'll hear more about that on wednesday, of course. but i do think the markets can head higher if we get tax reform. and if not, it will head lower, in the opposite direction, by at least 10-15%, i think. so you will see a volatile move. you're not going to see a market that's consolidating, and that's
what's up next. neil: all right. charlie, i just want to pass along to you, and this an item just coming into our newsroom, t-mobile shares are moving sharply lower. soft bank is calling off talks to merge sprint and t-mobile. now, this has been bounced around -- >> right. you've got to find out exactly why. i would say this, and this is one of the good things about the trump economic model of less regulation, it made these types of deals, putting them together, that they can pass regulatory muster a lot easier. you would think this would actually happen, not not happen. it really comes down to what soft bank is, wants to do. and you remember, softbank was one of the companies that came in and vowed to president trump they were going to create a lot of jobs here -- neil: right. i thought this was part of it. >> and i think that was part of it, so it'll be interesting, do they have to reverse out of those economic promises they made to donald trump on job creation? that should be the next part of the story. neil: again, softbank calling
off talks to merge sprint and t-mobile -- >> softbank, a japanese venture capital firm. neil: better than $100 billion to play with there are this thing -- for this thing, and a lot of it was a lot of hiring folks. we're minutes away from a white house briefing. also minutes away from paul manafort appearing before a judge facing a 12-count indictment that if he were found guilty on all charges, he'd be in prison for the rest of his life. we'll have more after this.
retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.
neil: all right, the white house briefing any moment now. ahead of that, i'm going to go to fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. we're kicking around this idea, gregg, mueller, should he be in the job he's in? >> right. neil: i've talked to a lot of people that even if you concur with the view that there are a lot of glaring issues that make it unlikely he should be in that job, the train has left the station. >> right. neil: the indictments are being handed occupant, etc., etc., etc. >> well, to some extent, that's true. but nobody ever had legal standing to challenge the appointment of robert mueller as special counsel until today. and the indictments that have
been handed down. and i would expect the lawyers for manafort and gates to make that challenge, that he was illegally appointed. because if you look at the special counsel law, you retain a special counsel to investigate a crime or crimes. neil: right. >> well, there is no such crime of collusion except in antitrust. you're allowed to talk to a russian. it's not a crime. [laughter] even in a campaign. so the donald trump jr. meeting with a russian lawyer, perfectly legal. it says so on the federal election commission's web site. and now we learn that this fellow, pop adopt louse, has pled guilty to lying to the fbi about meeting with russians. if he'd just told the truth, he wouldn't be in any trouble because it's not a crime to talk to the russians. neil: all right. >> if they didn't charge him with the underlying, so-called offense of talking to russians,
colluding with russians in a campaign because there's no statute. neil: but then it gets to be are we covering up something, right? that gets to be an issue, are we not talking about things or preventing people from talking about things, as a result, influencing an investigation? isn't that the next step or stage these things go to? >> you and i were talking a moment ago about uranium one and the conflict that poses for robert mueller. neil: because he was fbi director at the time. >> he was fbi director at the time, and there's pretty good evidence now that he and rod rosenstein who was u.s. attorney, they were in charge of that russian extortion, bribery, money laundering -- neil: rod rosenstein chose mueller to be the investigator. >> right. and it looks like they covered it up. they had a legal duty to tell congress which would have stopped the sale. they didn't do it -- neil: covered it up or dropped the ball. >> yeah, more like covered it up. you don't forget something like extortion, bribery and money laundering. neil: what if it's being investigated after the fact and
we'll get details of that? if we don't, it's all the more glaring to you, right? >> it absolutely is. how can americans have confidence in robert mueller and his investigate if they -- his investigation if they now know that he covered up illegally that would have stopped the sale of uranium one? neil: does it bother you that no one seems to think that's going anywhere fast, the whole idea mueller goes maybe owing to the thing that this thing has -- to the fact that this thing has -- >> well, congress has called for a special counsel to investigate the payments at or before the same time as her approval of the deal. so i think it's just the beginning for that. neil: so when people testify on that, is it your sense that mueller then is forced into addressing this, and if he doesn't address it, it further impersonal injuries him -- impinges him?
>> congress may demand that he talk about it. the confidential informant has now been released by the attorney general to speak. he'll be interviewed, and i've talked to his lawyer who says he can connect the dots to hillary clinton and demonstrate there was a coffer-up by -- cover-up by mueller and others. neil: all right. back to manafort and, of course, the white house briefing minutes away here. what are we looking at now? i mean, a 12-count indictment. obviously, the hope is if you're trying to get bigger fish or others, i mean, that you can get him to throw other names in the mix here, right? >> look at the manafort/gates indictments are basically all tax fraud, tax evasion. neil: right. >> business dealings that predate the trump campaign. and there's no mention in the indictment of trump or russia or collusion. neil: right. >> so a good day for the president in that regard. not a good day for manafort and gates, as you pointed out earlier. but the pap adopt louse thing is
going to be more difficult for the white house to explain. but, again, they need to point out that it's okay to talk to russians in a campaign. neil: i should say that papadopoulos's lawyers are talking right now that we refrain from commenting on george's case. we'll have an opportunity to comment when called upon by the court at a later date. we look forward to telling all of the details of george's store at that time -- story at that time, but the feeling is this leads to getting to others. does it? >> yeah. but first you have to find a crime, a statute. where is it? what is it? neil: in his case, he lied, right? >> yeah. it's always the cover up. if he'd just told the truth, he'd be okay. but, you know, show me the statute that says talking to a russian in a political campaign is a crime. neil: what about influencing an investigation? i always hear whether it's the president or others, well, he was talking to me about an ongoing investigation and seemingly hinting that we should stop it or cease and desist.
is that interference, is that obstruction -- >> could be obstruction of justice. sure. and comey may have obstructed justice in the hillary clinton case. neil: let me ask you, the president commenting to someone, i, you know, why don't you go light on this guy -- >> yeah. neil: is that obstruction? >> no, it is not. obstruction requires a lie, a threat or a bribe. even comey admits none of that exists here. comey further told in a letter to his colleagues, he told them that the president has the legal right, the constitutional right to fire him. so where is the obstruction here? i mean, just saying, you know, i hope you can find your way to go light on this guy -- neil: right. >> -- because he's a great american and a general and he served the country well -- neil: in and of itself -- >> that's not obstruction of justice. it has to be something more. hoping and wishing that somebody is cleared is not obstructing justice. neil: someone was telling me
too, gregg, that if someone wants to make an issue of the president volunteering to pay the legal fees of a lot of his people who have been ensnared in this, that that is an issue. is it? >> well, he doesn't want to do that, and i'm sure he would be counseled not to do that -- neil: right. >> -- because that would be, arguably, an attempt to influence a witness, so you should never do that. neil: all right. but he did. he made the offer to pay upwards of $425,000 in legal fees. should he rescind this? sanders asked this at the briefing, should they just say, the president was just speaking as a friend and didn't want to do this? >> he should not offer, nor should he pay. there you're sort of dangling your foot over the legal lines of fairness and objectivity. neil: all right. lines you never cross. >> never. neil: never. >> not once. neil: all right. gregg jarrett, thank you very much. we're going to take a quick break here, wait for the briefing to begin. we are told that paul manafort is moments away from appearing
before a judge soon to sort of face the music and the details of that 12-count indictment that gregg was alluding to, counts that if you added them all up and the prison time associated with them, would keep him behind bars for the rest of his life. i think he's 68 years old? >> he is. neil: okay. there we go. we have more right after this. i accept i don't conquer
the mountain like i used to. i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but whatever trail i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis ask your doctor about eliquis. ♪
chevy, chevy, chevy trucks. we think it's because chevrolets are the most dependable dependable dependable trucks. built to last a long long time. with durable durability and rugged ruggedness. i like the extra power hauling power maxi power!!! and quality. seems they make them strong extra strong mile after mile after mile. ♪chevrolet! if you're approaching 65, now's the time to get your ducks in a row. to learn about medicare, and the options you have. you see, medicare doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so if 65 is around the corner, think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay.
and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. so don't wait. call to request your free decision guide. and gather the information now to help you choose a plan later. these types of plans let you pick any doctor or hospital that takes medicare patients. and there's a range of plans to choose from, depending on you needs and your budget. so if you're turning 65 soon, call now and get started. because the time to think about tomorrow...is today. go long.
>> and welcome back to "cavuto coast to coast." stocks are decidedly lower here after reports that the house is considering a phase-in plan for for tax reform, a five-year plan, in fact. so market investors, market players not all that thrilled with that idea. now, having said that, let's look at the nasdaq here. the nasdaq is up 3% so far this month. some of these individual tech names are just soaring under solid earnings. in fact, we'll hear the latest earnings numbers this week from giants facebook, apple, alibaba. check out the performance of
these three companies since the beginning of the year, pretty close to when the president took the oath of office. you've got facebook up better than 50%, apple better than 40% and alibaba, get this, better than 100%. amazon adding another 1% to its gains from the earnings-fueled surge of last week where it rose 13.2%. believe that's an all-time high here for amazon shares. a lot of talk about possible move to the $412 billion pharmaceutical industry for amazon. we'll watch for more on that. in the meantime, back to neil. neil: all right, lori, thank you very, very much. we want to alert you to something concerning the brother of the clinton campaign chair stepping down from a lobbying firm amid reports of some special counsel scrutiny, tony podesta, brother of john podesta, has resigned from his lobbying firm amid reports that he's under scrutiny by special counsel robert mueller. we'll keep you posted on all of that. meanwhile, reaction to these
fast-paced developments concerning paul manafort who will be before a judge momentarily, getting the details on that 12-counterindictment against him. welcome to both of you. gianno, how big a deal will this prove to be, do you think? >> i think i'm going to echo what judge napolitano said which he believes that the dominoes are beginning to fall. honestly speaking, this whole russia issue, you know, it was pretty much, in my view, still to the degree with the campaign is somewhat of a nothing burger. i think that it should be investigated since there's been so much commotion about it, and what we see with paul manafort, it didn't have anything to do with his actual duties as chairman of the trump campaign. this is about what he was doing in his personal life prior to ever meeting, some have said, meeting president trump. so when it comes to that issue alone, i think, obviously, there's other things that can happen with other staff members of the trump campaign, of course --
neil: right. >> in addition to that, i think they nude to expand -- need to expand the probe. we need to find out what happened with the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign paying a million dollars for this russian information. neil: you know, whatever you make of where this is going, one of the things judge napolitano had mentioned, michael, there will be other dominoes -- >> oh, absolutely. neil: and it could happen on both sides here. be what do you think happens next? >> i think the manafort story is a huge story. but the fact that if you go through and read the pleadings, manafort was, in 2017 he was still laundering money while he was actually on the campaign. so i think that's a big story. but i think the bigger story is papadopoulos. i think the fact that he was acting as a conduit between the kremlin government and as a foreign adviser to the president, i think that's really the big story. and we can play the slight of hands with your -yard line yum -- uranium one, all those kinds of things, but at the end of the day, this is the story.
the president has said for eight or nine months -- >> but it's not illegal to talk to russians, is so how is that a big story? what exactly did he lie to the fbi about? >> i agree with you. that's been my whole point. >> i would want to know that. >> but don jr., he lied about why he had the meeting -- >> did you get that from? >> don jr. himself. >> i'm not aware of any -- >> hold on. initially in his statement he said he went there to talk about adoption. then after the russian emissary released the fact that they were there to talk about the act, then the whole statement changed. my point is there's been a lot of criticisms and pot shots at mueller, i think we're saying it's finally time to get to the bottom of it. neil: but, michael, would you hope that mule also claire -- mueller also clarifies how he ignored this other story that compelled somebody to appear before congress and testify on this other story?
that's legitimate enough to raise eyebrows, right? >> the uranium one story has been debunked for over a year -- [laughter] neil: penal not enough for a gag order to be lifted so -- you don't want to assume it's a dead issue, right? >> you know, if new evidence comes out from this individual, i fully support investigation just like if the tony podesta information comes out, i think he should be prosecuted. this is the difference between me and a lot of other people that come on, i just want to find out what happened. >> but you just said the uranium one story has been debunked. >> it has. >>? >> august -- >> who paid $12 million -- >> in august 2016 "the washington post" ran a story saying that steve bannon, through some of his other groups, had funded the uranium one story and that, in fact, hillary clinton had removed herself from the decision-making process, that it would have taken nine secretaries to veto the program and that the donors whod had made donations to hillary's campaign had sold the
company before she did. the optics are terrible, i agree. >> let me ask this question -- absolutely, and there's the potential to be some, you know, shady business coming on here. >> if we're saying optics are bad, i mean, come on. >> -- a bank that was promoting -- neil: guys, if we could step back from this, because there's a hot we don't know. but we do know the russians seem to be very intent on screwing around in our election process and messing around in our government period. >> that's true. neil: so i'm wondering the takeaway either of you have, michael, if we could begin with you on that, about what we should do going forward because this will pop up again in next year's midterm campaign, i have no doubt in the next presidential campaign because maybe this notion that the russians were for donald trump and not hillary clinton, maybe that's wrong. >> it could be. neil: the only thing they were for was messing around in our system. >> which is why i think the senate investigation, the congressional investigation should be focused more towards how we make sure in 2018 and
2020 russians can't interfere in our elections, because this is absolutely going to happen again. neil: gianno? >> i think everything has to be on the table. if there's investigations that are open, we have to follow every detail. if you had russian dressing, we should know about it. [laughter] >> here comes sarah. neil: and on that very wise note -- [laughter] the press secretary gips. >> good afternoon. like to start the briefing today by addressing a topic that i know all of you are preparing to ask me about. and that's tax reform. [laughter] a couple of you got it. the initial house tax reform bill will be introduced on wednesday by the ways and means committee. this is the product of months of work and is now going new an open process in the house. the committee plans to mark up the bill starting next week on monday. the house is likely to consider the bill week of november 13th. in order to stay on pace, we want to see a house bill passed by thanksgiving.
s this is very aggressive timeline but one that will help us get tax cuts this year so families and businesses can plan for 2018. we look forward to the details of the tax bill being released on wednesday, but today i want to take a step back and explain what we're working to do using an anecdote we can all understand. it's important to keep in mind that the numbers are not exact, and i'm also not encouraging any drinking. so file that away. that's mostly for my parents. but i think you'll enjoy it. suppose that every day ten people, for our purposes we'll say reporters, go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. if these ten reporters paid their tab every night the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: the first four, the poorest, would pay nothing. the fifth would pay $1. the sixth would pay $3, the seventh would pay $7, the eighth would pay $12, the ninth would
pay $18, the tenth, the rushest, would pay $59. so that what's they decided to do. one day the bar owner threw them a curveball. since you're all such good customers, he said, i'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. drinks for the ten reporters would now cost just $80. the group still wanted to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four were unaffected. they would still drink for free. what about the other six? how could they divide the $20 windfall so everyone would get their fair share? these are reporters, after all, so they're concerned with fairness. they realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that, then the fifth and sixth reporter would each end up being paid to drink beer. so the bar owner suggested it would be fairer to reduce by a percentage the poorer he was.
they continued filing the principle of the tax system they'd been using, so they proceeded to work out the amounts that he suggested. so the fifth reporter, like the first four, now paid nothing. he got a 100 percent saving. the sixth paid $2 instead of $3, a 33% saving. the seventh paid $5 instead of 7, a 28% saving. the eighth now paid $9 instead of 12, a 25 president saving. the ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 which was a 22% saving, and the tenth now paid $49 instead of $59, a 16% saving. so each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. but once outside the bar, the reporters began to compare their savings. i only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the sixth reporter, and she pointed to the tenth reporter. he got ten. yes, that's right, exclaimed the fifth reporter, i only saved a dollar too. it's unfair he received ten times more benefit than me.
that's true, shouted the seventh reporter. why should he get $10 back when i only got 2? the wealthy gets all the breaks. wait a minute, yelled the first four reporters in unison, we didn't get anything at all. this new tax system exploits the poor. the nine reporters yelled at the tenth and made him feel bad, so the next night the tenth didn't show up for drinks. when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered they no longer had enough money to even cover half of the bill. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax system works. the people who already paid the highest taxes will naturally benefit from a tax reduction but not the largest percent benefit. taxing them too much, attack them and they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. this is a silly story, of course, but it illustrates some important points. our tax cuts and reforms will create a fairer system that works better for everyone, and it will make our country the friendliest in the world for american families trying to build a better life for
themselves and for american companies seeking a competitive edge. i'll be happy to get that story to everybody so that you can get those numbers later. again, i know that may be an oversimplification, but i think it paints a good picture of the tax system. and with that, i'll take your questions. >> sarah, first, i'd like to get the white house reaction to the indictment of paul manafort with george papadopoulos. specifically, we have heard a couple tweets from the president, if you can help me understand when he says why aren't crooked hillary and the dems the focus? is the president saying that special counsel mueller should really be investigating hillary clinton and the democrats? and is he going to rule out once and for all firing robert mueller? >> look, i'll address the second question first. president -- i said last week, i believe it was last wreak -- week, there's no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel. but look, today's announcement
has nothing to do with the president, has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity. the real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the clinton campaign, fusion gps and russia. there's clear evidence of the clinton campaign colluding with russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election. we've been saying from day one there's been no evidence of trump/russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all. >> the george papadopoulos agreement is about the campaign,s it is specifically about the campaign. >> it has nothing to do with the activities of the campaign, it has to do with his failure to tell the truth. that doesn't have anything to do with the -- >> but it is the clearest evidence of ties between the trump campaign campaign and rusn officials. >> again, there are no activities or official capacity in which the trump campaign was engaged in any of these activities. most of them took place well before the campaign ever even existed. john? >> sarah, can you just explain
what george pap papadopoulos' re with the campaign was? >> it was extremely limited. it was a volunteer position. and, again, no activity was ever done in an official capacity on behalf of the campaign in that regard. >> what about the outreach that he was faking to campaign -- that he was making to campaign officials -- >> you mean the outreach that was repeatedly denied -- >> that's what i meant. >> and is we're not going to take any action on that? >> you explain what happened with his outreach? >> he reached out, and nothing happened beyond that which i think shows, one, his level of importance in the campaign and, two, shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign. >> sarah? thanks a lot. i wanted to ask about mr. mueller's investigation. the president hat times has called it a hoax, and he's called it a witch hunt. he's used similar type of language before as it relates to his investigation. last week you indicated, sarah, that you believe that mr. mueller is wrapping up his
investigation. and i've heard similar things coming from other senior administration officials. do you still believe that mr. mueller is in the process of wrapping up his investigation? >> we still expect this to conclude soon, yes. francesca? >> thank you, sarah. paul manafort was high ranking in the president's campaign at one time. i'd like to know what the president's relationship is with him now? do they still talk? when was the last time they might haved had contact? >> as far as we can tell, we know that they haven't spoken in several months. the last known conversation was back all the way to february. and as far as anything beyond that with paul, i'm not sure of any oh contact -- >> [inaudible] >> i know that there was some initial contact after the president was sworn in with him at meetings here at the white house, but nothing directly with the president. deborah? >> yeah. thank you, sarah. on march 31, according to the affidavit by mr. papadopoulos, he attended a foreign policy meeting.
the president was there. he said that he talked about how he, that russia wanted to talk to the president. what did the president think when he said he wanted to arrange a meeting between trump and putin? and how did the other people on the campaign react to that. >> >> i'm not sure that the president recalls specific details of the meeting. again, it was a brief meeting that took place quite some time ago. it was one time that group ever met, and beyond that i really don't have anything to add. john? >> thank you, sarah. as you mentioned, mr. manafort, mr. gates were named in this for things not having anything to do with the campaign, but with alleged money laundering regarding other business. now, under those circumstances would the president consider or rule out pardoning either of them? >> i haven't had any conversations with him about that. i think we should let the process play through before we start looking at those.
>> [inaudible] at this time was working with jeff sessions at the time who was overseeing some foreign -- [inaudible] what does this mean for jeff sessions? >> again, somebody on a volunteer committee, i'm not sure how that would impact the attorney general directly. mark? >> you -- can you say given what we have learned over the last few hours, can you say when the president was first aware that russia was behind the hacking and ask was in possession of e-mails, what they considered to be damaging e-mails about the clinton campaign that they were trying to get to the trump campaign? when was he first aware of that? >> i'm not sure of the specific date of when that took place, is so i'd have to look. >> sarah, does the president regret having had hired paul manafort to be his campaign manager? and is he and the rest of the white house concerned that this issue will distract from tax reform and the other domestic policy and foreign policy -- >> we're not worried about it
distracting, because it doesn't have anything to do with this. this is something, action that took place outside of the campaign or campaign activity. >> as far as whether he regrets having hired him to be campaign manager? >> i didn't ask him that question specifically. >> sarah, how can you describe mr. papadopoulos as having a limited role when there's a photograph of mr. papadopoulos sitting at his table -- >> thousands of photographs with millions of people. >> he was also cited by then-candidate trump in a meeting with "the washington post" as to who is top foreign policy advisers, that seems to fight against what you're saying. and also how is it not collusion when george papadopoulos is in contact with various people who are promising dirt on hillary clinton, a series of events that closely mirrors what to occurred with the president's own son? >> this individual was on a -- >> [inaudible] russians in pursuit of information -- >> finish your monologue. >> how is all that not collusion? >> look, this individual was the
member of a volunteer advisory council that met one time over the course of a year. and he was part of a list that was read out in "the washington post." i'd hardly call that some sort of regular adviser or, as you want to, you know, push that he's like a senior member of the staff. he was not paid by the campaign, he was a volunteer on a, again, a council that met once. [inaudible conversations] >> -- activity, sarah. he was pursuing information -- >> i think, again, he was a volunteer, and that's something you'd need to ask him. i'm not here to speak on behalf of the thousands of people that may have volunteered on the campaign. >> believe it or not, i have a question on this but also on tax reform. the president has called on congress to investigate hillary clinton. is he confident that they will do that? >> i think that's a question you'd have to ask congress, but i think that there are enough reports and enough information out there that seems to suggest it might not be a bad idea. >> -- any congressional leaders of committees? >> i don't know if he's had a
member of congress specifically tell him that they're -- >> okay. and my question about tax reform is where does the president stand on the phasing in of the corporate tax cut so it would reach 20% sometime around 2022? >> i think the president's been clear that his priority is to make sure that that's where we start with the tax plan currently. >> [inaudible] >> i think, again, he's laid out what his principles are. as of right now, that hasn't change and don't anticipate that it will. major? >> sarah, just so we have the terminology straight, you say george papadopoulos had no official capacity. what do you mean by that? >> i mean he was a volunteer on the campaign and a volunteer member of an advisory country sill that -- council that met one time. >> so his activities were entirely of his invention? is that what you're telling the american public? >> i'm telling you that he was a volunteer member of an advisory council that literally met one time. >> there are two episodessed in which people associated with the campaign, george papadopoulos is
a member of a foreign policy or military advisory committee, sought -- [inaudible] dirt on hillary clinton from people representing themselves as either linked to or associated with the russian government. is that just a coincidence? >> the only interaction i'm aware of that deals with this individual was him reaching out and being repeatedly denied. so that's all i can tell you. he was, he asked to do things, he was basically pushed back or not responded to in any way. so any actions that he took would have been on his own, and you'd have to ask him about those, because i can't answer -- [inaudible conversations] >> -- similar but same kind of meeting at trump tower. >> i'm sorry? >> what explains the campaign's later involvement with those associated with the russian government or said they were to get dirt on hillary clinton later in the campaign? >> we've addressed that. they took one meeting. nothing came of it. >> [inaudible] >> no, i don't believe so. >> does that indicate a pattern? >> a pattern of getting information about your opponent? no. the big difference here is that you have a meeting that took
place versus millions of dollars being sent to create fake information to actually influence the election. you compare those two, those are apples and oranges. what the clinton campaign did, the dnc did was actually exchange money. they took a meeting. those are far different. and is one is pretty common practice in any campaign, to take a meeting. the other one is actually paying money for false information. that's a big deal and a big difference. >> sarah, i have two questions, but first if i could follow up on your comment about the gps dossier. this is an issue that many senior-level administration officials have pointed to during these questions about the special counsel. has the white house asked the department of justice to look into this issue? >> not that i'm aware of. >> can i follow up on mueller? you've spoken with the president today? >> yes, i have. >> can you give us his reaction to the news this morning? obviously, news that swept the nation's capital, but how how ds the president respond to this news about two people that did work for his campaign? was he disappointed that paul
manafort received this news today that he was being charged? >> he responded the same way the rest of us in the white house have, and that's without a lot of reaction because it doesn't have anything to do with us. >> sarah, you're now talking about two of the most senior members of the campaign at a very pivotal time through and including the rnc last year who are now under federal indictment -- >> for something outside of the campaign. >> maybe not allegedly conducted during their work for the campaign, but doesn't it speak to the president's judgment that he would choose the these two individuals in very high positions having allegedly committed these crimes in the years leading up to their roles? >> these were seasoned operatives. you make it sound like they were regular offenders that have been in massive amounts of trouble. these were seasonedded operatives that have worked on a number of campaigns. paul manafort was brought in the lead the delegate process which he did and was dismissed not too long after that. >> the president has no regrets? >> again, i didn't ask him that question specifically. april. >> what leads you to believe
that the mueller investigation will conclude soon? do you also believe there could be more indictments? and my third question on welfare reform, the president talked about this a couple weeks ago, and i've been trying to find out what is the focus, how do you plan to implement welfare reform? >> we haven't made any specific announcements when it comes to welfare reform. those are ongoing conversations, and we're looking at ways to improve the system, but nothing specific to roll out at this time. i'm sorry, what was the first part of your question? >> the first one, what leads you to believe that this will conclude the mueller or investigation? have you been given a heads up? what? >> those are the indications that we have at this time. i can't go any further -- >> indications from who and where? indications on where? >> as i just said, i can't go any -- >> and also you don't believe there will be any more indictments at all? >> that's a question you'll have to ask robert mueller. >> but you're saying it's going to be concluded soon. >> i still attest that we believe it will be concluded soon, but beyond that i don't
have anything else to add on a specific time frame. >> sarah, in march the president call george papadopoulos an excellent guy. does he still believe that papadopoulos is an excellent guy? >> look, he was referring to the council, he was going through the list of names with "the washington post," nothing more than that, complimentary of the people volunteering on behalf of the campaign. >> [inaudible] that a campaign supervisor told him i would encourage you to make the trip to russia. how does that not constitute the campaign encouraging him to make contact with finish. >> i'm not aware of that conversation, so i can't speak to that. >> sarah, at the end of the day, is there any concern at all from this administration, again, trying to to drill down on what was asked earlier, that two people who worked for the president are now under indictment? one is pleading guilty, and he promised to hire only the best people. is this an example of the best
people to hire? >> look, again, this goes back to these were activities that took place outside of the scope of the campaign. i can't comment on anything they did -- >> but are these the best people the hire? >> look, the president hired paul manafort to handle the delegate process, which he did, and he was dismissed not too long after that. >> sara, last week the administration opposed a federal judge's decision that allowed an undocumented teen to have an abortion. now that case is over, it's been decided, she's had that abortion, what is the white house reaction to that decision, and does it set a dangerous precedent going forward? >> i can't comment on the specifics of that -- >> did he comment on to it? >> i didn't speak with him about the case. >> sarah, thank you. i'd like to ask you about a different topic. just breaking before the briefing, a court banned the president from changing military policy on service by transgender people. what's the reaction from the white house and the plan moving forward with with reference to -- >> obviously, this is something just announced. the department of justice has it, they're reviewing it, and
identity refer you to them with any specific questions. >> congressman gowdy has suggested there should be an investigation into the leaks of the grand jury investigation or robert mueller's investigation. do you think there should be an investigation? are you all asking for an investigation? >> we are going to ask for that investigation to take place. >> [inaudible] >> i think that anytime there is leak of sensitive information, it should be looked into. beyond that, we don't have any comment. kristin. >> sarah, thanks. does the president in any way -- [inaudible] after all, he was an early supporter of bringing him onboard. >> not that i'm aware of. >> and just to follow up on the point of hiring the best people, the top people, does this not at the very least raise questions about president trump's vetting process and judgment when it comes to bringing on these people? >> i don't believe so. i think i've answered that quite a few times today. >> is the president, you said back in july that the president believes the investigation for the special counsel stays within the confines of russian election meddling, even what we've learn today, does the president
believe bob mueller overstepped the boundaries of the -- >> i haven't spoken with him -- >> and my second question would just be on the topic of regarding the plea agreement with george papadopoulos. you've indicated the president did not remember that march 31st meeting, the photograph, right? >> i didn't say he didn't remember the meeting, i'm saying he didn't remember the comments -- >> does he remember anything about the meeting given he's talked about his great memory? >> i don't believe he went into detail about the meeting itself. he remembers the meeting taking place, but we doesn't go into that -- >> did he remember papadopoulos was present? did they have interaction? >> not that i'm ware of? >> [inaudible] 33% approval, 62% disapproval of the president. what's your reaction? is the president aware of this? any plans on changing anything? >> look, we're focused aggressively on pushing forward on a very bold agenda specific to tax reform, tax cuts. i think that the economy continuing to grow and
strengthen is something that will certainly change those numbers. but at the same time, i think these are some of the same polls that also said this president would never be president, so i don't have a lot of confidence in them. >> sarah? >> last question. finish. [inaudible conversations] >> you please clarify that the stock market is moving downwards on this news that possibly the corporate rate could be phased in over several years. i wasn't sure if you were trying to make the point that the president would be for a phase-in or against a phase-in. >> no, i said that the president laid out his principles, and it doesn't include the phasing in, so we're still committed to that moving forward. but -- and i don't have any reason to believe we have changes -- >> so the red line of a 20% -- >> i'm not drawing a red line, i'm just saying those are the principles we've laid out, and we haven't adjusted or changed our principles since this process started. thanks so much, guys. have a good day. neil: all right. finally thanks to our blake burman, a comment on those tax cuts. my golly. and that the reason why the
markets are down, to blake's point, is because of this idea they're going to phase in the corporate tax relief, and markets don't like that, the idea that this is yet another watered-down version of tax cuts that aren't getting to be all they appear to be. gerri willis, what do you think of that? >> i think that's going to be unacceptable to the president. i think that's what she was hinting at. he wants a right-now answer, and it seems to me what republicans on the ways and means committee are doing is trying to find any way possible to pay for these tax cuts that they want to deliver even including cutting our 401(k) benefits which i think is anathema to so many americans. neil: you know, deirdre, they're running into some problems here just paying for this, and that's part of why you have to, you know, rob peter to pay paul to get some of the things you want, including phasing in some of the tax cuts, maybe getting a different bracket, higher bracket for the well-to-do, maybe you have them end up paying more than they are now. where do you think this goes?
>> it's difficult to say at this juncture, but it's clear the markets are reacting, and most investors do not like this phase-in idea. we talk about certainty as something that can buoy markets, and i think there were a lot of investors, particularly institutional investors, who had been just assuming that something near this 20% would pass in a very clear form. maybe not by the end of this year, but perhaps maybe by the middle of next so the lack of carat is always going to be a problem for investors. i'm with gerri about discussions about the 401(k). this is frightening to a large amount of u.s. population who feel like they're not getting a pension anymore. by the time they're older social security will be greatly diminished. 401(k) is one way to control their destiny. that is part of it. with the lack of clarity about what the corporate rate will be and by when, it will weigh on
investors mind. neil: we don't know what the swap out will be, 401(k)s and money you put away is another. >> when you're taxed. neil: right. the paul manafort thing did come up a lot, not surprisingly. is this something, gerri this, is noise that gets washington fixated on drama? this is big deal. 12-count indictment, president says predating joining team trump. how do you think this could upset the applecart? >> you heard in the presser. said he wasn't important to the campaign beyond getting the delegates together, but democrats will push like howdy to make this an important part of the conversation to push this narrative. they have so much to cover up at this point. taxes should be front and center. my guess we won't spend all of our time talking about it. neil: all right. i want to thank you both, very, very much.
take a peek at the dow, down 80 points, in and out of session lows. a lot built on noise and simple to pounce on stocks that have run up and fast. that is not affecting amazon shareholders who are seeing pop to their stock today, owing to momentum. trish regan. to you. trish: lots going on, neil. you heard zare -- sara huckabee sanders indictments had nothing to do with the trump campaign. they indicted both man for for e and and along with his partner and a advisor to the campaign, george papadopoulos. the market doesn't care prem doesly about all of this. perhaps because this is stuff that happened prior to paul manafort