tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News March 30, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
they'll get to the bottom of, they assure us. should news break out, we'll break in. the dow is up on the session and "your world" with neil cavuto is coming up right now. >> all right. that ranking membership is still speaking to reporters right now. we're monitoring that. if it's supposed to dissuade buyers and investors think that this could be a side soap opera, this big healthcare redo in washington, a funny way of showing it. i'm neil cavuto. you're watching "your world." there's a disconnect with the obsession going on in washington and what average folks at home want to see. apparently three out of four of you want a fair tax system. here's the thing. you want it now. the other thing, washington is caught up in serious political
squabbles about the role of the russians and last year's presidential election, but whether there is anything resembling a cover-up now. there's so much we don't know. this much we do. wall street and investors seem to be betting that we will make progress on something that has at least largely bipartisan support tax cuts. the differences are in the details of what gets them and when. there's this side issue here about how we feel, how average americans feel. apparently as i said according to a fox poll, we want tax cuts. we want a simply tax code. we want action on jobs. while we are mesmerized by some of these political allegations back and forth, we want something extra in our wallet. the washington examiner's white house correspondent sara westwood on whether any of that will come to pass. what do you think, sara? >> while it's difficult to say given the debacle that was the healthcare negotiations, i think that left the white house and
congressional republicans fuelling bruised and disheartened how to proceed forward on like tax reform. the fox news polling shows there's momentum behind tax reforms. 73% of voters want to see the tax code changed or marginal rates brought down. people think they pay too much in taxes every year. things that were exposed in the healthcare fight could be carried over to the tax reform. there's broad strokes of republicans wants, there's disagreements about several key issues like the border adjustment tax. >> and there's more about how much is the administration's heart into? blake burman was raising questions with sean spicer about an hour ago. react to this. >> is tax reform the number 1 priority for this administration
at this point or is healthcare still taking up some of the oxygen? >> i don't know that it's taking up oxygen. there's plenty of oxygen to go on. i think the president would like to see it done. there's no reason that we can't -- if you look at the time line. i think the process is beginning on that. i don't know if you'll have a duel track strategy. >> can you have a duel track strategy? i'm thinking the legislation with resurrecting the healthcare thing, the trillion dollars in revenue or ten years to begin hooking up on this. but it seems once poisoned at the well you don't go back for a drink. >> right. the initial message out of the white house and out of house speaker paul ryan is that republicans needed to walk it off and put time on them and the failed vote.
this is clearly not necessarily going to be house they approach this. we know that negotiations are still ongoing with the freedom caucus, with the tuesday group about healthcare reform legislation. you're right. the calculations in the healthcare legislation could have a dramatic impact on the baseline used to calculate tax reform. it's not something that will be easy to do at the same time. you do need the healthcare calculations to move forward with tax reform or else you're going to have to strap the legislation. if you don't have healthcare passed by the time you get to tax reform. it's a difficult balancing act if you want to do both. >> real quickly. is it your sense here that there's more votes regardless of this healthcare thing. more votes, more republican support on the tax cut front, especially among the freedom caucus, than there was on the healthcare thing? >> i do. that's my sense. because there isn't as much
politically riding on tax reform. it's known that republicans want to lower marginal rates. they want to cut taxes. there's not any sort of strong promises like there was with obamacare. we're going to repeal it. it's black and white. this is what we're going to do. conservatives felt that the bill put forward -- with tax reform, there's more wiggle room with what policies are put forward and republicans are going to be a lot more willing to compromise on something that they didn't stick their campaigns on when they're running. >> all right. great reporting. sarah westwood. i want to get the read from davis on this, the co-author of the great roth kemp tax cuts that inspired ronald reagan and set the stage for what was arguably the biggest tax cut in human history. that was then, this is now. david, you say time is wasting. >> i do. it would be crazy to go back to
the poisoned well a second time. there's 52 senators in the republicans in the senate is very narrow. >> neil: i don't get it, david. >> you know what i'm calling for? donald trump needs to do the equivalent a big landing. the conflict between north korea and the united nations under general mcarthur hill a stalemate. like the house of representatives and the republican party. mcarthur went north in a bold move and scored amazing victory. i think that donald trump needs to go bipartisan and almost in a radical way. that's almost how yes did the 86 tax reform. he can't just offer, you know, a rhetorical suggestion, oh, we should be bipartisan. give them a plan that has not only the things that republicans
want, but also some things they want. i'll give you two. give them a plan on -- that deals with worker mobility. a voucher system so that if a poor person in an area that doesn't have a lot of jobs but they can't afford to move to an area that is looking for employees, that you help them do this. also, very, very modest -- i know this is controversial -- modest phased in slight bump up in the minimum wage. you have to throw something out, target the 25 senators that are up for re-election from states that trump carries and say, we'll work with you. here's some things you'll like. i'm going to tell you one thing, if you're up for re-election in less than two years, you think very carefully before you vote against a slight bump up in the minimum wage, particularly given that you probably want -- you're going to like the infrastructure spending and all the other
elements of the package. you can't say like i hear senator schumer often says, yes, i'm for a compromise. it's always, you know, one side not giving up something. in 1986, exactly what we did, there was a tax reform bill. it was unwith it -- unwitting that came out of the reagan white house -- >> neil: he had to give concessions that weren't as friendly. i know time is wasting. the first tax cut was difficult and then in 86 it changed. having said that, if you want to reach across the aisle, this president seems to be betting on infrastructure as a way to get democratic support. as far as i understand it, he's trying to do it by separate
packages. here's infrastructure. your democrats might like that. i hope you can stick around on -- i don't know if that's such a guarantee. >> i think that's a huge mistake. i think they have to put together a package, bipartisan package, the democrats will like the infrastructure. there's a corporate tax reduction. you have to do the pass throughs. i would make -- frankly, i'd have repatriation -- >> neil: if you had to handicap it, the markets seem to think all of this over the russian thing, they seem to be betting that it's still going to happen. do you think it's still going to happen? >> i think it can happen. your former guest said, look, it's popular. the public wants it. not only do they want tax
relief, tax reform, they want a rip-roaring economy. that's what it's all about. i think they would be smart to start in the senate. i'm not convinced that -- i don't want to call the freedom caucus names and all the rest. i think they have a different agenda. their agenda is not to govern. think you have to face it. they're not interested in governing. start in the senate. see if they can put together a bill. that's what they had, a bill, a proposal with details. it was tough for democrats to say oh, i like that. but it's reagan. i can't support reagan. guess what? they did. >> neil: it can be done. >> it can be done. >> neil: we'll watch it, david. thanks. the former chief of state for jack kemp. jam welch -- jack welsh on this.
marie knows that a dutch apple pie can make any occasion feel more special. so she makes her pie crust from scratch. and sprinkles on brown sugar streusel. so that you can spend more time making special moments with your family. marie callender's it's time to savor g new cars. you're smart. you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is, and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter.
>> neil: all right. everyone thinks it's the s that best to torpedo the trump agenda. what if i told you it could be conservative republicans? the freedom caucus getting fingered by the president that could hurt the entire republican agenda if they don't get on the deed and fast. katie pavlich with me, fox contributor. boy, we have -- is it a tiny civil war or how would you call it? >> it's say it's an interesting misplaced civil war. there's a number of moderate republicans publicly coming out against the bill. >> do we know the final numbers, katie, what they're looking
like, that i've heard everything that was short and others saying it was 20 short. >> they had about 35 votes against the bill. i think they're pretty far off. in terms of the freedom caucus, there's some discussion on the hill that is interesting. congressman labrador, who is part of the freedom caucus, responded to the president's trump. he said look, remember who your friends are. on the campaign trail, the freedom caucus stood up for candidate trump when paul ryan disinvited him from the rally. now the white house is blaming the conservatives on the hill. >> neil: and that's a change. right after the president was saying, all good people, they're friends of mine. they vote their conscious. and now he's sending out a clear directive, you're with me or against me. >> i'd ask sean spicer the day before the vote, who are they going to blame if this doesn't
pass? >> neil: which is a very cynical question. i remember that. >> i asked them, are you going to blame the rhinos and the establishment in the house? he said at the time they're not interested in the blame game. clearly that has shifted. have to remember how we got to this point. it was the tea party movement, which is now the freedom caucus that got president -- >> neil: i don't know what the truth is. i just know it probably doesn't help when they sling arrows at each other including president's comments that got nash and some of these other members to say stop it already. i'm wondering if this is retrievable now. >> and they're moving forward on a new bill. the house -- >> neil: i think it's stupid. they are saying we have to keep the promise. >> why go back to the same thing that you botched before hoping the second time you'll do a
better job. >> this was the first big thing that they have done together. i think we should give them a bit more credit for no -- >> neil: if you have 35 no votes the last time, katie, how are you going to whittle that down? >> they need more time to negotiate -- >> neil: time is wasting. that won't get the tax cuts. >> absolutely. but republicans have to be very careful about falling into this trap of government doing something for the sake of doing it. whether it's republicans in congress or democrats in congress. we take a step back -- >> you know and i know what we're staring at, if this doesn't get done this year, what is the prospect of it getting done? >> not great but i recommend republicans don't campaign on repealing obamacare in the next -- >> neil: too late for that. and i want to get your thoughts on the senate intelligence committee here. you don't know who to believe about james comey wanted to give the obama administration a
heads-up on the information he had showing russians were having an active role in the election. >> it's interesting to look at when the obama white house started reacting to the russia problem. it seems as if this argument that democrats are making, it's about protecting democracy, that's what we have to look into this russia issue. if that was really the case, you think the white house would be open to the white house director in the summer of 2016 coming out with an oped saying as a warning, the russians are trying to influence the presidential campaign with propaganda in certain states, in certain cities with online -- >> neil: they were running out the clock at the time. they thought it was a sure bed that hillary clinton was going to win. >> that too. >> neil: why complicate the story. >> they wouldn't complicate it because it was going to benefit hillary. they didn't have the details -- >> neil: just enough that they didn't know at the time that
this was something that the russians were trying to hurt hillary. >> i have no doubt if it was going to hurt donald trump, they would be fine with not saying anything. we don't know that. i think it's important to go back to this argument. they're going to say this is about democracy, protecting the system. they should have said something last summer and let this was going on before voters headed to the polls. >> neil: will we get tax cuts this year? >> i'm going to say yes because i'm hopeful that we will. i'm with the 70% of americans. i believe we need to be spending less money in washington. they have a record number of tax dollars going in and we don't see the fruits of the money. let's see. >> neil: i'm going to hold you to that. if you're right, i want replay this. if you're wrong, i will. katie pavlich, fox news contributor. what does jack welsh think of this? one of the best ceos the country has had.
what his successor is saying at g.e. about climate change. turns out he's a big believer in it and he's worried that the president is not. that's after this. my moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis made a simple trip to the grocery store anything but simple. so i had an important conversation with my dermatologist about humira. he explained that humira works inside my body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to my symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear, and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just 4 months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,
or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask about humira, the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. clearer skin is possible. may not always be clear. but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your retirement savings. so wherever your retirement journey takes you, we can help you reach your goals. call us or your advisor t. rowe price. invest with confidence.
>> neil: all right. we told you about the 7 out of 10 americans that want tax cuts like yesterday. we told you a few days ago on fox business, that it's virtually nine out of ten in the investment community and among the ceo crowd, eight out of ten. they want action and will matter to the recovery and their bottom line. the former ceo of general electric, jack welch. good to see you.
>> hi, neil. how are you? >> neil: i'm okay. i don't know about these tax cuts though. what do you make of it? >> they did a hell of a lousy job on the healthcare thing. leaves me irritated? >> neil: who did? >> they handed the president a package that was the speaker's dream. they transformed it into a package deal to go follow them along. he played ball. he did his part. they didn't do their part. they didn't deliver. >> neil: would you have done the healthcare thing off the top? >> look, he won on jobs. he didn't win on healthcare. >> neil: the argument -- this gets to the process here -- >> reconciliation. don't give me that in one, two, three. >> you would have gone with tax cuts. now they're back to trying to healthcare thing. they better get their reforms in
place. now he's done the regulation thing. he's moved on the isis fronts. he's moving on a number of fronts. i've had 9 ceos in private equity reviews. five in consumer, four in industrial. every one of them positive on this. there's a vibration -- >> neil: positive about the president -- >> the policy. we don't talk about politics. >> neil: i don't believe that. >> we don't. last night i was in new york with four media types. >> neil: you said that disdainfully. >> i raised the hand. we had dinner. the first question to me, because they know how i feel, what is the over and under on trump in months? >> neil: really? >> yeah. these are guys -- they're your
friends. >> neil: i don't have friends. >> you know them. >> neil: a few months that he is a basket case at that point or what? >> he will quit or something. >> neil: you don't hear this around here? come on, neil. shape up. it's crazy stuff. because the country, many -- the consumer confidence level has doubled in three months. there's so many positive signs. if he would get off this stuff, the temperament stuff, the angry tweets, it's crazy. >> neil: what do you do about a tuck that is not budging much? >> you don't rub their nose in it. you talk about the next plain and you get 216 votes. >> neil: he's told them as well, it's this way or the highway here. i want -- >> the highway is him if they don't do it. >> neil: i see.
meanwhile, the media and the back and forth is on the russian role in the election. whatever you think of that subject, you think it's a enough of distraction to delay any of this? >> i think there's an 80% plus chance we'll get tax reform done bring the end of the year. >> neil: even with this? >> all this. yes. >> neil: i wonder when they want to re-visit healthcare. i don't under the fixation giving it another go. >> i don't know that. i don't know those dynamics. we had a president that breaks glass. they put him in a straight jacket and had him playing by the rules. >> neil: so what does he do? that's how -- >> didn't bother harry reid when he was there. seems to bother republicans more than democrats. >> neil: so use your simply
majority, whatever it is, pound whatever you want through. >> or try. try to be bipartisan if you can. ideally. but you don't start out be i bipartisan by calling chuck schumer a clown. >> neil: he did have chuck schumer at the white house -- >> and that's more than we saw barack obama do. >> neil: and you took over g.e. when you were like 19. you had to deal with people that were not keen on this young guy coming in. how did you deal with them? did they take a ride somewhere? what did you do? >> we had a chat. >> really. >> they decided -- my job is so much easier than you get this job to console and cajole and bring them along. we just act. the ceo is a lucky guy. if he gets it right -- >> neil: that's trump's
experience. his experience is coming from that world. it's a big adjustment, right? >> his reaction. he played ball by the rules in healthcare. worked hard. got into the details. look, they didn't lay out for the mass population, here's what you get currently. here's what will happen to most of you, here's what will happen to some of you and here's what's going to happen -- they left the cbo take control of it. what do i do now? >> neil: so they stole the agenda. but he's the bull in the china shop. he's a glass breaker. tell him now what he should do. >> focus, focus. keep the regulations going. think about jobs. get this country working. get -- the idea is you win with
the rising tide, taking all boats to better prosperity. think about this tax reform bill. make sure the corporate tax is fair. make sure the middle class gets the bulk of the tax cuts -- >> neil: what if all they can muster is a corporate tax cut? >> it's a good start. take it. >> neil: take anything you can get. you need the w. >> you need a win. he's hitting regulations every day. >> neil: wall street still seems to think we're going to get this. are they getting ahead of himself? >> no. the feeling out there is that we're on fire. if you look at ten years, housing is at its finest. consumer confidence -- >> neil: there's no reporting in the press of that. >> look at it. >> neil: i agree. it's strong. >> it's staggering. europe is on fire now.
it's a -- >> neil: right, right. >> japan is going. canada is going. >> neil: you have mentioned your successor took the president on on climate change saying his view is hurting. what do you think? >> i retired 17 years ago now. >> neil: how do you feel on climate change? who is right? >> i don't think it's one way or the other. i think we should have an energy policy like he's proposing, all of the above and keep testing the hypothesis. it's not proven to me yet. >> neil: that's typical. >> yeah. >> neil: jack welch. thanks very much. president trump, i don't know if you listen, but great words of wisdom there. your call. more after this.
grade. >> neil: all right. not all caucus members are happy with the way the president has ranted them and fingered them for not going along and supporting the latest healthcare measure. they're trying to rework that now. the strongest words come from the president on this. the freedom caucus is going to hurt the entire republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. virginia republican congressman, tom garrett. good to have you, congressman. what do you think of the president singling out the caucus but some of the other colleagues responses? >> our response is he's suffering from stockholm syndrome. one of the things from the president last wednesday, you shouldn't treat your friends like your enemies and your enemies like your friends. so when he treated that he might have to work against us in 2018, i'll be working for him in 2020 and maybe when he starts to
determine who the people he can rely on are, we'll see him circle back around to us. we're the conservatives, we're the leaders, we're showing willingness to drain the swamp unless the president and i have a different definition of "swamp." >> neil: when you met with the president, is he upset with you? >> here's what i admire about the president. he has a mission. he's decided he's going to accomplishment and he's doing the best he can to accomplish it. he a human being and subject to sways and passion and he's used to being able to do things as an executive. that's not what our founders bequeathed us. we're staying to what we said. we said repeal, the closest thing the a full repeal as we could get. i'm honored to follow jack welch. we have to play hardball on the rules of the senate.
put the pressure, mr. president, on those people that have opposed you, not those that supported you. we want to succeed with you. >> neil: but you opposed him on the healthcare so he figures you're no different than a democrat. >> at the end of the day, we all take couldn't from individuals. there's a history here. there were a group of people that were by and large loyal. the trump campaign head quarters in my district were my offices. he pulled out of my state but i kept working for him. >> neil: your district, sir, you're very popular. i think a lot of your colleagues are in a similar sort of enviable position so you can continue to vote the way you have even though your critics saying you got 80% of what you wanted in this rework and you still rejected. they say what is to make you more supportive this go round? >> our job is not to get it
done, but done right. we're in an r plus 5 if you look at the cook index. we're not that secure. i'm not here to get re-elected. i'm here -- >> neil: what does r plus 5 me? >> in a generic ballot, i should win by five points. it's a super republican district. what i think is, you look people in the eyes and say this is what i'm going to do and i'm going to do it, you get re-elected. that's what donald trump was to the american voter. we're his people. i'm inviting him to come home. >> neil: so you think there's any problem right now with relations with the president and re-visiting healthcare, that it was a mistake to go back to the same well, that you should have moved on, whatever thoughts you have about bridging the gap in the healthcare measure and go on to tax cuts because why risk it? >> no, why risk it is the attitude of a failed nation. failure is the enemy of success. the fear of failure drives tepid
steps. we need to be unafraid to fail and return to the well -- >> neil: if you have a victory on tax cuts, then you can go back to it. >> i agree. jack welch is brilliant. i hated to see what happens the last 17 years. take the win. we have to circle back. we can't say we're not doing healthcare. >> neil: thanks, congressman. >> neil, great seeing you. last time i told charles he was my favorite i was kidding. >> neil: i'll make a note of that. meantime, you also have the bristol county representative slamming michelle dubois. the judge is here to weigh-in.
>> neil: all right. we had the sheriff on yesterday making a big to-do in new england where you have a representative that wanted to give a heads-up to any illegals that would be in her area if there was an ice raid. the sheriff said you made any job more complicated. we have judge andrew napolitano joining us. his point was, what the heck? what is the law of the land? what you think of this? >> the law of the land is that the federal government cannot compel local law enforcement to work for the federal government. local law enforcement has taken the same oath as federal law enforcement has, which is to enforce the laws of the land. so does local law enforcements have to go out and arrest undocumented aliens? no. can it hide them? can it secrete this and -- >> neil: look the other way.
>> they is not actively hide them or frustrate the feds. that's called obstruction of justice. we had a case we looked up the other day where a judge sentenced an illegal alien. said i don't want you to do that. that's probably obstruction of justice. >> neil: this this case, the sheriff is trying to help ice round up illegals. you have a local representative trying to thwart that. what are the rules on that? >> the rules will change the next time the congress enacts a budget. the new budget will say, we use this as an example. seattle. here's $100 million for your police department. you agree the police will work with the feds, will work with ice when we're looking for them. once they accept the $100 million, they have a legal obligation to work with the
feds. this will all change six or eight months from now once the new block grants come out. under the obama era block grants, the money being distributed by the federal government, where those can't don't exist, the locals can avoid the feds. >> neil: if it's the law of the lands, right, judge? or sanctuary cities, they've been around for so long that there's no stopping them. >> well, look, if the feds want the new york city police to help them find undocumented aliens in this neighborhood, they can't order the new york city police to work for them. if they wants to bring more feds in, they can do that. if they give grant blocks to new york city in october and the condition is the police will help, then the police will be legally obliged to help. so basically still under the obama regime with respect to the conditions for the receipt of
funds. >> neil: seattle is suing or this and saying the trump administration can't cut off funds. you're saying with new block grants. >> they can threaten. they can't take money back that has been committed for this year, which goes to september 30th. the flip side is, the litigation from seattle is frivolous because they haven't been harmed yet. the feds haven't taken away a nickel from you. you can't sue because you think somebody hurts you. you saw after they hurt you. >> neil: where is this going? we have the sanctuary cities, states and regions and then in new york, chicago and -- what -- >> the states and the cities have never turned down federal grants because the conditions were too burdensome. so president trump and the executive branch and the republican majority in congress will have to endure this frustration until the next fiscal year when they dangle that cash in front of these cities and they take the cash
and when they take it, they take the strings attached to it. that's what the supreme court has ruled. >> neil: isn't it a different matter when you get to a point of not only looking the other way but as this representative is abdicating in massachusetts, actually warning illegals, hey, ice, agents are coming and -- >> would probably be misconduct in office if done by somebody, took an oath to up hold the law. it's not misconduct in office because they're not in the government. so we get dicey here as to who can do what. >> is it your sense -- this gets in the realm of politics here. this stuff and everything else going on, the russians and who knew what and went, just to dislodge the trump agenda. >> i do. i think it's a massive onslaught against him from people in the media and in local and state government that still can't believe he's president and want
to put as many -- want to put as in object cities -- obstacles in his path. and the hawaii judge, if that same order signed by barack obama, it would have been upheld. how do i know that? the reasons given for invalidating the order is things that trump said before being president. i have never seen before the trump presidency, the words of a candidate used him in office. the supreme court has caution against that. as we all know, candidates say things in the heat of the campaign -- >> neil: i never understood that. you can glean intent, can't you? >> you can glean intend but you can't use somebody's words to frustrate -- as a candidate to frustrate what they do as an office holder. that's what this judge in hawaii did. >> neil: amazing. so good to see you, judge. >> good to be with you. >> neil: more coming up including the con voe --
controversy of ivanka trump working for her dad. why not? after this. ♪ spring is on. and it's time to get growing. so while you're doing your thing, we'll do what we do best. to get you ready to live life outside. as america's #1 professional lawn care company, trugreen can tailor a plan that turns your ordinary lawn that will thrive and stayn that healthy throughout the year. guaranteed. so start your trugreen lawn plan today for only $29.95. not just the automobile, f tomorrow will transform but mobility itself. an autonomous-thinking vehicle protecting those inside and out.
>> neil: all right. working for her dad in an unpaid role. that was enough to get charges of nepotism going fast and strong. gop strategist ashley joining us right now. we've seen this again and again. new rules in effect ever since john kennedy appointed his brother bobby as attorney general that we police this stuff. is it that big of a deal? what's to police? >> it's not that big of a deal. they're going after ivanka trump again because her dad is a
republican. ivanka deserves a seat at the table. she's qualified, credentialed, a working mom. she's breaking the republican stereotype that republicans are out of touch and they're a threat. so they're going to claim nepotism and it's hypocritical. we just saw it under bill clinton when he put hillary clinton at the head of the healthcare -- >> neil: a better example. no one looked the other way. >> not at all. it was not a problem. this goes back to the democrats being complete hypocrites and it's the -- affects everybody except us. the rules don't apply to us. it's the same rhetoric we hear over and over again. >> neil: i can see an even democrat vote, keen on addressing the nepotism thing with bobby kennedy and you can't appoint them to a cabinet position. fine. i was looking in the past. harriet lane was the niece of
james buchanan and served the role like a first lady. did okay. martha jefferson, thomas jefferson's daughter, filled that kind of function in his administration. i can go on and on. i guess what i'm asking, whether it's rose cleveland that served with her brother, grover cleveland in a quasi capacity until he got married. we had a history of this thing without doing great harm to our constitution or country. what is the big deal? >> there is no big deal. again, let's go back to the democrat thing doesn't apply to us. anna roosevelt served as her father's personal assistant. there was no issue there. the funny thing about this issue, ivanka was operating under a good faith agreement with the white house. the left got enraged because they didn't like her being involved. so she said, okay. that's fine. i'll become a white house employee. a federal employee. i'll do the necessary paperwork,
the background checks, the security clearances and i won't get paid. yet still not enough. >> neil: what would be wrong if she was part of a kitchen cabinet. richard nixon's brother had a role. there are advisors that they talk to without any official capacity. what would have been the difference there? >> it's my understanding that family members can't serve in the cabinet. serving as an employee is constitutionally acceptable. and that -- >> neil: this would just be an advisor. whatever. >> and in a way she is still. but again, this so-called feminist -- they can't have it both ways. the democrats can't have it both ways. you can't say you need to be arguing on this issue but you can't have a seat at the table. >> neil: have to be consistent. thanks very much. good seeing you. more after this. i'm only in my 60's. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,
i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare...
and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.
>> neil: we are getting word of two democratic senators, heidi heitkamp of north dakota and the senator from virginia who will will support neil gorsuch. there are a lot more to go. we will see you tomorrow. >> eric: i'm eric bolling with lisa boothe juan williams. dana perino, and greg gutfeld. there's a lot of breaking news this afternoon. at approximately 1:15, "the new york times" name of the sources that devin nunes has said showed him the evidence that communications with the trump transition team had been incidentally collected. fox news has confirmed those sources independently. they are white house staffers at the national security council. michael alice and ezra