tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News March 6, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
but first, the dow is down a little bit. about 50 points. neil cavuto usually has details of why things happen. should news break out, we'll break in. breaking news changes everything on fox news channel. it's the top of the hour. >> neil: thanks, shepard. distractions at the white house to blame for a lot of the sell-off. we're getting news that exxon juggernaut hear. a major job president trump congratulating them on what will be a $20 billion investment program creating 45,000 construction and manufacturing jobs in the u.s. gulf coast region. the stock, exxon mobil, was up today .5%. we'll have more on that. all of this occurs as the president is meeting with his council of economic advisors. stocks selling off on the
wiretapping allegations distractions and concerns that maybe some of the tax cuts as well as other domestic initiative it's could be getting sidelines. blake burman has more. hey, blake. >> wiretapping and the president's new executive order driving the headlines throughout the day here out of the white house. the trump administration is about to turn its attention this afternoon into the early evening here toward the nation's finances and obamacare. later this evening, the president is set to have dinner with tom price and mick mulvaney to talk about what to do next with repealing and replacing obamacare. as you mentioned at this very hour, the president is scheduled to meet with his national economic council. one would have to think that the budget and taxes would be front of mine there. earlier today on the fox news desk, maria bartiromo interviewed kellyanne conway. she was very optimistic about the future of a potential tax
cut. listen. >> you will see a series of the budget is coming out and tax reform, infrastructure. very ambitious agenda but the president should surprise no one. he's been very clear about his willingness to be bold and courageous regardless of the entrenched opposition. >> they have made the timeline of how this works. first repeal and replace obamacare. after that, a couple months time, putting forward the budget and then would come the big piece called tax reform. neil? >> neil: thanks very much. blake burman at the white house. all of these distractions, are they getting in the way of the things that wall street wants to see? it bears repeating that the financial community is not red or blue, they're green. so if they see things that can disrupt the green or tax cuts or
replacement of obamacare delayed, they get nervous and antsy and charlie gasparino, they get nervous. >> wall street firms and their lobbies deal with congressional staffers. the word they're getting from republican staffers on the hill, in the senate, the word from key senate ires is that the trump administration aside from the rhetoric that kellyanne conway is spouting about the president being very clear and concise about what he wants to do in terms of tax cuts and the budget, they're getting -- they're feeling the opposite. they're feeling there's not a lot of disclosure and daylight in exactly what his budget is going to look like, what the tax cuts are actually going to look like, what proposals will be on the table. they don't feel like they have a
clear blueprint about the future of the budget or the tax cuts. that's the interesting thing here, neil. if you look at what is making wall street go to 21,000 before the last couple days of sell-offs, a lot of it is pricing in tax cuts and regulatory cuts. when you strip away the rhetoric of president trump and his advisors like kellyanne, think about this, repeal and replace obamacare. and then the budget. where is the budget? there's no budget yet. and then tax cuts. how they plan to do those three things in the order and meet the deadline that steve mnuchin told you, august to have a plan voted on, is making a lot of people among congressional staffers worried that they won't meet that timetable. those congressional staffers are reflecting that back to the lobbyists on wall street, which
is why you're getting jitters here in the market. i'll say this. you know, these people believe in -- wall street guys are all about green. they want to see the proof in the pudding and they're not getting concrete stuff coming from the trump administration about those two key things, the budget and the tax cuts. >> neil: you did mention an important point, charlie. you and i have talked about this before, they're really not red or blue. they're green. they make a lot of money and loved bill clinton and the market boom and the internet boom and democrat friendly to their interests. so they don't care who is running the ship as long as they're making money hand over fists. so that has to be positive out there. they want to step back. i don't want to hit you broad side but we're getting news that exxon mobil is planning expansion in the gulf area. could be 45,000 jobs. the president talking a bow for that. this follows on heels of other
companies planning commitments. general motors separately even with their expansion in the united states, announced they're laying off 1,500 people. still hiring more than they're laying off. and the president says this is stuff i'm doing that i get zero credit. does he have a point? >> to some extent. the tax cuts, the regulatory environment is a positive for big businesses. they want to invest and expand within the context of less taxes and less regulations which we know, the corporate taxes, one reason why they offshore money and don't bring back cash and why they try to do business overseas. it cost too much to do business here. i'll say this. we as journalists have to parse through this and figure out what was already baked in the cake. we shouldn't point out that mary barra said a lot of these job creations plans were baked in under president obama.
the exxon mobil expansion that the trump administration is trying to take credit for. that happened in -- >> neil: what they're pointing to is the job commitment was bigger than originally telegraphed. who knows. >> who knows. i don't know that. we're getting numbers on the job commitment. i don't know if it was bigger than already committed. positive regulatory environment is very good. i'm just saying that we as journalists have to be careful giving him credit for everything occurs now. a lot of the stuff has been baked in. there's good stuff coming, but you have to get the tax cuts. >> neil: that's what everything hinges on. every day it looks unlikely. when it's more likely, we gain. charlie gasparino, the best of the business on fox business. if you're watching any other business network, you're losing
money. your choice. meantime, much adieu about this story that former president barack obama was aggressively tapping the phones of donald trump. that is the charge from donald trump. he let it air to get congressional committees to investigating this. it struck many as outlandish. can't be, right? others say be very careful here. you're pointing to examples in the prior administration where they did target groups. you can make an argument, maybe not the president himself, but the irs, conservative teams looking for status all the way to the justice department going after reporters including james rosen. so there's precedent for it. but at the president level? >> everything -- when these white house officials are saying it's not the white house or
wouldn't being the president, it would go to the department of justice. who will trust jim comey at this point? the republicans don't like him because of what he did with the phony investigation of hillary clinton. >> neil: you're talking about the fbi director. he urged justice department to say there's no there there. what was weird is that the fbi and the greater sense and the worker bees there, the justice department, didn't jump on the recommendation of his, comey's to poo-poo this. but some are reading there is something there. >> if this went through the fisa court and nobody has proof because it's the fisa court, you wouldn't not release this info. president trump should not release the info, even if he has access. >> neil: that would boomerang on
him. >> it set as precedent that the information in a fisa court that really shouldn't be secret. third party groups -- >> neil: would that normally get out there? >> fisa information would not get out there. it's bizarre that they went to fisa for trump once and the second time they limited it. if it's proven that it happened, if the there's no there there, you've had every congressional committee say there's nothing there. if this investigation happened and donald trump was involved and it was the obama administration that did it, it's a big news story. you can argumentfully say it however you want. if it's obama officials doing it, it rests with the president of the united states. >> neil: they have said that did not happen. again, we've heard denials before. it's too soon to tell. we don't know. we do not know. thank you. jordan --
>> thank you. >> neil: remember when andrew puzder was up for the labor secretary? and then the commercials came out with hardee's. and then there were reports of a former wife who had argued abuse that later reputed on the part of the former wife. didn't matter. he went down. he left. say he wasn't going to try for it. never happened. everybody has been wanted to chat with him, andy, how do you feel about this? he's going to break that silence with me on fox business. andy puzder on what went wrong and why. more after this.
♪ why do so many businesses rely on the u.s. postal service? because when they ship with us, their business becomes our business. ♪ that's why we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ here, there, everywhere. united states postal service priority : you tech: at safelite, we know how busy your life can be. mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there,
when you have a digital notebook to capture investing ideas that instantly gives you stock prices, earnings, and dividends... an equity summary score that consolidates the stock ratings of top analysts into a single score... and $4.95 online u.s. equity trades... you realize the smartest investing idea, isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. ♪ >> neil: all right. it's still too early to tell. maybe the second time it's the
charm. the attorneys general are mulling their legal options as the trump administration updates his executive order, travel ban. airline stocks were impacted by this. most of them down on the belief that this would put a freeze on travel not only the affected areas of the country but abroad in general. leaves people to say it's not worth the hassle at airports and delays. could be an overreaction. to get the read from one of the world's busiest airports, lax, let's go to adam housley. is this being received versus the first go-round? >> people are prepared to respond here. the first go-round, this was snarled here today. it's busy. lax is under a revamping. traffic is difficult. i'm going to step away. give you a look here atom bradley where the international flights come in and out of. this is where everything was bad. it's busy but a normal busy.
take a look here a couple weeks ago when the last executive order went through. it snarled not only traffic on the ground in l.a., which is miserable on a daily basis, but snarled flight traffic around the country. lax is the second busiest in the country. shut down track. a lot of flights were cancelled. made for a difficult situation here. airport officials say they don't expect that to happen today. however, they need to be prepared for it to happen today because of social media, it can happen at any time. as we know, an hour or two is all it takes. they're prepared for ten days from now when it goes into effect. they expect to have protests like we saw, whether there will be any kind of lawsuits filed by california or not, they expect the people opposing that to come here and come here in force, neil. >> neil: thanks very much. adam housley in los angeles. all by one of the countries
lasted last time are still there, but one, iraq. the fbi is also investigating whether 300 people admitted in the u.s. as refugees would be on these counter probes. i should stress existing visa passport holders won't be affected. although existing would not be effective. that was the thorniest issues in the last case. general jack kent. general, this is supposed to be a more appeal proof version of the first go-round, which has jettisoned. what do you make of it? >> certainly it has been improved. visa holders and green card holders are exempted from this. they changed the ban from 120 days to 90 days. took iraq off, as you noted. never did understand why iraq
was on that. remember, why these countries in the first place -- we don't have a u.s. government entity or embassy in these countries to be able to vet the people so that they can enter our country. the reality is, in iraq, we have one of the largest embassies in baghdad. i'm delighted to see they're off the list. the other countries deserve to be on this travel ban until such time as we get a better system in place where we have guarantees that we're not going to have terrorists posing as refugees coming into the country. >> neil: it seems to have been communicated differently with th announcing this and is not president trump making the announcement. what did you make of that? >> they have done their homework. they admitted to themselves they moved to quickly on it.
secretary kelly has been on the phone talking to the various senators and congressmen to make certain that they understand what he's really got in this. doesn't take effect until next week so people can study it quite a bit. i do think as we have seen the last time, i didn't see the justification for the assault on this ban by the legal system the last time. i don't see what the justification would be this time. the president has the authority to protect the american people and believes that these countries are harboring dangerous people that can harm the american people. we don't have a good system to vet them. he's putting in a place a ban until such time. that is prudent. >> neil: what worries me, the 300 or so that were admitted into the country. i don't know what time that got here and now we're trying to track them down. they could be dangerous. we don't know unless we move backwards and look at the
approval process. a lot of them can be anywhere. what did you make of that and rejecting the president's first effort led to this? >> that's interesting. this is the first time we've seen this number. remember, director comey introduced 900 to 1,000 active investigations of people for potential self-radicalization or terrorism. of that amount, 300 of them are part of the refugee program. some of them have come from these six countries as well. so that is a new number and it certainly gives credence to what the president is doing. on the refugee program itself, for the last ten years, we've been taking into this country somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 100,000. 100,000 being the highest last year under the obama administration. president trump has cut that back to 50,000. well within the ballpark of what
his predecessors have done with the refugee program. obviously we're going to have a lot more vetting of this program than the past because of the concerns that we have. >> neil: thanks, general. >> good talking to you, neil. >> neil: let's say you're here illegally and you shouldn't be. you don't know what to do. there's a video that guides you along the way. mexico put it out. wait till you see it. (man vo) it was may, when dad forgot
how to brush his teeth. (woman vo) in march, my husband didn't recognize our grandson. (woman 2 vo) that's when moderate alzheimer's made me a caregiver. (avo) if their alzheimer's is getting worse, ask about once-a-day namzaric. namzaric is approved for moderate to severe alzheimer's disease in patients who are taking donepezil. it may improve cognition and overall function, and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. namzaric does not change the underlying disease progression. don't take if allergic to memantine, donepezil, piperidine, or any of the ingredients in namzaric. tell the doctor about any conditions;
including heart, lung, bladder, kidney or liver problems, seizures, stomach ulcers, or procedures with anesthesia. serious side effects may occur, including muscle problems if given anesthesia; slow heartbeat, fainting, more stomach acid which may lead to ulcers and bleeding; nausea, vomiting, difficulty urinating, seizures, and worsening of lung problems. most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, dizziness, loss of appetite, and bruising. (woman 2 vo) i don't know what tomorrow will bring but i'm doing what i can. (avo) ask about namzaric today.
answer the door. okay. former arizona government jan brewer and what she makes of this. this is something the government has come up with to keep those illegally here here without being deported. i don't think i've ever seen anything like this, governor. >> it's absolutely disturbing and deceitful. it's outrageous that another government of another country would prime people that are here in our country illegally not to answer their door to our law enforcement officers. it's a totally outrageous -- i have never heard any country ever doing this in the past. >> neil: i was thinking if it's the reverse and we had those here illegally holed up in mexico and we were sending the same recommendations from our state department to avoid them being deported. it would be outlandish. it is what it is. where do you see this going?
the mexican government has been fanning this to solve the problem. when you put out videos like this, you're not interested in solving it, are you? >> obviously they're self-serving. they don't want the illegal criminal aliens in their country. therefore, they're initiating the practice of telling them how to stay in our country illegally. it is just horrendously unbelievable that they would do something like that. that shows exactly what mexico officials are thinking. they don't want them. they want us to keep them. they're going to encourage it, not unlike that they commented they're going to flood our courts with these people so we can't get through to all of them. that we can't prosecute all of them. people in arizona, people in american, they're not going to put up with this nonsense. it's absolutely -- when i found
this out, i was breathless. if we did that to their country, we would be -- >> neil: and by the way, why make a video that looks like the game trivial pursuit? it's silly on that level. but leaving that aside, we get the same push-back on the mexicans when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. it's really being fought hard. but yet, oddly enough, a number of mexican companies are bidding to help build this wall that donald trump wants to help out with as well as american companies. it's not clear who ultimately will pay for the president. the president wants the mexicans to pay for it. what did you make of just that? a number of mexican firms, the big players, wanting in on this. >> sounds a little bit -- they're a little greedy now. now they want both pieces of the cake. they don't want the wall, but they want the business and the growth with it. bottom line is that donald trump said that the wall would be
built, built on the border and it would be with products from the united states, built by workers from the united states. i believe that he will uphold that. you know, i think people are pleased with that. it's good for our economy. we're a little fed up and tired of building everybody's else economy up. seems like they can't get enough. they want it both ways. we, the people, are fed up with the nonsense. >> neil: governor, thank you. january brewer, the former arizona governor. the governor was speaking, by the way. we're getting more details on the exxon mobil hiring. a lot of it was trumpeted and telegraphed earlier. the numbers are bigger than the case. 45,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. donald trump heralding that. we're winning again, america, he said. went on to say, buy american and
hire american are the principles of the core in my agenda, which is jobs, jobs. thank you. he's very happy. we'll have more after this. we asked a group of young people when they thought they should start saving for retirement. then we asked some older people when they actually did start saving. this gap between when we should start saving and when we actually do is one of the reasons why too many of us aren't prepared for retirement. just start as early as you can. it's going to pay off in the future. if we all start saving a little more today, we'll all be better prepared tomorrow. prudential. bring your challenges.
with 9 lobster dishes.est is back try succulent new lobster mix & match or see how sweet a lobster lover's dream can be. there's something for everyone and everyone's invited. so come in soon. at bp, we empower anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right, so everyone comes home safely. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.
finally. hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
>> neil: all right. forget about james comey with the fbi and what likes him or hates him on this fbi independence thing. focus on reports of a former spy was hired -- looking to get some intelligence on donald trump. if there's any truth to it here, a lot of senators want to know, including senator grassley and more. you don't know, but you should get familiar with it. what's going on, sarah? >> about a week ago, "the washington post" came out with a story that a former spy compile allegations in the unsubstantiated claims against trump had been in contact with the fbi a few weeks before the election and had talks to get paid to continue research that was begun by supporters of the hillary clinton campaign. a lot of questions about why this operative, christopher steele, was even in contact with law enforcement officials in the
first plate, let alone to get paid. his work started out doing campaign opposition research for the democrats. so senator grassley sent a letter to the administration today wanting more information about taxpayer dollars were going to this guy, christopher steele. >> neil: is it clear that they were? in other words, at that point did happen? >> it's not clear that christopher steele received the taxpayer dollars but there's no denial that these negotiations were taking place prior to the election. none of the claims in this dossier have been substantiated. news outlets have been trying to verify the claims. none of them have been verified. >> neil: that's a big leap. sarah talking about this and whether the fbi might have in concert or known about, you know, wiretapping in the trump campaign or donald trump's offices. he, donald trump, is charged
that president obama directed that. this is probably as worrisome in this respect that if there might have been an interest in bringing down donald trump from the get-go. >> right. there's no way that law enforcement officials should have been uninvolved with someone conducting opposition research that was commissioned by the democratic cam maybe for president. there's so many problems with that even being under consideration by law enforcement officials. we're not sure that this arrangement even actually came to fruition. but clearly there was accusat n accusations flying back and forth across the aisle. sand the fbi was tilteded towards hillary clinton when she was not charged with a crime for her -- >> neil: you never know that from comey. the one thing that interests me,
obviously the obama administration was concerned about this material and takes them at their word, that they wanted the world to know that there was enough there there between the russians manipulating or trying to manipulate the elections, hacking and all that and the democratic computers and all that they wanted to take it from the top security clearances so more people would have access to it just in case the trump folks wanted to destroy that. that alone is an unusual move if true. i'm wondering taken with this, whether there was some sort of a concerted effort to bring down or embarrass donald trump? >> we saw reports last week that obama administration officials went to great lengths to collect and preserve this intelligence against russia's alleged contacts with trump campaign operatives. but obama appointees were to keep the classification level a
people as possible could have access to it. we heard reports that obama administration officials were planting questions during briefings that would lead to answers about russian intelligence knowing that they would be archived and sending reams of information to members of congress asking questions about this. the obama administration is not necessarily known for its speedy responses to congressional requests when it comes to other investigations that they would rather not have proceed like the irs investigation or the benghazi investigation. they were stone walling. they wanted to make sure that trump wouldn't run away with this once he became president. >> neil: thank, sarah. all right. i'm sure you heard what she's saying, i'm sure you heard the allegations that donald trump has that president obama himself personally authorized tapping trump tower phones.
donald trump's phones. you're probably saying, as we've been going around here with other news organizations, they're bogus, silly, must be made up. i've seen all sorts of characterizations about that. didn't they say that about the irs? didn't they say the same about the justice department targeting reporters, hacking into e-mails and phone calls, that it was silly but could never happen and did? james rosen comes to mind. let's say been there, been burnt by that after this. i realize that ah, that $100k is not exactly a fortune. well, a 103 yeah, 103. well, let me ask you guys. how long did it take you two to save that?
a long time. then it's a fortune. well, i'm sure you talk to people all the time who think $100k is just pocket change. right now we're just talking to you. i told you we had a fortune. yes, you did. getting closer to your investment goals starts with a conversation. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today.
bolden. janna, part of this collective dismissal is based on the notion it couldn't be. but i do remember because i covered these closely for the business network, the dismissal of charges that the irs was targeting conservative groups when in fact they were. i remember the same about the justice department going after reporters and checking e-mails and phone calls, our own james rosen included. i'm not saying it's directed by president obama himself. but there's history to say that they were open to that behavior. >> absolutely there's history here. when we look at the president's representative statement on this issue saying nobody at the white house was involved, he didn't say the obama administration, which i think is different, which covers the justice department. let's throw out two important dates. december 15 and january 3. december 15, the director of intelligence, james clapper,
issued a rule, signed a rule that allowed for the nsa to target individuals through what they call raw signal intelligence. let's say you work in a bank. they go in and dropping a net on collects that collect cell text messages, e-mails, all that stuff. they can utilize that information and build a case of someone else due to that information. so that brings it to part with what happened with michael flynn. they said that the ambassador was regularly being tapped. if he's regularly being tapped, would he have those conversations over an open line? i don't think so. so i'm beginning to believe that there is a there there and there's something to all of this. >> neil: there might be. but rachel, what we don't know is to what end. obviously do you get a sense right now that people looking at this will say, all right. trump is just trying to shift blame away here. >> no, i think -- the other
networks are trying to make it sound like donald trump is paranoid -- >> neil: hang on. sean spicer is commenting on this right now. >> what we did is legal and in accordance with the law and in accordance with u.s. code. we had a set-back at the court. we had to make a decision about how to pursue what the president felt was in the best interest of keeping the nation safe. that's it. again, our ultimate goal would have been, if possible, pursue both tracks. ultimately the advice the president received was to protect the country as thoroughly as possible and as quick of possible, to pursue this track. >> doesn't it seems like the only setback is the fact that you had people working at these agencies that didn't know how this would be implemented and you had members of congress use furious at you guys because they
department know what to say because constituents were calling. didn't you -- >> one of the things that we discussed at the time that that happened is there was an element of surprise that benefitted our country's safety. we lost that after the ninth circuit ruled the way that it did. our goal was to make sure that we use this time to ensure the most effective implementation which you're seeing by all accounts today. it was extremely well-received. the departments responsible have done a phenomenal job briefing outside stakeholders and the media. so when you look at this roll-out of how this was done, it was done extremely effectively. there's a ten-day window that it goes into effect march 16. so down government, if you will, agencies and employees know how
to implement it effectively. obviously we continue to believe the way it was done the first time would have security the country to the greatest possible -- >> you said in the gaggle that it was saturday night that the decision was made to revoke the initial order and not to challenge it in court anymore. is that when the president gave his sign-off on the language? >> it was. >> can you talk about an area in which the congressional consultation is reflected in the final order. >> that's a good question. so saturday night he met with his team. secretary of homeland security, attorney general, his team, they hashed out the details and how it would be rolled out. the president gave the staff here to go-ahead to move forward. and then again, i think there were several contacts with members of congress and other outside stake tolders that were taken into consideration. i'm not going to --
>> talks about how he made last minute changes in the language. there were changes made saturday night -- >> it's not just the language but the strategy we pursued and how we rolled it up. >> sean, the president said exxon's investment began in 2013 and through 2022. is the white house taking credit for this? >> exxon made it clear to the white house and to the president that because of his policies that they continue to expand their investment. it is information that has been provided to us by exxon about the number of jobs and investments in america that we go off. >> it began -- >> i understand that. what i'm telling you, to answer your question, it's information that exxon provided us that they believe based on what they see as a favorable business climate
from the president to help manufacturing and grow here, that they want to grow their investment here in our country. it's based on them telling us that they will continue to expand based on the president's vision and philosophy to help keep jobs here in america, obtain a more regulatory and tax and business environment that will help them hire more, invest more and grow here in america. >> how great are the legislative challenges for the administration on the aca? is the easter recess fair when he can get it through? >> it's a fair target. obviously a lot of concern. obamacare is failing on its own. the premiums are sky high. people are paying more and more and getting fewer choices. the doctors are no longer parts of plans and premiums continue to rise by a lot more than
anybody ever expected. this isn't just an area that is important to us getting through. it's important for every american family and worker who their healthcare is obviously an important part and the cost of the healthcare and their families or individual budgets. that's something that the president has made clear. he didn't have to do this. politically the smart move might have been to let it go. but he obviously recognized that this is the right thing to do for the country, the right thing for the american people. for so many people that healthcare piece of their budget is so big it's very hard to make key choices about what is important for their lives. thanks, guys, very much. >> you talk about who inside the west wing was involved in the investigation on the russian hacking and the white house
request. if asked to testify, would the president consider testify something. >> i don't know. that hasn't happened. we want the senate intelligence committee to look into this. we haven't had that request yet. i wouldn't even dare to suggest that i know the answer to that at this point. i think on the first part, as i mentioned before, there lot of involvement with the department of homeland security and their agencies, the department of state, secretary tillerson on down. input from the department of defense and the department of justice. we're all involved in -- domestic policy team here. the quarterback on this issue is the department of homeland security. but again, it was a lot of interagency work. secretary kelly, secretary tillerson, sessions working together with input from secretary mattis and other department heads and agency heads that helped craft this.
thanks very much, guys. >> neil: all right. i apologize to my panel. the president is still thinking and sean spicer insisting his latest vetting attempt the second time will be the charm. all of this overshadowed today by this allegation that barack obama personally led and effort to tap his phones at the trump tower without any apparent proof but he might know something. this was touched on by sean spicer. that will be up to the committees investigating. what do you think of that? >> on january 20th, michael schmidt from "the new york times" that said associates of trump that were being wiretapped. so it's not unreasonable to think for the president to think that he was. we know that if there was something on the russia front, let's get to the bottom line, we
would have seen it before now. we know the ed is flimsy -- >> neil: we would have seen what by now? >> we would have seen the evidence by now. nothing has come forth. just today, cnn said trump without evidence accuses obama of wiretapping. when have we ever heard that democrats with no evidence have accused donald trump and his associates connections with the russians. the same standard is not being -- >> neil: let me ask -- we don't know a lot of what's going on. what we do know is that the administration -- i'm not saying that barack obama personally, but the administration, the obama administration, did target conservative groups -- >> absolutely. >> neil: we do know that they targeted reporters at the justice department. so there's murky precedent for
doing this kind of stuff. but it's a big leap of the president tapping phones. but if the administration were concerned about russian hacking and the election, you think it would be a stretch to explore these connections between candidate trump and later president-elect trump and the russians? >> it's a complete stretch. it's a stretch because the president of the united states has no ability to personally order wiretaps on anyone. a federal judge does from the fisa court. that's the first thing. secondly, donald trump can -- >> neil: you think the fisa court would have done that? >> an excellent question. why does donald trump want and investigation that the fisa court -- he has information that the fisa court authorized wiretaps? to do so, they would have documents, facts and evidence that reach the level of probable
cause. >> very fair point. donald trump is the information -- >> neil: we don't know that. to be fair, we don't know that. i cannot make the leap to call them bogus or silly. we've been burnt before. >> he's the president. >> neil: former u.s.s. cole commander. they raise excellent points on ether side, kirk. one of the key issues, even if the president knew this to be true, president trump, isn't it dangerous making that charge and then running away and saying committees should look into it? >> i think, neil, he's erring on the side caution now. yes, he's backing off. when the fisa court wiretappings are given and they go out there and start investigating, it's for national security purposes. generally highly classified -- >> neil: they have to have reasons to do so, right? >> you do have to have reason. >> neil: that would not be in donald trump's interest to even, you know, mention this then, right? >> it depends.
it depends on who they were looking for and why. if it was politically targeted like people were alleging, they have issues. obviously there's issues in the past in the obama administration where they have proven themselves more than willing to use government assets for political purposes. let's hope that that is not true -- >> neil: at this level, the. of the united states, regardless of barack obama or for that matter, donald trump going to that level at his level saying, i think we should finger this person, i think we should get a fisa on this, you know what i mean? >> if the obama administration was in fact targeting someone on the trump campaign as part of the fisa court action, they needed to make sure the political ramifications of that would be considered. if they didn't do that, shame on the obama administration -- >> neil: or they can be concerned about national security. i'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone.
maybe if they were so concerned at the time, concerned about russia's role in this election, then this would follow that, right? >> clearly it would. if they're worried about the russian meddling and having an impact, how and what the fisa court was looking at would determine the path that they're going to go down in coordination with other intelligence activities that were going on. not just in the u.s. but around the world and what's going on in russia. >> commander, thank you. sorry thing are truncated here. the administration is leaving this in senate and congressional leaders to get to the bottom of it that i have a lot on their docket. more after this.
don't want on obamacare lite. it's not any better if you make it less of an albatross. they expect maybe as soon as tonight the replacement bill will be out there. oh, my gosh. >> dana: i'm dana perino with kimberly guilfoyle, bob beckel, eric bolling, and greg gutfeld, it's 5:00 in new york city and this is "the five" ." just a wee bit of news to cover today after a whirlwind weekend of explosive allegations from the president about his predecessor. mr. trump accused former president obama of having tapped his phone at trump tower during the election. charged -- a charge the obama team immediately denied.