tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business September 5, 2018 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT
always be able to infer agendas or intent or even location in some case. >> in the dialogue you talked about with law enforcement, is this one of the topics where you're asking them for information or they're asking you and they're trying to follow the money or you have seen any of that? or has it been one of those issues that is just too hard to think about? >> it is both. we have seen proactive outreach from either side. >> but that would be, i think, a critical issue if terms of governing the behavior of campaigns. i would hope that you would continue to work and we would urge our colleagues in government to work with you in that regard. one of the issues, and i think senator warner and several others brought it up. is prevalence of bots. i'm not a technologist but seems to me that you could identify a bot's presence, at that you connotefy at, your consumers
that 35% or 80% of these messages have been generated electronically. is that feasible and is that something you're doing? >> it's a mixed answer right now. we are able to identify automations and activity coming through our api. to senator warner's comments we would be able to label that with context but we are not necessarily as easily able to identify people who might be scripting our website. so making it look like it is an actual human or even the app, make it look like an actual human performing these actions, that becomes much more challenging and unclear. so in consideration of labeling and context we need to make sure that, when people see that bottom label, that -- bot label, they're assuming everything that is not on is human. we need to make precision accuracy as we label those things. >> wouldn't there be value
beginning the labeling process, even with the heavy disclaimer this identifies only, only a fraction of potential fictitious actors? >> yeah, this is definitely an idea we're considering especially this past year. it is really up to the implementation at this point. >> miss sandberg, you're comments? >> this is one of ideas i had the opportunity to discuss with vice chairman this morning with his office and white paper. we're committed to working with you on it. >> let me ask a question. going forward, i think we'll come to a major debate within this country, within the whole world of who owns my data, which rapidly is becoming me. is it a company like facebook? is it a company like twitter? which raises the question, do you believe that your users should have the right to control what you do with the data,
either selectively, individual occurrence or generically or at or even simply purge it at some point? >> i believe that very strongly. it is your information, you share it with us. if you want to delete it, we delete it. if you want to take it with you, we enable you to download it and take it with you. >> what about for those people, many people, in the hustle and bustle of every day that is a very cumbersome process? shouldn't they be allowed to sort of have a check that says that every two months deleted, or deleted as soon as i put it in or -- >> we're working on some of the tools. we improved. we made it easier to understand what information we have, how we're getting it, how we use it. we'll continue to iterate here. >> mr. dorsey, the same question. >> we do believe people should have complete control over their data. again senator warner brought up
an interesting point earlier which is i don't believe there is a real understanding of the exchange being made in terms of people performing activities on these services and services like twitter and how they can actually see that as an exchange, an exchange of value and those are the things, i would love to think a lot more about. how do we make that more clear. i think that goes back to the incentives conversation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator reed. i thank all the members for their questions and our panelists for their answers. will turn to the vice chairman for any last comments he might have. >> i want to thank you both. i want to thank you for the spirit you brought to this, some of the suggestions, your responses to to some of the suggestions. i wish our members were still here because i think they all performed extraordinarily well. i take away from this, three or
four quick points. one, very much appreciate mr. dorsey, your acknowledgement that we ought to move towards and miss sandberg echoed this as well, the ability to indicate users whether they're being contacted by a machine or human being, recognizing there are technical difficulties. acknowledging just because it's a bot, that does not mean inherently it is good or bad. it may be a data point that an individual ought to have as they make determinations going forward. i also really appreciate it, miss sandberg, that your notion not only should easters have access to all the information that you or others are collecting but as we work through this how you monetize that and let users know the value of their data. i think that increased price transparency, and i'm, very grateful your willingness to at least consider that. i think at that would go a long way towards making this exchange
better understood by individuals. i also, i didn't get a chance to really get into this at length, but you and i had the conversation about this in the past, around data portability, i'm a old telecom guy, when number portability came around we got a lot more competition from the wireless industry and elsewhere. i know data portability you make it available, but easier user format that can positive from platform to platform i think would be extraordinarily important to continue to have competition in the space. also appreciate your comment. i think we're going to have more and more of these areas where manipulation may take place that actually incents violence and we use, both cited horrible example what happened in myanmar. i appreciate the comment you said facebook ought to have a moral and legal obligation if there are sites incenting violence taking those down. getting into how we spell that
all out, will be a challenge, but i appreciate your willingness to work with me on that. mr. chairman, thank you for the fourth hearing on this. i think it is very, very important. i think our committee will continue to take the lead on these subjects. >> i thank the vice chairman, i would ask both of you if there are any rules, antitrust, ftc regulations or guide lines that are obstacles to low elaboration between companies? i hope you will submit for the record where those obstacles are so we can look at the appropriate steps we can take as a committee to open those avenues up. i want to thank both of you for appearing today, for continued efforts to help find a solution to the challenging problem. this hearing represents the capstone of four, of fourth piece of the committee's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 elections. so far we completed our inquiry into the attempted hack of state elections infrastructure, the intelligence community assessment on russian activities
in rise u.s. elections. the obama administration's policy response to those operations. with your testimony today, at this, the fourth hearing, we have held on social media we hear, we heard the top level perspective on how to address foreign influence operations on your platforms. when this committee began its investigation into rush sun interference in the 2016 elections, neither mark nor i fully appreciated how easily foreign actors could use social media to manipulate how americans form their views. like most technology, social media has the capacity to be used for good as intended but also to advance agendas of those bent on manipulation and destruction. given the amount of information companies like google collect on each and every american, it is also too easy for bad actors to craft a message that appears
tailored just for you. the russians undertook a structured influence campaign not against the american government, but against the american people. moscow saw the issues that talking heads yell about on cable news, race, religion, immigration and sexual orientation and they use those to sow discord and to foment chaos. they leverage our social media to undermine our political system as well. but make no mistake, russia neither leans left nor right. it simply seeks turmoil. a week america is food for russia. it is important to highlight there is a very human component to all of this. no single algorithm can fix the problem. social media is part of our daily lives. it serves as the family newsletter, a place to share life's personal joys and sorrows away to communicate ones status during a crisis and everything
in between. unfortunately other states are now using the russian playbook as evidenced by the recently uncovered iranian influence operations, we're at a critical inflection point. will using social media to sow discord become acceptable statecraft if how many copycats will happen before we take this seriously to find solutions? your companies must be at the forefront to combat those issues. you know the algorithms, your customers, and your data collection capabilities better than any government entity does or should. still the burden is not entirely on your shoulders. government, civil society and the public will partner with you. i would like to take just a moment to thank our staff. they have worked diligently town cover the scope of the problem. their research has been
thorough. their efforts are seamlessly bipartisan and their drive to defend the public against foreign influence should make america's, americans watching today proud. there is no clear and easy path forward. we understand the problem. and it's a first amendment issue. we cannot regulate around the first amendment but we also cannot ignore the challenge. i'm confident that working together we can find a solution and path forward, that will only make us stronger, more connected, more prepared to face down those who seek to weaken our democracy, for your participation in being part of the solution we thank you immensely today. this hearing is now adjourned. neil: you have been watching an interesting exchange with the senate intelligence committee that featured ceo jack dorsey,
his counterpart, she is actually the chief operating officer at facebook, sheryl sandberg. noticeably absent today was any representative from google. google had offered a senior executive vice president. that wasn't good enough. presumably they wanted larry page, the head of the company. he was not going to go himself but had offered a number of high up officials. not high enough. it wasn't he. the committee made note of that both democratic and republican representatives chairing that committee. at least later on jack dorsey hop over to the house side and speak before the house energy and commerce committee. the issue about what to do with russian interappearance and sorting out how social media concerns like twitter and like facebook and like google can police this sort of activity on their own without getting the government too involved. there were warnings about mr. dorsey and mr. sandberg
about going too far on the government's part. both readily acknowledging they cannot do it on their own. in the chasm in the middle, are the question marks and commitment how far the government should go on these things. social media stocks are taking it on the chin, on the idea if they can't fix their problems the government will. there is always concern about the government going too far. adam shapiro with the latest and react sun on capitol hill. hey, adam. reporter: hey, neil. the way to break down this roughly three-hour hearing, a couple of key points. one, russia is still at it, according to committee members, trying to influence u.s. elections through social media. that the entities like facebook and twitter are sharing data. they are sharing data it comes to security issues. they share information with one another once they identify a bad actor. they do this with other social media companies but they said more needs to be done. and the third issue which was hanging over this, the chairman senator burr alluded to, which is that regulation is probably
coming. he said if we need to have regulation, let's have an open and honest discussion about it. you were zeroing in on key points here, some of the suggestions making sure if you know you use facebook or twitter, you're being contacted by a bot, not necessarily good or bad, but not a human being. let me let you listen to an exchange from mr. dorsey with twitter and then with sheryl sandberg about the difficulties they face in all kinds of issues, identifying bad actors, getting them off their platforms, but balancing between what is free speech and hateful speech. take a listen. >> we are proud of how the free and open exchange has been weaponized and used to distract and divide people and our nation. -- we are not proud. we found ourselves unprepared and ill equipped for the immensity of the problems we acknowledgeed. reporter: i lost the feed.
neil: i apologize for that, adam. we're having problems with our own building with internal cable feed so it's a mess. not a social media mess. it is just a mess with getting normal feeds through here. the issue again with how far does the government go to police social media companies on this issue. the president has already said when it came to google, for example, there are a number of search results the president argued were rigged against conservatives and that the site works against those who might want to get right of center thought and search results. he was considering regulation in that regard. larry kudlow had said we'll take a look at federal regulations for google. ajit pai, the chairman of the sec says social media companies should be more transparent and police this aggressively on their own. he did not abide any threats to that or he would do anything if the companies did not move to be as transparent as he wished as
quickly as he wished. let's get the read from georgia republican congressman, buddy carter. he was busy questioning jack dorsey, will be i should say, later today. congressman, very good to have you. i guess touche to both sheryl sandberg and of course, mr. dorsey for appearing. are you upset and angry at some of your senate counterparts were that google didn't send larry page? they offered some higher-ups but the committee refused. if it wasn't going to be the big gun they didn't want to hear? >> i think they do owe us an explanation. the united states congress wants you to appear before them. nobody is above that. and, certainly we need an answer response. i think it is very irresponsible of google not to send their chief executive officer to appear before the united states congress. it is our responsibility to represent the people. we can only do that if you show
up and answer our questions. neil: one of the things mr. dorsey kept pushing was this idea that whatever his own personal liberal bias, he mentioned this on a number of occasions, that twitter, quote, in a letter to your committee does not use political ideology to make any decisions whether related to ranking content on our service or ranking how we enforce our rules. do you believe that? >> well, you know, the examples that have been cited would lead one not to believe it. we've had examples even on our own committee of people who have been shadow banned and people who have been penalized, if you will, what they had posted and it was skewed towards conservatism. that is something we have to have answers to. look, i don't want the government to have to get involved in monitoring these platforms. i think that one of the reasons they have proliferated, turned out to be one of the greatest
successes we've ever seen purely because the government stayed out of it. i'm not a threatening person. i don't want to be threatening them, but the message has to get through to testimony, if you don't get it fixed we'll have to get it fixed for you. i don't think you want that to happen. neil: what do you think will be different when mr. dorsey appears before your committee? much has been talked about, satisfaction among democrats and republicans, congressman, that these companies could be taken advantage of again fake news could get in there, that again is in the eye of the beholder? if they don't, somehow cannot get this done on their own, that is something that sandberg seemed to indicate, then, the government will have some sort of role here but do you know what that would be? >> it is hard to say at this point. you know, regardless of what it is, i don't see it really benefiting innovation. i think it will perhaps stifle innovation. and none of us want that we want the internet to continue to proliferate. we want it to continue to be the
great communication plot form that it has been but at the same time, we can't allow this to happen. it has to be fair. it has to be balanced like this. and, you know, we got examples for just, to give you a quick example. i sent out messages to my constituents in the first district, what do you want me to ask mr. dorsey? i got a response back from a teen, a high schooler and i'm a conservative and i have a conservative tweet and i can't get verified on it. why can't i get verified? i have over 44,000 followers, letyet more liberal ones they have many less followers than i do, but they're getting verified. why is that? that is the kind of question we want an answer here. neil: you know, congressman, the president was very upset at google last week as you recall with he was saying that users are getting rigged results and that he would be opened to considering regulations on the company. larry kudlow, one of his top economic advisors had said at
the time, we're taking a look doing just that. ajit pai, the chairman of the fcc, is noting that he wants to see all social media companies to be more transparent. he held off the possibility of doing anything more than that but there was clearly an, appeared, sir, to be an appetite on the part of the white house to crack down on these guys, maybe outright regulate them. do you support that? >> i do not support regulating them at this point but i'm not sure that they're getting the message. just an example, when we had the ceo of facebook, i asked him about, about the illegal ivory trade in the chat rooms. he was one aware of it. we'll get it fixed. i asked him about the illegal drugs and advertisement and opioids on internet. we're going to get it fixed. i asked him about the intellectual property and live stream of movies such, take place, when they're still in theaters. oh, that has been going on
forever. you tell me you will get other things fixed and tell me you're not dog anything about something going on forever? i can tell you don't want the federal government in this. if we have to we'll be forced to do it. neil: congressman, good luck, later today. we'll monitor your hearing as well. sheryl sandberg was saying among other things, we foe we can't stop interference by ourselves. what she didn't detail what she would be open to or willing to consider vis-a-vis the united states government. to connell mcshane, we have a tech analyst. ian, beginning with you, about a year ago both democrats and republicans were criticizing a lot of these social media guys, the two included today, for not doing more to thwart and weed out what is deemed to be fake news. always in the eye of the beholder often times. the president has said it is worse than that that it is right-bashing news and that is what he wants corrected.
so how do you avoid this getting to be a political argument? >> there are a lot of different opinions here. there is also two separate issues here. i think, if you look at your graphics, you have google listed as social media, but i don't consider google a social media platform at all, the reason they want to stay away from here. there is data privacy concern that is completely legitimate and something more of a concern with these platforms. that is you how they monetize. neil: you're right. one of the reasons why larry page rejected going this, he did not want to be lumped in with this group. i apologize. >> okay. but yeah i think there is a difference between, there is free speech and there is the data and there is some overlap in between. this seemed to be more of an exercise, felt like another check-in, this was really good performance for both the senator burr and this committee and the executives as well. i think everyone is starting to get it. it is becoming extremely obvious and transparent. it is a matter of execution.
that is what they need to keep checking in on. if the execution doesn't follow through, then regulation will ensue. neil: that is the open-ended question, right, connell? what would be the regulation be? if you went after google, for example, based on a search engine that weeds out material, comes from most of the mainstream media, itself thought to be tilted against conservative thinking, more on liberal lines, all of sudden google is in a no-win situation, right? >> there is separation at least some extent what these companies can operate and do as private companies, essentially what is allowed on their platforms and then the separation or the banning of accounts that are inauthentic and or fake. a lot of that comes down to financial incentives. this hearing was not essentially about shadow bang conservatives a issue a lot of conservatives are worried about, but russians
inferioring with our elections. there was discussion with sheryl sandberg, kamala harris of california brought up how much money was made or not made off of fake accounts. as part of that sandberg said 3 or 4% of facebook accounts are inought thought 10 or fake. similar on the google side, there is similar discussion how many fake accounts are out there. when egg arelation comes in, what is incentive companies, not only getting rid of accounts that are fake, not only discussion, but prevent, get at heart of the matter, once those accounts are fake or inauthentic or russians are eliminated. what is to stop somebody popping up with another faith account which happens quickly? these are publicly traded company how much user growth they have, if you substitute one fake account for another that is where you have the user growth and that is where they might step in. neil: sheryl sandberg says the
problem is twofold. finding fake accounts, once you assess they're fake or made up or have hidden agenda or russian oriented, or whatever, the next hurdle is shutting them down. that always creates controversy for themselves. for someone's fake account, that is someone else's news feed. that is a slippery slope. >> i think it is true. i think there is a really big difference someone chooses to subscribe as a real human being and totally bot or fake news. i think there is difference. neil: the problem is distinguishing which is which, right? >> they said there are no ways around it. there are tens of thousands of bodies and police officers. neil: are they private bodies or government bodies? who are they? >> he have been adding employees to police t the key incentives for everyone is on the same page. this is not good for their stock. this is not good for their reputation. this is to the good for our democracy. i think as everyone's incentives are in line, this will be dealt
with as best as possible. there are things that slip through the cracks. there are nature of being a platform with billions of users. neil: there is that, connell, did you hear from anyone this is anything going to be different at the house hearing today, just featuring mr. dorsey or more of the same? we want to watch this, republicans especially are leery of regulating this but they have to feel like they're going to do something. they have to justify it, right? >> you might hear more about regulation and first issue they brought up and separation of free speech issues and how it applies to say conservatives on twitter and facebook and the like whereas this hearing was much more focused as it should have been. the senate intelligence committee on foreign actors and what they are doing. i know the two sometimes interact with each other. going back to incentives which ian was bringing up, incentives are in line but what about the company's point of view keeping user growth numbers as high as possible and the replacement of
the fake accounts? are the companies really incentivized, yes, maybe they want to get rid of the fake news and fake accounts but what is to incentivize them from having somebody that is eliminated, replace that account so their user growth numbers stay as high as they possibly can? that is an issue government is thinking about they need to address. neil: twice, thank you very, very much. as you both alluded, it is weighing on their stocks, twitter at worst point down close to 7%. as jock dorsey was saying this could be overwhelming issue. he had a tougher time would seem in the exchange, if you compared he and how senators were questioning and reacting to what sheryl sandberg had to say of facebook. bottom line, technology stocks are having a tough day after relatively good day yesterday. alphabet of google fame didn't send a representative at all. it is down 1 and 2/3%. the overall market, if you look
at the dow came off lows here, on the idea that the canadians are talking trade again and talking is better than not. so hope springs eternal that maybe they will be springs eternal that could lead to a three-way, mexican, canadian pact. the devil is in the details or even getting to the details but that is the hope. more after this. ♪ ♪
a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.
>> it is pie, my understanding, you're asking me to give my view on a potential hypothetical. neil: all right, between protesters, and they were, in strong supply today, despite a promise crackdown on number of protesters would be allowed in. they don't necessarily announce we're protesters, can we come in. of course they had a better than 70 arrested. i don't know how many were arrested and have been arrested so far today. but it has not been an easy event for brett kavanaugh, the president's choice to become the next supreme court justice. let's get a read how all of this will, former law clerk to justice anthony scalia, ed whalen. how do you think it is going? we knew protests would be there, particularly tough questions from democrats and the judge's position on the kind of allow answers he gave then president bill clinton and had some
regrets going too aggressively after bill clinton after the fact, versus what he might allow, what she was getting at for president trump. what did you make of all of the above? >> well, in a broader picture, judge kavanaugh did great in his testimony so far today. he displayed the intellect, character and temperment that earned him the american bar association's highest, most qualified rating unanimously and also earned him acclaim across the idealogical spectrum. i think everyone in washington has seen what a great election he is. is he going to win any democratic votes by his testimony? you know, perhaps a few, but the key thing is, there is, democrats have not scored any points and beyond that, judge kavanaugh has given the republicans ample reason to continue to support him. so everything is going great. we have another day 1/2 of this.
basically will be done. neil: almost can be a curse of having too long, involved written record, not only on case decisions but involved in, associate counsel with the bush administration, later on staff secretary overseeing all the documents that passed through the white house when mr. bush was president. so a lot of people want to get to the bottom of that, how weighed into a lot of this, even though the number of forms and material that has been provided to the committee is more than we have given the last five justice to come before a committee combined. but that, is that going to be a problem? >> oh, it is not going to be a problem at all. look, there has never been a practice on the part of the senate to demand everything about a nominee. that is an impossible standard to meet. for example, the senate did not demand elena kagan's files from
her year as solicitor general in the obama administration. no one demanded judicial case files of previous nominees. we have so much to assess what a justice kavanaugh would be like and indeed the very democrats who are making this claim for mirrored, they have already made up their minds on him. so i think republicans understand that they have an ample basis on which to attest the qualifications of this outstanding candidate. neil: you know, i guess there is a big interest, whether, any democrats will vote for the judge. do you suspect there are republicans who won't? >> no. at this point, seems that, all republicans appreciate what a great selection this is. i haven't seen any reason to be concerned that one might lose a vote here or there. if republicans hold together, i think you probably get some three or so democrats joining.
you will have a confirmation by 54-46 vote. neil: so, obviously jon kyl, being announced, the former senator to fill senator john mccain's seat, now of course, when senator mccain was ailing, there were serious concerns whether he would be able to vote himself, if he had survived. now you have a guaranteed vote, in this case, for the judge, does that change the math at all, what republicans have to do to reach across the aisle to try to pick up a vote or two? because then you would be at 50 firm votes for confirmation, right? >> well, the margin now is 51-49, rather than 50-49. so as a matter of simple math, in theory, republicans can lose a republican vote to have enough votes to have vice president pence cast a tie-breaking vote. we will not see that scenario.
we will see majority of all republicans hold together and a couple democrats come aboard. neil: in this process, i was told a vice president can't breaks a tie? you say i can? >> under the constitution the vice president has tie breaking votes on all votes. neil: on all votes, including for those on the supreme court? >> absolutely. neil: thank you very much. we'll watch closely. meantime we're watching very closely what is going to be happening on this crackdown not only on, we've just saw in the senate when we saw two of the largest social media concerns on the planet getting sort of buffetted by republican and democratic questioners. this time it will be jack dorsey on twitter alone on the house side getting the same treatment. his stock is down 4% today. we'll have more after this.
metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection.
before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.
will not compromise on key issues that he thinks are important to canada. we have erin mcpike. just the fact they're talking again, erin, was enough for market to reverse steep losses. this does not apply to technology but other issues. what do you make of the prospect canada, eventually, maybe grudgingly going along with the deal? >> trudeau will get more what he wants. he is more willing to strong arm president trump, i think president trump needs to get back in the deal too. because you're seeing retailers and car manufacturers and manufacturers broadly saying they want canada back in this deal. also republican senators saying they want canada back in this deal. i think it is a loss for president trump if he doesn't get canada back in the deal. neil: there is the issue what would congress do just a deal with mexico, right? that would be ripping up the old nafta deal to get a deal that is missing 1/3 of the old
participants, right? >> right. and, pennsylvania senator pat toomey, who is conservative republican has been making this point and lamar alexander as well of tennessee. they're saying, look, the president really has to get canada in this deal or it will create a lot of problems for congress, two months out from the midterms they have to think about a lot. neil: so, if you're the president and you have already given a warning to congress, don't start second guessing me on this, certainly saying don't reject me on this, it could put republicans in an odd position, right? >> they already are in a odd position but, you're seeing a lot of republicans and industry groups banding together on this and that is why i see, trump obviously wants this. this is something he believes, this is his thing. you know, and he is going to try to go to the mat on this. i see that. but i think that just brings trump and trudeau to the table
and maybe they can hammer something out. they're both big boys but, you know, again, trudeau has just been willing to challenge trump left and right, and at some point, i think they will realize for both of them it is good to get everybody back at the table. neil: the president has sort of let it known out there in this interview with bloomberg that was supposed to be off the record, of course the whole world heard about it, he wasn't going to budge, wasn't going to move an inch. he wouldn't make any concessions. that got back to the canadians and apoplectic and supreme peed off and what will weigh allow them to come back? what is the approach to canada, we need you a lot more than we need you signing offer on to this? >> neil, i don't know the answer to that question. i think that is hard to say but
look, trump, how often has stuck to his word. you know, he obviously likes to lay down a marker and he will move it. that is how he negotiates. maybe he will cave a little bit on that. neil: neil: i know i'm switching around like a crazy drunk here, but on the kavanaugh hearings going on, everyone seems, despite the protests and well-coordinated protesters, one gets thrown out, another few minutes later another one stands up an intervenes, you know, democrats are trying, i guess to run out the clock or delay certain things that looks like unlikely. do you see, as some of my prior guests have been telling me, that his nomination out of committee is a given by friday, saturday at the latest, and that given republicans 51-49 edge, now jon kyl in there for john mccain, chances improve all the more, that he will be our
next supreme court justice? >> a number of democrats that i talked to, and even those working on the issue say, they are fairly certain that kavanaugh become as justice. what they're doing now is showing the base that they have to put up fight because now is the time that there is a fight to be had. and the base sees that there was not much of a fight put up over the gorsuch is nomination. so they had to overcorrect for that in this particular case. neil: so it does make a difference, because the real issue, as senator mccain was so sick he would never be able to come to washington to vote on this anyway, jon kyl would, he served as the judge's sherpa, sending him around the hill that is nominally, significantly improved odds for his confirmation, does it not? >> it has, but i think what we keep hearing is that democrats and republicans alike expect this to be a party-line vote and
he just goes through by one. neil: really? so all republicans would vote for the judge? >> don't you think so at this point? >> you're the expert. i just read a prompter. i refer to you. >> i think all republicans do vote for him. the question is whether or not you get a couple democrats to vote along with republicans. they -- neil: they would only do that, would only do that after the fact when it looks like all republicans will vote, right? >> well, i think the question is heidi heitkamp and what her race is looking like. neil: yeah. >> donnelly as well. those are the two i think to watch. maybe manchin. but those three. neil: interesting. all right. always good chatting. thank you very much, erin. gasparino is coming. you know what that means. charlie gasparino is always breaking news. of course he broke all the news on tesla and its problems. now a follow-up to that and some of the legal moves the company is considered. the kavanaugh hearings will
wherever your phone takes you, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less. use less data with a network that has the most wifi hotspots where you need them and the best 4g lte everywhere else. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. and ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your internet. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
neil: all right, i just want to talk about something a guess said earlier about on this show, whether the vice president can in the case of 50-50 tie in the senate when it comes to deciding supreme court justice can break the tie, like important piece of legislation and like. we have had guests when it comes to this sort of thing, the filibuster, breaking that you really can't. the good professor was right. it turns out in the cases of ties this is is the same as legislation, and vice president can intervene and break it. the reason why we, we were pursuing this is because it wasn't very clear. you have heard some very credible legal sources on this air saying no, no, it is very different when picking a supreme court justice versus, you know, breaking a tie in legislation. apparently it is not. we checked it. and the good professor was right. so i'm sorry for sort of badgering the guy on the issue, but i defer to lawyers because, well, i defer to lawyers. all right, i also defer to this guy when it comes to breaking news because he is
always way ahead of the pack. charlie gasparino on tesla right now and the case of what, new concerns -- >> there is. ec investigation going on into tesla's past statements about car production and profitability. and elon musk's statement that he is going private, that he has since given up on and whether he really had the funding secured as he said in the tweet. we should point out -- neil: by the way, if he got it wrong or now says i'm not going to go -- >> doesn't matter. neil: a sin is a sin. >> you still put out statements. it moved the stocks. investors lost. just to underscore the seriousness of this probe, a lot of people thought it may be a slap on the wrist, i can tell you this is a very serious probe based on a lot of reporting including right now as to whom mr. musk has retained. two lawyers, which is pretty amazing, steve farina, williams
and connelly, veteran litigator, represented dick grasso in the new york stock exchange case, you remember that? and campos, a veteran litigator, appointed to the full commission of sec by george bush twice. these are two guys deeply embedded and know a lot about the regulatory apparatus at the d.c. both at sec, they're the main litigant, that doing the main investigation, that fox business broke first that subpoenas were sent, focus heavily on statements mr. musk made whether they were false or not false and whether theres were some truth to them and whether those statements violated sec rules particularly, 10-b-5, which says you can't put out intentionally false statement with moving the stock. there are statements about the car production and profitability. it is the private, going private, whether he really did
have the funding and i'm telling you when you bring in someone like steve farina, and i know steve a little bit because i covered the grease sew case, veteran litigator will get in the trenches to fight for his client. when you bring in roel campos, from republican administration you are lawyering up in a major way to go to battle. that is what mr. musk did, that is a very serious investigation. neil: he is not out of the woods? >> no, as a matter of fact the woods has begun. neil: i see where you're going with that analogy. jack dorsey, less than 30 minutes away from going to the house and getting grilled. i don't think it will be as bad as judge kavanaugh on the supreme court hearings but it could get raucous there. more after this. ♪
copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms
and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com.
neil: all right. it got a little nasty in the senate. we'll see what happens in the house. twitter ceo jack dorsey testifying here and this is sort of more from foreign influence in past, potentially future u.s. elections to political bias. something that's a big concern on capitol hill, particularly when it comes to the president of the united states, who said of google that it offers users only rigged results and that he would consider regulations for
the company. google, no representative in washington for neither of these hearings. twitter and its ceo jack dorsey has already sent his written comments to that committee saying, among other things, twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. there were a number of senators who disagreed with that and said his liberal bias, something he freely admitted to, does not have any influence on how his social media website weighs comments and biases of any sort from any of its users worldwide. some bought that, others did not. some were recommending that the company clean up its act more aggressively, others saying if he didn't, the government will. of course, that raised concerns and a lot of social media stocks that the government will be doing something here and that could go a little too far.
scott, what do you think of that weighing on the stock? it's been out there before, they usually recoup whatever they lost a day or two later, but they are well off their lows. what do you make of that? >> i do think it's a buying opportunity like we have seen in the past. you're right, now, i'm glad this time around, none of these senators or members of congress are asking for help setting up an e-mail address like they kind of did with mark zuckerberg a few months ago here, but the reality is this. i guess i use these platforms and i go on them and all it really does is make me laugh most of the time. i don't take them terribly seriously. as we know with traditional media that's out there, a lot of it is biased. people know that. to hold these folks responsible for that and say well, you've got to change or you're going to be regulated or changed
yourselves by us, the government, it's just kind of crazy because what are we really trying to get out of these platforms and these companies. i think they built good businesses on the fact that there's information exchange, people take it at face value. yes, people take it more seriously but you have to know what you are getting on these platforms. they're not reporters, they're not sourced media where all of a sudden it's stuff people need to take as gospel. neil: what i worry about when the government wants to step in and do something, it's sort of like me offering folks dietary advice. i don't think it's a life strategy. i don't think anyone in the government advocating you get your financial act together when you lose trillions of dollars is in any position to do that. be that as it may, this has created a huge disturbance within both parties. they feel they have to do something. what would it be? >> i will say, what you told me
about, it worked pretty well for a couple days. but you know what, they are going to have to accept greater responsibility. i understand what they started out as, and jack dorsey talked about being the public square. we are talking about a nation where newspapers are going out of business left and right. this is where people get their news and information and while they don't have to necessarily police, per se, opinion, the idea that they can influence things and influence incivility or other things like that, i think comes with a lot of responsibility. i will let you know, i have met with jack dorsey twice, and i have had some great conversations with him, and i believe in his heart of hearts, he gets it and i think he wants to do the right thing, and we'll see what happens. but i agree with you, you got to be careful because once the government gets involved in this, then it also takes on, you know, has its own ramifications which can be deadly for this industry. neil: you know, someone wants to see something done, they don't want to see any interference in
the next election, and both of these folks were saying that's a very real possibility. i think sheryl sandberg was saying the problem is first finding these fake accounts, then shutting them down. so apparently she's saying we have had a devil of a time doing it, we can't do it. twitter has kind of acknowledged the same. so are they asking for whatever the government is going to be doing? >> i think what they are basically doing is trying to get rid of their liability or at least mitigate their liability. they know that things will happen at this next election. absolutely there are agents already working to influence this next election so they want to make sure okay, we are not fully blamed for this. the tricky part is you can flip on an algorithm and say that will control all this stuff but then the algorithm can be controlled by whoever. the trick is ensuring there's a
mix like a human being looking at this and saying this is legit and from a campaign and making sure things are balanced. there's no basis for trump's statement on google being against him but beyond that, it's good to be sure everything is fair so long as everyone is paying attention. that's the key. neil: you know, depends how you view it. what the president was complaining about, correct me if i'm wrong, he was saying a lot of searches, political related searches, are tilted and more friendly to the left. i don't know detail. you tell us whether that's accurate. but a search engine will glean that from traditional media and cull articles and resources from traditional media, which -- and i don't want this to be a right or left thing -- i think it's fair to say the media does and is a little left-leaning. i'm being generous. i'm wondering if then the
president has to do the next obvious thing which is what scares republicans, too, calling for regulation, that he said he's open to regulation. larry kudlow i think had mentioned maybe with you, charles, that we would look at regulation down the road. that i think is what scares people. >> yeah. it scares us as an investor and as we place client money in these firms because as charles pointed out, that changes the face of these companies. it changes their whole business model. now, similarly to trump's comments, i heard similar things about hillary clinton's e-mail servers. if you google those, you wouldn't always get the articles that said there are all these e-mails on these servers and they couldn't find them and things like that so maybe that's another piece of the puzzle. rustls also said it, too. to me, if you are going on social media platforms, googling stuff, and allowing yourself to be influenced by what you read and see posted, you need to have the responsibility taken on to
yourself to investigate that stuff you are allowing to influence you and make sure it's real, make sure it lines up with the right sources and things like that. that takes time. neil: why should that be the user's job, or we all just have our favorite sites, our favorite news sources. some of them swear to everything you say on your show. they are misguided. but, but, what i'm wondering, why should the government get involved in that, pick and choose your places and leave it at that? >> yeah, i don't disagree with that. i do have to push back against russ, because it feels like it adds insult to injury to suggest the algorithms which are programmed by human beings who are 99% left-leaning don't have ways of discriminating against conservatives or the president himself. i know a 10-year-old who had cheat codes for video games. there are ways you can
manipulate the system, whether it's google or -- neil: [ inaudible ]. >> there are ways to manipulate those. google, twitter and facebook. i think you know what, they need to figure out how to stop that manipulation. i think conservatives are getting the brunt of it. neil: your son is a genius. none of that surprises me. political argument notwithstanding here, you are leaving it incumbent upon these business businesses, they can't do this alone, they are inviting the kind of scrutiny the markets are recoiling at. i'm wondering where do you see this ending up? >> honestly, i don't see it being government regulation because i agree with everyone. i don't think the government -- neil: you're just trying to play switzerland here. it's not working, but go ahead. >> i agree with that aspect but i would say there's an element of visibility. one thing that facebook has done for political ads, for example,
is they have now an indicator of where the money came from for this political ad specifically so it doesn't just say some spicy headline. there's an icon saying paid for by. that's a really good step into showing people hey, you need to know this is an advertisement. neil: if you don't know, how can you even ascertain paid by? >> if you don't know the origin of it, you mean? neil: yeah. >> you are responsible to investigate that, though. if you are letting that influence you, you should take the extra steps to find out what that source is, who that site is, who the group is, because if you are taking that as an influential piece in your life, you have to know who that is. >> this is a paid for advertisement is enough. mostly those are labeled as news stories. you see a giant headline and read it as a news story, not an
advertisement. even labeling it as paid for by, that's a step in the right direction. neil: we'll see. if you are getting all your news from cnbc, that's your problem. all right. thank you all very, very much. you helped me sort of get this in better perspective. speaking of which, i found out there are a lot of rules in the senate and the house. i told you about the thing, the vice president can break a tie when it comes to supreme court confirmation, looks like he can when it comes to legislation when there's a tie. now i'm told senator chuck schumer wants to invoke the 2:00 p.m. rule which goes something like this. at 2:00 p.m., we quit. you know, i'm thinking we do that. that's it. done. i don't know why he's saying that, what's the motivation for those remarks but chuck schumer wants to invoke the 2:00 p.m. rule. there you go. mgx minerals' disruptive technology can extract lithium -
comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.
neil: all right. well, this 2:00 p.m. rule senator chuck schumer wants to implement right now has, as i suspected, i just couldn't confirm it, has to do with dragging this out, essentially, so each day ends a little earlier, this whole confirmation process goes well into next week, maybe the week after. then of course we are getting close to the midterms and this whole thing could be put off until after the midterms and that's what chuck schumer and
all the democrats are maybe thinking this through and saying hey, we can pick up the senate, torpedo this guy and he's done. but that appears to be the works here. they're not going to stick to that because that would have to take place in 45 minutes. the republicans have already indicated there's not going to be a 2:00 p.m. rule so get over that. anyway, judge brett kavanaugh, that's what's happening in his hearing. it's gotten very feisty. edward lawrence with the very, very latest. what's happening? reporter: yeah, you mentioned the 2:00 p.m. rule. that is meant to delay and push this off. senator chuck grassley said yesterday that he is willing to go into the weekend, in that case, saturday or sunday, the senate isn't normally in session so the 2:00 p.m. rule might not apply so he is willing to go as long as this takes. he said again, he wants to go into the weekend if that's what's necessary. i can tell you today there's a dozen police officers now surrounding the public section of this gallery because this day started just as day one left off with interruptions from
protesters. they are shouting about what the judge brett kavanaugh's potential position would be on roe versus wade. also, if the president would be a puppet for president donald trump if he gets into legal trouble. [ shouting ] >> that's okay. let these people have their free speech and interrupt the other 300 million people listening, that this is your opportunity to speak to the american people and for them to make a judgment about it. reporter: in the very first question and answer, kavanaugh laid out that he believes that the branches are separate. he says that his personal beliefs do not play a role in his rulings. >> i think the first thing that makes a good judge is independence, not being swayed by political or public pressure. that takes some backbone.
reporter: and democrats tried to pin him down, pin down kavanaugh, as a gun lover who doesn't look at the dangers of assault rifles. they also tried to figure out exactly if he is going to be the deciding vote to overturn roe versus wade. >> you truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within obviously some concern for a viable fetus? >> i understand your point of view on that, senator. i understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. reporter: we are expecting more fireworks here, especially since senator chuck schumer instituted or called for this 2:00 p.m. rule. there should be some discussion from senator chuck grassley and we will figure out exactly what's going to happen at 2:00 p.m. back to you. neil: edward, thank you very much.
now we turn to susan li. reporter: we are in midtown manhattan where uber is rolling out new safety features for both passengers and riders as they service more than 15 million rides a day. in the future, they will now have a ride check-in feature if the ride takes too long or if they sense there has been an accident along the way. we talked about that and also talked about antitrust, big tech and yes, a possible ipo next year. take a listen. you are celebrating your one-year anniversary. >> i made it. >> you made it. very true. now people want to know, are you still sticking with your timeline of an ipo in the back half of 2019, because your new cfo who will start in a few days -- >> starting next week. reporter: he says he's not on board for 2019 listing. >> i would expect nothing less of nelson. he's independent-minded. he's rigorous. so far, he's on the outside so i think i absolutely want nelson
to come in and i think that when he sees all of the work that the teams are doing, i think that he will agree that we are ready for 2019ipo. there's a bunch of systems work that's going on, financial work that's going on. the company is big enough. the company is incredibly important to the world and we have incredibly talented technologists out there. we will be ready but i want the stamp of approval from the cfo. reporter: there is always a but. the thinking on the street is if they ipo before you, they take up all the capital in the market. are you concerned? >> not at all. this is part of a transportation revolution. this is about ultimately ending car ownership. the transportation market is a $6 trillion business. you may think uber is big but we are $50 billion. we account for less than 1% of miles driven. really, what ourselves and lyft
are trying to do is break apart all the use cases of owning a car. you own a car to get to work, to pick up the kids at school, to get groceries, et cetera, and we are building out services to solve each of those use cases and ultimately making it unnecessary for you to own a car, and we think there are plenty of companies who can be part of that revolution. i think investors are going to line up behind us and lyft. i certainly hope they are. reporter: you are guaranteeing a 2019ipo? >> there's no guarantee. reporter: 80%? >> i can guarantee you we will be ready. we want to -- hopefully the markets will be ready for us. reporter: okay. little elusive there but looks like 2019, an ipo still on track. we talked about the ipo, about political bias as well and the testimony on capitol hill amongst his tech contemporaries and we will play that throughout the day on fox business. back to you. neil: good for you. he doesn't talk to many people.
some interesting revelations there. thank you, susan. susan li. we have been listening to the canadian minister of foreign affairs just saying in english and in french, remarkable how they do this in canada, they are closer but no deal yet. no deal yet on trade. that's what the markets are interested to hear. from the market when it might be time to buy or sell? with fidelity's real-time analytics, you'll get clear, actionable alerts about potential investment opportunities in real time. fidelity. open an account today.
fidelity. brbut how will his dentured to thicope with... a steak. luckily for brad, this isn't a worry because he's discovered super poligrip. it holds his denture tight and helps give him 65% more chewing power. leaving brad to dig in and enjoy the tastiest of t-bones. super poligrip, helping you enjoy the foods you love.
liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ neil: all right. canada's chrystia freeland saying that trade talks are still going on, both sides are making progress but they don't have a deal, do they. blake burman at the white house with more. reporter: sounds a lot like what we heard last weekend about this time, in the middle of last week. fast forward to here we are a week later and the u.s. and canadians still trying to hammer out some sort of trade agreement, whether that be bilateral or potentially a three-way deal, a renegotiated nafta that would involve the mexicans as well. same players here, chrystia
freeland, the foreign minister for canada, here in washington negotiating with the top trade representatives on the united states side. that would include the ambassador robert lighthizer. we also know jared kushner, who is part of the top operation in these trade talks, was seen walking into the ustr building as well. the u.s., the canadians back at it trying to hammer out some sort of deal, talking about how things are looking positive, moving in the right direction, but still, they are not close to the finish line or at least not at the finish line, not yet. that is one potential trade deal we are keeping our eyes on. another trade headline could come maybe this week, maybe next week, we'll wait, because we are waiting to see if president trump will or will not slap an additional $200 billion worth of tariffs against china. the reason why we are talking about this now is because the public comment period on that potential $200 billion worth ends today so it is quite possible that the president
could act on it as soon as tomorrow. watch this exchange earlier today between myself and the white house press secretary, r sarah sanders. has the president made that decision and when will it be revealed? >> as you know, we will never get ahead of the president's announcements. we will keep you posted. certainly a possibility. as the president has stated many times, he is going to keep pushing until we get a fair trade deal. reporter: still a possibility, when you look at the schedule, the president heads out of town tomorrow to montana, then will be in north dakota and south dakota on friday so if he moves forward on this, there's a potential this could slide into next week. among the questions are if the president goes forward with the $200 billion, at what level, at the 25% level, 10% level or somewhere lower or maybe even higher than that. neil? neil: wow. so not close. all right. blake, thank you very, very much. we told you yesterday about amazon briefly becoming a
trillion dollar company yesterday. it's since dropped back a little bit. fact of the matter is that guy, jeff bezos, is $60 million plus richer just this year and is sharing the wealth, at least an unusual political contribution. hillary vaughn has the details. reporter: jeff bezos getting into the business of politics and making a name for himself as a megadonor heading into the november midterms. the amazon founder and "washington post" owner giving $10 million to a super pac that helps veterans get elected. the political organization is only a year old and backs both democrat and republican vets running for house seats. bezos' donation outpaces the super pac's total donations they raised in their first year, $7 million. he added another $10 million to that. he says the fund's goal is to build a coalition of house members that are willing to work across the aisle so they ask
their candidates to make a pledge. they are backing 33 house candidates, 19 democrats, 14 republicans in the midterm election. they don't screen for political positions but they do ask the candidates to promise integrity, civility and courage in congress. also, each candidate commits to meet with someone from another party at least once a month and sponsor legislation with an opposing party member at least once a year. the fund also tries to clean up campaigning, too. part of the pledge requires candidates to reject and try to remove any campaign ads that lie or attack their opponent's character. until this point, the world's richest man has mostly kept his billions out of politics. bezos joining the ranks of other billionaire megadonors but sets himself apart with his bipartisan political giving so far. neil? neil: thank you very much. hillary vaughn. we told you about chuck schumer invoking a 2:00 p.m. rule that could be a means of keeping this hearing going on maybe for days,
weeks, who knows. now signs from judge napolitano it's evaporating on its own. what are you hearing? what's the significance of this? >> the senate has a rule which says no committee can meet beyond 2:00 in the afternoon while the senate is in session unless both the majority leader and minority leader consent. senator mcconnell, the majority leader, asked for the consent of senator schumer. he said i deny my consent. then the word went to the judiciary committee, you have to stop meeting at 2:00. then wily old senator mcconnell, the majority leader, pulled a fast one and said guess what, we will adjourn the senate which allows the senate judiciary committee to keep hearing. so the kavanaugh hearing will continue but there will be no action on the floor of the senate. the only substantial action they took today was the swearing-in of former and now senator kyl to replace the late john mccain representing arizona.
neil: it seems like a creative way, you don't want to take the ball game todown to the last 48 49 seconds, a touchdown any which way they can to finagle the win but how will this go? >> i think you summed it up nicely earlier. the democrats want to delay this. their hope is that judge kavanaugh is neither confirmed nor rejected, if there's no vote on him, until after the midterm elections. i don't think that's going to happen. i think mitch mcconnell has the votes and the democrats so far have not been able to pry loose any votes. they need to pry loose three votes. they have three targets. senator rand paul, who if he discovers that judge kavanaugh as mr. kavanaugh working in the bush white house was responsible for promulgating indefinite detention or torture of detainees, will probably not vote for him. senators susan collins and lisa murkowski, if they learn of any written documentation showing
judge kavanaugh's antipathy to roe versus wade, will probably not vote for him. that will require mcconnell to come up with four democrats. they targeted four democrats and are pretty close to asking for that. my opinion is republicans will not be pried loose. judge kavanaugh will get about 55 or 56 votes in the senate and that will occur before the first monday in october which is when the supreme court reconvenes. neil: do you know anything about how protesters, so many of them, get in? >> i think they get in without saying they are protestiers. yesterday they arrested 77 and as soon as they drive one out, some proper person comes in and takes the place and starts yelling and screaming and they drag that person out. neil: it's coordinated in waves or something. >> yes. yes. senator grassley, the chair, republican chair of the committee, accused the democrats of orchestrating the disruption.
that's a very, very serious allegation. that's one senator accusing others of disrupting senate business. before the democrats could deny it, the protesters themselves stood up and said we're not democrats. we have nothing to do with the democratic party. we dislike them as much as we dislike you, senator grassley. you can't make this up. neil: you are worse than pond scum. all right, judge, thank you very, very much. i knew he would be on top of this 2:00 p.m. thing. i thought they just wanted to leave early. we wanted to do something like that. we're out of here. what the heck. >> start protesting. neil: he's been protesting. he's always whining about something. a lot more coming up, including jack dorsey on the house side right now. the twitter ceo will be speaking with the house energy and commerce committee. again, he's acknowledged that there are problems and the company is trying to get on top
of the fake articles, the fake sites that popped up on social media, but when he and sheryl sandberg in the case of facebook, when the senate committee meeting was going on, acknowledged they can't fix this. they are all but inviting the government to step in and see what it can do. that is what is roiling investors in these very stocks. they are all down.
just stop a minute here. referenced twice in your 30 minutes and don't take this off of his time, you made reference -- you're talking about the period of time that he was white house counsel. that material is available to everybody. you know, it is difficult to ask a question when i have to ask republicans will you allow me to ask a question. i certainly never did that when
i was chairman. neil: all right. this goes from bad to weird. brett kavanaugh in the middle of all this, trying to make his case, obviously the tension between senators and protesters. it's one for the ages here. lot of people saying you have to go back to the clarence thomas hearings to see anything approaching how odd this has morphed into something far bigger than a supreme court confirmation process. the former law clerk of justice alito, barbara smith, barbara, what do you think? >> i was really shocked yesterday and this morning with the lack of decorum shown by some members of the judiciary committee. it's really almost unprecedented in terms of the last couple of nominations we have seen. obviously justice gorsuch's nomination hearing was a bit of a snoozefest so maybe democrats are reacting to that and taking exactly the opposite approach here. either way, it's a little surprising, especially on the heels of senator mccain's funeral last weekend and all the calls for bipartisanship and decorum in the senate. i really find it surprising.
neil: what happens now? democrats know the numbers, the math here doesn't look good, but you can push for delay, i guess, shutting things down at 2:00 p.m. was a chuck schumer inspired moment there to try to delay this but again, mitch mcconnell comes back and said that he would shut down the senate but the judiciary committee could continue its work. all these parliamentary back-and-forth just means republicans still are getting their way. right? >> i think that's right. frankly, if we are having a discussion about what rules we can use to block judge kavanaugh's confirmation, that says to me there's not a lot of substantive objection to his being a justice on the u.s. supreme court. obviously if democrats had substantive objections based on his jurisprudence or things he's said in the past, those would be the kind of conversations we're having. i actually think it's a relatively good sign for judge kavanaugh's prospects. neil: here's a case, i want to get your thoughts on this. he has a very long, judge
kavanaugh, very long written record. i mean, it's not a mystery to find out his thoughts on a whole host of subjects, let alone his time serving in the bush white house in a variety of capacities, including for better than a year handling all documents that came in and out of that white house. that's the stuff a lot of democrats want, but i'm curious where that part goes. democrats have been arguing they want to get their hands on that. they only have one out of ten documents they seek, even though the number of documents they have gotten is more than we have given the last five justice candidates combined. where does that stand? >> well, you know, when we are talking about documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house, obviously he was serving a much different role in the executive branch, advising the president, than what he's been doing for the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit. of course, when he was up for nomination and was ultimately confirmed to the d.c. circuit in 2006, in my mind that would have been the appropriate time to ask
about those white house era documents. having been a judge for 12 years, though, i think that's evidence of what kind of supreme court justice he would be, really lies with the almost 300 opinions he's authored as a judge on the d.c. circuit. i think that's sort of the best evidence we should be looking to, not, you know, documents from decades ago. neil: the timetable i guess is by the end of the week, saturday at the latest, get him out of the committee. i know it was approved by the u judiciary committee for a full senate vote. is that doable? >> frankly, i think there's a little wiggle room there. in my mind, i know the administration has said their goal is to have him on the bench on first street by october 1, which is when the supreme court will start sitting for this next term. frankly, i know judge kavanaugh's bright enough that if you gave him a couple days' lead time he would be prepared for that october 1st date. as long as he makes it through committee and through voting, can be sworn in as a justice by october 1st, i think we are in good hands. neil: how do you think these
hearings are going? all the crazy parliamentary back and forth, the protesters, i have never seen so many at a hearing, but all of that? >> well, certainly the volume in terms of the number of protesters we have seen interrupt the hearings by yelling from the gallery and having to be removed, that seems a little bit extraordinary to me. also, the level of vitriol and yesterday, what should have been a series of boring statements and introducing the nominee, before we got to the question and answer today. if you look at the statements senators were making yesterday, that seemed rhetoric a little hotter than we are used to seeing in these types of hearings. again, none of the criticisms of judge kavanaugh went to the merits of his job as a judge on the d.c. circuit or the kind of justice he would be on the u.s. supreme court. frankly, i wonder if the anger is targeted at something else, it's not really about judge kavanaugh at the end of the day. neil: hard to say. if i'm hearing you right, you don't see anything that's going to disrupt his getting to the
supreme court. >> i think republicans have the votes to confirm judge kavanaugh and he will soon be justice kavanaugh, much to our benefit. neil: all right. thank you very much, barbara. we are following a couple other things. a comeback in the markets over optimism for a deal with canada. also awaiting twitter ceo, mr. dorsey, who will pop over to the house side after spending a good deal of time on the senate side. back then he was with sheryl sandberg of facebook fame. now jack dorsey on his own with the house energy committee, and one of the things he's going to raise is the political ideology do not or does not make its way into any decisions that are ultimately approved at twitter. more after this. this isn't just any moving day.
this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.
neil: all right. now it's the house energy and commerce committee that will be grilling twitter ceo jack dorsey, only mr. dorsey for the time being. whether these hearings, the likes of which we saw earlier this morning with the senate committee grilling mr. dorsey and sheryl sandberg, of course, of facebook fame, how far this is going, the fact the government could be looking at cracking down on them or policing them or maybe making
decisions for them, has taken the wind out of some of these companies' stocks sales. what do you think is going on? >> some unwinding for profit taking. this happened the last time they had to testify in front of congress. remember, facebook got knocked down but as soon as the hearings were over, it had a big bounce. let's see if that happens once again, see if we get a relief rally if nothing significant comes from this. neil: so when all is said and done, i know you just look at the investment side, if the government were to try to get involved or try to deal with someone like sheryl sandberg and dorsey both saying in different ways there's only so much we can do, and the government decides all right, maybe we can do something, that generally is an affront to investors. >> yeah, it's usually not a good thing. but as we know with technology, adapt or die is the mantra. that's what we have seen over
the last 10 or 15 years, things have quickly moved along and there will be a new better mousetrap if these guys get bogged down and there will be a new technology that takes over. it happens over and over again. looking at the nasdaq, we still have a lot of upside, if you just look at the bounce-back we've had now i think three or four times where the tech sector sold off 10% and then bounced back and made new highs. that just happened in 2018. in the big picture, we have a very, very strong trend and i don't see it changing any time soon. neil: so those who pounce on this as a buying opportunity, because rarely do these stocks drop, what would you tell them? >> i was just looking at twitter as a buying opportunity. i'm an options trader so this is the increase of volatility a little bit so it may not be the best time just yet but i'm keeping my eye on twitter and facebook and some of the tech stocks, and we have seen in the past that the harder the times, you have to step up and take a shot at it.
on these pull-backs, and see how it reacts. if you don't get positive follow-through the next couple weeks, then maybe drop out and re-evaluate. but every other time we have seen it be a buying opportunity and i don't think it's different this time. neil: all right. thank you very much for being so flexible with the breaking news developments. a bullish read on what's going on despite what's going on. normally it is not a great thing for investors when the ceo of a company whose stock you have is getting grilled on capitol hill. jack dorsey was willing and is willing to take on all comers, as was sheryl sandberg of facebook fame earlier on. no doubt this committee will make reference to the fact google is a no-show as it was earlier today. larry page did not want to be lumped in with the stocks. google largely a search engine company so the distinction the president didn't draw when he said google offers rigged results and was considering regulations of the company. i don't know whether this committee will be offering much
the same, but we do know jack dorsey is there in his capacity as head of twitter to say i'm doing my darndest to keep track of fake news and make sure it's always balanced news. let's go to the house. >> -- steps to protect users that enable reporting, more needs to be done. bad actors have co-opted twitter and other social media platforms to spread disinformation and sow divisions in our society, for example, alex jones used twitter to amplify harmful and dangerous lies such as those regarding the sandy hook elementary school shooting. others have used the platform to deny the existence of the holocaust, disseminate racial supremacist theories and spread false information about terrorism, natural disasters and more. when questioned about this, jack dorsey said the truth will win out in the end but there is reason to doubt that, in my opinion. according the a recent study published by the m.i.t. media lab, false rumors on twitter traveled and i quote, farther,
faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth, with true claims taking about six times as long to reach the same number of people. and that's dangerous. in countries like russia and iran are taking advantage of this to broadly disseminate propaganda and false information beyond influencing elections, foreign agents are actively trying to turn groups of americans against each other. in these countries they are encouraging conflict and sow division and hatred by targeting topics that generate intense feelings such as race, religion and politics. unfortunately, the actions of president trump have made this situation worse, repeatedly the president uses twitter to bully and belittle people, calling them names like dog, clown, spoiled brat, enemies and loser. he routinely tweets false statements designed to mislead americans and foster discord and the president's actions coarsen the public debate and feed distrust within our society. president trump has demonstrated that the politics of division are good for fund-raising and rousing his base, and sadly,
republicans are now following his lead instead of criticizing the president for behavior that would not be tolerated even from a child. as reported in the news, the trump campaign and the republican majority leader have used the supposed anti-conservative bias online to fund-raise. this hearing appears to be just one more mechanism to raise money and generate outrage, and it appears republicans are desperately trying to rally their base by fabricating a problem that simply does not exist. regardless of the republicans' intentions for this hearing, twitter and other social media platforms must do more to regain the public trust. bullying, the spread of disinformation and malicious foreign influence continue. twitter policies have been inconsistent and confusing. the company's enforcement seems to chase the latest headline as opposed to addressing systematic problems. twitter and other social media platforms must establish clear policies to address the problems discussed today, provide tools to users and then swiftly and fairly enforce those policies,
and those policies should apply equally to the president, politicians, administration officials, celebrities and the teenager down the street. it's long past time for twitter and other social media companies to stop allowing their platforms to be tools of discord of spreading false information and of foreign government manipulation. >> thank you for having the hearing, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes mr. dorsey for purposes of an opening statement. we appreciate your being here. feel free to go ahead. >> thank you. thank you, chairman, ranking member, and the committee, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of twitter to the american people. i look forward to our conversation about our
commitment to impartiality, to transparency and to accountability. if it's okay with all of you, i would like to read you something i personally wrote as i thought about these issues. i'm also going to tweet it out right now. i want to start by making something very clear. we don't consider political viewpoints, perspectives or party affiliation in any of our policies or enforcement decisions, period. impartiality is our guiding principle. let me explain why. we believe many people use twitter as a digital public square. they gather from all around the world to see what's happening and have a conversation about what they see. twitter cannot rightly serve as the public square if it's constructed around the personal opinions of its makers. we believe a key driver of a thriving public square is the fundamental human right of
freedom of opinion and expression. our early and strong defense of open and free exchange has enabled twitter to be the platform for activists, marginalized communities, whistleblowers, journalists, governments and the twitter will always default to open and free exchange. a default to free expression left unchecked can generate risks and dangers for people. it is important twitter distinguishes between people's opinions and their behaviors. and disarms behavior intending to silence another person or adversely interfere with their universal human rights. we build our policies and rules with a principle of impartiality, objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. if we learn we fail to create
impartial outcomes, we immediately work to fix. in the spirit of accountability and transparency, recently we failed our intended impartiality. our algorithms were unfairly filtering 600,000 accounts, including some members of congress from our search auto complete and latest results. we fixed it. how did it happen? our technology was using a decision-making criteria that considers the behavior of people following these accounts. we decided that wasn't fair and we corrected it. we'll always improve our technology and algorithms to drive healthier usage and measure the impartiality of those outcomes. bias in algorithms is an important topic. our responsibility is to understand, measure, and reduce accidental bias due to factors such as equality of the data used to train our algorithms.
this is an extremely complex challenge facing everyone applying artificial intelligence neil: continuing to watch ceo jack dorsey of twitter, saying i have my personal biases. i they doesn't interfere with my company. to trish regan. >> neil, good to see you. twitter ceo jack dorsey back in the hot seat. they are requesting about questions that the company is biased against cons serve tiffs. just an hour after the senate intel committee grilledded him over elections. we have something else going on. senate judiciary committee questioning president trump's supreme court pick brett kavanaugh. we'll have a live report on both hearings straight ahead. i'm trish regan. so great to be back. i'm welcome back,