tv The Intelligence Report With Trish Regan FOX Business March 6, 2017 2:00pm-3:01pm EST
with us on thursday and spill the beans and say how he really feels about losing a job that he said he could have made a big difference in. all right, that's thursday. in the meantime, trish regan will take you through the next hour with the dow down about 40 points. hey, trish. trish: neil, i'm looking forward to that with andy, again on thursday, everyone. breaking today, president trump signing a revised executive order on immigration, and like the first order, this is not a muslim ban, this is not a refugee ban, this is about keeping america safe and keeping terrorists out. i'm trish regan. welcome, everyone, to "the intelligence report." the new executive order goes into effect on mar 16th -- march 16th, foreign nationals from sudan, syria, iran, libya, somalia and yemen all pretty bad places will not be allowed into the united states for 90 days. iraq has been taken off of that list. in addition, the revised order does not affect legal permanent residents and individuals who have valid visas on january
27th, the date of the original order. also for the next 120 days, we will not be accepting refugees from any countries. you know, this is very important because we have also just learned that the fbi is investigating more than 300 refugees who are already here in this country for possible ties to terrorism. meanwhile, attorney general jeff sessions says he's confident the new order is, indeed, lawful. watch. >> the department of justice believes that this executive order, just as the first executive order, is a lawful and proper exercise of presidential authority. the executive is in 'em oured under -- empowered under the constitution and by congress to make national security judgments and to enforce our immigration policies in order to safeguard the american public. trish: joining me right now with his thoughts, jay -- jordan sekulow.
will this revised order face any legal hurdles specifically from the the ninth sir or cut? >> i think so, and here's why. the aclu has already sent out e-mails to their membership, and we monitor that closely, saying that they are going to fight this ban in court, that they will bring this, quote-unquote, ban -- i think it's a pause because we're talking about 90 and 120 days, but, yes, we're going to see some legal action. it's more difficult for a state like washington to to come up with standing here because it's very clear on visa holders, on lawful permanent residents, on people who have already got a visa and already traveled to the u.s., people who are students, and it goes through a whole list of people who are waiverred, they can apply for waivers from the temporary pause as well. and we're talking about six countries plus refugees. refugees wasn't really, didn't come up much in the legal arguments yet that we've seen, but i expect, absolutely, we're ready for a legal challenge here. trish: you mentioned the aclu, i'm going to get to chuck schumer and what he has to say
ant this because i do want to talk about the political angle, but let's get back to sort of the legal aspect in terms of whether or not it's going to stand up. the criticism on the first round was that he was rather hasty, his team rushed it out, and while the intentions may have been good, they didn't dot all the is and cross all the ts. this time is it different? >> it is different. i mean, i said on your broadcast, trish, after this started going through the court systems it would be better to issue a new executive order that was cleaner, and it's because the courts seized on a couple of areas that this new executive order clears up. trish: specifically where? >> did not take for granted the white house counsel stating this didn't apply to lawful permanent residents and visa holders. though they did issue that later, the white house, they said that wasn't enough. it is in the order now, and i think that's right. it also doesn't get into the ban on syrian refugees indefinitely. nothing in this order says you have to let everybody in after 120 days who are refugees, but
it doesn't make these statements that you don't need the as well as just saying specifically that we're going to look for christians. it's great to look for people who are religiously persecuted, we do a lot of that work at the aclj. you can do that administratively, you don't need to out that in the executive order. and the effective date, no one can say they're confused on when this goes into effect. trish: that's very true, and that was one thing that was confusing initially. let me share with you chuck schumer's statement, you mentioned the aclu sending out an e-mail. he says this is, quote, a watered-down ban is still a ban. this makes us less safe, not more. it is mean-spirited and un-american. i fully expect this executive order to have the same uphill climb in the court that is the previous version had. that's what i take issue with, mean-spirited and un-american. you're talking about six countries that have been known to be hotbeds for terrorist activity.
shouldn't our goal be to keep americans safe? wouldn't it be mean-spirited to invite people to this country, that would infrequent harm? >> this is not a muslim ban. second, we're already seen how the first executive order may not have survived in court, and it was ultimately rescinded here, but it encouraged iraq to work closer with us. the government of iraq said we don't want to be on this list, how can we -- trish: but what i'm getting at here, jordan, is he's talking about being mean-sirteed and un-american and i don't think there's anything mean-spirited or un-american in this in that we are doing our darnedest to protect our own people. >> that's right. it's a piece of the puzzle, trish, in trying to protect americans. it's not going to stop all terrorism, and it doesn't mean we don't have the threat. we know 300 out of 1,000 counterterrorism investigations going on right now this our country as you said in the opening of the show, 300 of those involve refugees. we have to take what we can do lawfully. and what i think here is most important, regardless of what a
circuit -- a district court judge does or the ninth circuit, i feel a lot more confident taking this all the way to the u.s. supreme court -- trish: all right. well, that's a critical thing because that may have to happen if we see a repeat from the ninth circuit. jordan, good to see you. thank you very much. another big story, of course, we're following, president trump saying president obama wiretapped him during the 2016 election. and now the trump administration is demanding an investigation. here's what kellyanne conway had to say about it. >> as part of the house intention and senate intelligence committee investigations into possible russia connections which, of se, have not been p proven, the president would just like this to be part of that investigation, that the committees would use their oversight authority to see whether or not this, in fact, happened. we know that there was a lot of political motivation, a lot of politically motivated investigations and stories and activities during the campaign, and he would like this to be
incorporated as part of the investigation. trish: in other words, why not have an investigation into everything? i want to go to blake burr beman for the very latest right now. >> reporter: hi there, trish, and sean spicer is meeting with members of the media as we speak, i just got out of there a couple minutes ago, and here are the few headlines that we can tell you as it relates to this. first, mr. spicer was just asked whether or not president trump has spoken with james comey, the director of the fbi, and spicer says it is of his knowledge at least at in this point that those two have not spoken. it is the reporting of fox at point that the fbi director comey was part of the push or at least senior members of the fbi were part of the push over the weekend to have the president's claims publickingly refuted. headline number one. secondly, spicer was asked about what the president says about all of this on this day. the press secretary says he has spoken with the president, and the president is still pushing for a congressional investigation into his claims that he was wiretapped, that
there was a wiretap potentially at trump tower during the 2016 election. chris stuart is a member of the house intelligence committee, he appeared on neil cavuto's show earlier this afternoon and says whatever happens, right now there is grandstanding going on on both sides of the aisle, and he says that investigation should take place behind closed doors. listen. >> it's best done behind closed doors. let us do this work and then come back and report to the american people. because right now there's an awful lot of political grandstanding going on, and i just don't think it's helpful. >> reporter: however, a democrat on that committee, joaquin castro, a congressman in his own right, tweeted out the following this afternoon saying, quote: president trump should back up his wiretapping claim immeately alogize to president obama and the nation. i've seen no evidence. says the house intel committee member. by the way, trish, that briefing is ongoing, as i mentioned, with sean spicer right now, and he says president trump also wants
an investigation from congress to look into all of the leaks surrounding many of the storylines with this. spicer calling them, quote, pervasive leaks. trish? trish: yeah. understandable that he would want that. it's difficult to do your job when people are conspiring from within to potentially take you down. anyway, keep us updated, blake. thank you so much, blake burman. joining me right now for more analysis, former cia officer buck sexton and fred weiss. given your experience in the intelligence community, you will have a unique perspective on this. buck, first of all, your reaction to this entire story that began unfolding in 3-d on saturday morning. >> well, one thing is just the immediate media response to this was, i think, very telling. on the one hand, you had people saying, well, we need to wait, there's no evidence. we shouldn't be going forward with this narrative or even reporting on this. afterweeks and weeks, month really of reporting on donald
trump's ties to russia as some part of -- trish: despite no evidence on that front. >> and this is a willingness in the media at large to believe there's a massive, international trump/russia/kremlin serious to throw the previous election still with zero evidence, but based on the new york times' own reporting which was accepted at least when it came out in january, there were supposed to be intercepts, signals intelligence gathered that proved there were these shady connections between trump officials and russian officials in some capacity. nobody refuted that then because it was part of this narrative. now people are pointing out, hold on a second, wouldn't that mean -- and there's actually some evidence in "the new york times" piece itself -- that this was a counterintelligence investigation, techniques of spying, not of law enforcement, were used to look at the private communications of trump officials? maybe trump himself. trish: that's right. >> why is that a crazy story? is why does that not deserve more investigation? trish: well, donald trump is demanding that, in fact, it does. >> of course. trish: so from that perspective,
you can undersnd how he must feel. nonetheless, fred, you know, people are flipping out on the left saying this is a crazy accusation. let me ask you about your sense of whether it could, in fact, happen. i mean, given your understanding of how intelligence be communities work, is it possible that there was some kind of warrant allowed to be able to intercept these communications regardless of whether they existed or not based on some fears that were being circulated in the media that, in fact, his campaign folkses did have some relations with russia? >> well, trish, what i think we're seeing here are all these technical and legalistic objections to what the president said. the president can't use the word "wiretap" even though "the new york times" always uses this, the president, president obama didn't formally ask for a fisa warrant, the fbi didn't actually physically wiretap trump tower. what we have here is an effort
by a presidential administration to use intelligence to surveil the presidential candidate of another administration just -- trish: you really think that happened then, fred? >> i think it happened in a variety of ways. i think they tried to abuse court warrants to gather information against mr. trump, and we know this from all this rest reporting. all these wiretaps, new york times quotes wiretaps. i also believe information was collected under the guise of gathering information about russia when it really was intended to gather damaging information against trump officials that could be leaked to news media. trish: so in your view then, this is something that was motivated by the political arm of the west wing? these investigations that were not based on real fears, but on politics? >> i think it was all about politics, and i think it's very interesting that there was this incredible interest by the fbi to investigate trump and his
associates, but there was no interest in investigating much more troubling concerns about hillary clinton and bill clinton's ties to russia. if this -- this isn't a coincidence. this is all about politics, it was about damaging mr. trump. trish: well, the fbi is asking the justice department to refute this now, but would you anticipate or expect that, buck, if in fact there's any shenanigans going on? >> just a few weeks ago there was reporting that the department of justice despite letting the white house though the story wasn't true, they wouldn't weigh many. doj is probably going to take the same perspective. i agree with all of fred's points about how this is getting down into the minutiae, you've got people saying obama doesn't order it, well, of course, that's really irrelevant. but you look at the initial reporting that led us to this point, and it seems to be -- unless you believe "the new york times" is making this up entirely -- we're saying this was a counterintelligence investigation meaning it used
the techniques of spying which go outside traditional fourth and fifth amendment protections. it's a lot more leeway -- trish: okay. if someone actually believed not for political purposes, but if they really feared that the russians were in tight with the trump campaign and they needed to get this kind of intelligence, they would need to get a warrant from a fisa warrant, would they not? >> what we would need to know and what i think we should know at this point because we would though if it were out there, why was there this strong belief that somebody was acting as a russian agent -- this is not just connections, unsavory talk if it was, in fact, a fisa warrant, the guidelines are very clear, it is acting as an agent of a foreign power. where is the evidence for that up to this point? trish: well, yeah -- >> a former white house senior aide to obama that there must be something there because if they did this, there must be something there. trish: i hear ya, because we were saying this during the time when it was all unfolding. everybody keeps talking about this. they have no specifics. it was just a bunch -- in some
way it felt like hearsay -- >> you have illegal leaks already of general flynn's phone call to the russian ambassador. how did that information get out there? it's from somebody with access. so they're willing to play that dirty they'll break the law, it's a federal felony whoever's leaking this information. i think if there was this smoking gun evidence somewhere to justify a fisa tap, we would know what that information is already, that's why there's a bit of a panic, because if they did in the without the necessary precondition of having real evidence, this was for, as fred said, purely political evidence. trish: by the way, our new president is calling everyone out on it. go ahead, last thought, fred. >> the first -- and also the first fisa warrant was turned down. remember that. the first fisa warrant. trish: yes. >> after it was turned down, this was according to "the new york times" on february 14th, fbi asked nsa to viewpoint nice communications of ukrainian officialings.
wow, the fisa warrant was turned down because it was unjustified, and then the fbi said to, this sa, give us what you've got on manafort. there's a lot of smoke here. trish: we're going to keep following it. thank you so much, buck and fred, good to have you guys here. let's get to another one here, democrats pouncing on the allegations of the wiretappiing what if president is right? what if fred and buck are right and he was wiretapped by the obama administration? what does that mean? it's not good. on any level. we've got it next. hey gary, what are you doing? oh hey john, i'm connecting our brains so we can share our amazing trading knowledge. that's a great idea, but why don't you just go to thinkorswim's chat rooms where you can share strategies, ideas, even actual trades
during the 2016 election, they say the whole thing is made up. indeed, top democrat chuck schumer is actually accusing the president of spreading rumors and false information. here he is on "meet the press" just yesterday. watch. >> either way, chuck, the president's in trouble. if he alwaysly spread this kind of -- falsely spread this kind of misinformation, that is so is wrong, it's beneath the dignity of the presidency. on the other hand, if it's true, it's even worse for the president because that means that a federal judge independently elected has found probable cause that the president or people on his staff have, had roll cause to have broken the haw or to have interacted with a foreign agent. trish: i mean, if it's not true, then -- and no wiretap was actually issue. , then what were they looking at in the first place just a who bunch of smoke and mirrors leaked to the media as we were just talking about with
fred and buck. joining me now, leslie marshall and ned ryan. good to see both you guys. ned, i'll start with you. you know, look, the politicians are going to seize on this. it is highly confusing. where do you think your average american comes out on all this, given what they've had to digest this weekend? >> well, first of all, i think they're still trying to kind of digest what is actually going on here and trying to understand what are we talking about with the piece saw warrant, how does -- fisa warrant, how does that all work? the thing that's interesting is to see the reaction of josh earnest, obama's former spokesperson, and kevin jackson, see all these other people talking about, basically, orwellian double speak and to see "the new york times" quoting, well, the targets were manafort and roger stone, and all of a sudden they say, wait, maybe there wasn't a warrant -- trish: that's what's confusing, right, because the original report suggested there was a warrant -- >> exactly. trish: they had gone at least twice to get the warrant.
finish your thought. >> that's right. it looks like they requested it twice, the first one rejected, the second one, it appears at least, was accepted. here's thing, fisa warrants have to be signed off and certified by the fbi director and the attorney general. if it got to that point, the attorney general would never have signed off on something unless the white house counsel had given permission. if this is true, this did go to the white house. obama had to have been aware, and i think, ultimately, if there was a warrant and it was approved and signed off by white house counsel, the question then becomes what did obama know and when did he know it. and that's where it could become very interesting. trish: leslie, your reaction to this story? >> well, first of all, what we are saying, what we are alleging -- and if you look at the tweet from our current president, he is specifically accusing our former president, barack obama, of this, of wiretapping him in trump tower. what we do know to be fact is
that there are trump individuals, there are aides that worked with trump where there were questionable connections regarding ukraine and russia. that is, that is a fact. trish: do we know that for a fact, or do we just know that manafort had done some consulting -- >> there's no evidence. trish: what specificically are you talking about? >> i am specificically talking about the requested fisa warrants that were being sought and why they were being sought. right now what we're looking at is a president who has the authority to declassify information -- trish: we don't though why they were -- -- [inaudible conversations] guys, this is at the heart of the issue, right? we don't know why it is that they needed to get these warrants. we don't know the specifics around it in the first place. we know paul manafort did some consulting work in ukraine, and we hear a bunch of hearsay reported in the media, a lot of misinformation. if you've got something specifically, leslie, i want to though about it. what is it?
>> what we have specifically is we have clapper, we have comey and the president, the former president of the united states, this is not true. it comes down to this, either one man, our current president, is lying or those former, those three men, names i just mentioned are lying. that is the truth. trish: okay. leslie, you're saying if they had some power -- hang on, hang on, i'm going to get to you in a send. so what leslie just told us is that somehow they have got information which led them to go and request the fisa warrant in the first place. now, we just heard from fred and buck who said they really find that doubtful, and their concern is all they had was a whole bunch of political rumors designed to try and take down donald trump, ask that's why they were out there -- >> thinly cloaked. trish: and if that's the case, ned, then that's a real problem. >> here are a couple things i find interesting, trish. this is october if this did actually take place, october of 2016, and they're saying manafort and stone are part of the target, manafort wasn't even
with the campaign, roger stone hadn't been with the campaign for over ooh year. interesting timing that you're coming into the last few weeks of an election. trish: i've just got ten seconds. >> the other thing about clapper really quick, why on earth would we believe clapper who lied to a senate committee -- trish: all right, buck was just telling me same thing off camera.to believe. trish: i've got to leave it there. we're up against a hard break. thanks so much, guys. we're going to be right back. te. roller derby. ♪ now give up half of 'em. do i have to? this is a tough financial choice we could face when we retire. but, if we start saving even just 1% more of our annual income... we could keep doing all the things we love. prudential. bring your challenges.
. trish: trump is falling through on his campaign promise to cut businesses and let businesses prosper. more than 90 regulations have been suspended or reverse. how do you like that? and the markets have been rallying big time over the government getting out of the way. just take a look how the markets have been since this election. we are up better than 14% on the dow. 11% on the s&p nasdaq trading up more than 12%. you know,
the liberal media, they will not, cannot give the president any credit for these markets. so take a look at this headline we've got here in today's new york times. lisa come off wall street, gun shooters, polluters, and more. former campaign manager joins me now. david, you see how they characterize it in the new york times. less regulation is somehow bad. i would say less regulation is somehow very good, and i'll tell you the markets really seem to like trump economic policies. what is your take on all of this in terms of the interpretation by the media and what is tulyappening in the real world? >> well, look, you know, the new york times will always say conservatives want dirty air, dirty water, they want their children to be poisoned. it is unbelievable that they come up with this. look, destroying the destruction of the administrative state. you know, a comment by my friend
steve bannon and former colleague steve bannon a couple of weeks ago got everyone's attention and the markets are paying attention because the leash is not off of the bad guys. the leash is off the job creators and that's what the market is recognizing. . trish: but, david, that's an important here because i tell you a lot of people on the left see big business not as a job creator but as very much the enemy. i think back to when i was a younger reporter in the san francisco newsroom and n ron went down, and there were actually believe it or not cheers in that newsroom. granted it was san francisco but there was a contingency among the reporting staff that wanted to see a company like nron because down because n ron was big, bad, and awful, and i said, no, guys, this is really, really bad. there are thousands of employees that had their 401(k) wrapped up in n ron stock. the media's impression of big
business. >> yeah. and there were millions of americans who lost a lot of money in the stock market because of n ron. these people, they're very shortsighted. look, elections have consequences and scott peruet and a cabinet full of people like governor perry, now secretary perry who are going to go in there and wilbur ross looking for places. every nook and cranny where the left over the last eight years has put in regulations to one increase costs and really create an opportunity, really, the -- inability for companies to hire new employees. to not make a profit. to have to spend more of their money on litigation fees. trish: they get stuck in all of that red tape. i talked to carl icahn about this recently, carl icahn the billionaire investor, and he said, look, i'm a good american. i want to invest in american companies but sometimes i tell
you that darn epa, they make it so darn difficult, and they really -- they don't provide the right incentives. so his whole platform has been -- and he's been an adviser to donald trump. look, get rid of this regulation. get rid of it so that we can all put money to work and that results in job creation and economic growth. simple. economics 101, david. >> that's right. and i'm not an economist but even i know that. and that's right. look, that's what the president ran on. it's one of the main staples of his campaign was we're going to drain the swamp. we're going to repeal and replace. we're going to create investment and jobs. and one of those ways is going to be to cut regulations. trish: and we hope that keeps happening, despite all of these distractions that are leaving the headlines right now between russia and wiretaps, et cetera. anyway, david, good toee you. thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me.
[screaming] . trish: you see this? it's hard to watch. but those are protesters in berkeley, california beating up trump supporters. turning incredibly violent there in berkeley. it's really unbelievable to watch. i mean, you've got these fights breaking out. they're on both sides several people were injured, ten arrests were actually made. but it's heartbreaking to see that they're attacking this poor guy. hitting him in the head. why do we have such a double standard? i mean, you saw the antitrump protests in dc; right? demonstrators on the left going and marching totally in peace. they were not disruptive. but why the trump supporters get attacked for just trying to march themselves?
leslie marshall are back with me and, ned, it's hard to watch as i said. they're just gangs up on that guy, punching him in the head. i mean, the media likes to portray trump supporters as these crazy red next with guns but in actuality the crazy ones seem to be right there in berkeley because they're attacking that poor man. >> this is a continuation, though, trish of what they're trying to do with the tea party. they want to frame the tea party as being -- they were even calling them domestic terrorists. there were congressman, democrat congressman calling tea party members domestic terrorists when, in fact, the opposite was true. they were peaceful. they were even cleaning up after themselves. i was at these rallies, speaking at tea party rallies. peaceful rallies. and then went to turn into real political change. and hereou have the resistance. and i want to make it very clear there are certain aspects of the left thank that violence, that attacking people, violence on individuals and destruction of
personal property is a way to advance their cultural and social and political desires. and this, to me, is extremely un-american, if you look at our traditions and how we have peaceful assembly, the tea party and even these trump supporters actually have more in common with martin luther king jr. than the left does. and if you look at history, and you understand who wants to use violence to advance their social and political goals, it's troubling. trish: yeah, i hear you. when you talk about the destruction of property, and we saw that in the riots in ferguson, great example there of how people took to the streets in a way that was not productive. >> right. trish: i'm sugar coating this by using that language. but was not productive in any way for society. leslie, the left keeps painting trump supporters as the wild ones, but you look at stuff like that, and it's clearly not the case. can you defend it in any way? do you defend it in any way?
>> well, most liberals are pacifists like myself, and i don't condone any violence and the first amendment doesn't cover that. as you rightly pointed out, trish, there was violence on both sides. we saw this in videos. we saw trump supporters with pepper spray or shields. trish: they've got to protect themes. they've got to protect themselves. if you're getting beaten in the head, are you supposed to just sit there and take it? >> well, not everybody was defending themselves. there is a video of pepper spray to a trump protester. but either way this is not what our founded fathers have in mind when they talked about freedom of speech and freedom of protest. trish: i agree with you. and i'm glad that we can be on the same page on that. >> however,. trish: however what? >> however, we do have two instances of shootings. one of a man and another of two indian men who died when trump supporters said get out
of my country and shot these individuals, and i think that's where some on the left feel trump supporters are violent. trish: we keep hearing over and over again and projected by a leftist media. they want people to think that trump supporters are somehow these crazy white house supremacists that don't want to allow a freedom of thought. but in actuality, the ones that are not allowing the freedom of thought and we say this over and over again, specifically on college campuses, happen to be those on the left. go ahead. >> no. exactly, and i think it's somewhat staggering democrats disavowing this. there is nothing to defend here. and i continue to disavow anything on the right, including the alt right and saying we have nothing to do with anything that even comes close to personal violence or white supremacy or any of those things. but you're right. it's interesting to me, trish, that people claim they want to have freedom of thought, freedom of expression, all of these things, they suddenly
have a different view of life when all of a sudden they're confronted with these opposing ideas. and, again, there's nothing to defend here. it should be disavowed. it is un-american. and we need to understand at the end of the day, trish, this is the thing that i'm growing more and more concerned about. we're all americans. each one of us. right, left. we're americans. we have to have a lot in common. . trish: yes, and we should be able to. on economic issues and on security issues. it's good to see both of you guys. thank you very much. >> thank you. trish: president trump making the appeal to traditional blue-collar democrats with his pro coal agenda and his vow to bring back american jobs. the gop, though, has had a long, contentious relationship with labor unions. so this is an interesting line he's walking. can president trump bring them back into the party? wouldn't that be something? we're on it for you on this big political move and what it's going to cost the democrats right after this. me to reach my goals. i'e
so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes
or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
. trish: president trump is trying to shake up the democrats' grip on labor union. the white house is making strides in terms of reaching out to blue-collar workers around the country. hey, it's in part yes won the election. and there are roadblocks in the president's way, including the push to reign in federal spending. james from fox news has all the details first on one. hey, james. >> trish, good afternoon. you have to go back to richard nixon's election landslide 1972 to find the only time a modern gop nominee has won the labor vote. if president trump is to make similar inroads, it would almost surely be with private sector unions, like those representing the coal minors he welcomed last month. bill eliminating by the office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement. that required coal companies to monitor water quality near mines and restore bodies of body after mining was
completely. the head of the cio told president trump thus far to the unionized working men and women of america has presented a mixed bag. >> what he did on tpp was good. the things he's trying to do with infrastructure is good. there's a lot of those things. and then on the other side, you know, he put some people that were pretty antiunion. >> last year according to federal statistics, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined to about 14.5 million people, a drop from the year before of just under a quarter of a million people. the bureau of labor statistics further tells us the total membership of america's unionized workforce is almost evenly split between public and private sector unions with roughly 7 million members in each sector. in november, fox news exit polls recorded that among the 18% of reporters that voted having a union member in the household, the break down was 51% for hillary clinton, 42% for donald trump. that marked a drop of 5 percentage points from the share that president obama
enjoyed in 2012. the peak of american member membership was up was one third of salary workers belonged to one. trish. trish: that's a large pocket of people there, if he can bring them in, it will really start to change things. good to see you. thank you very much. san francisco announcing it will drop out of the fbi joint terrorism task force, which is 93 terrorism attacks and, yes, you heard that right. san francisco says it's no longer going to work with the fbi. amid concerns that the fbi targets arabs and muslims. so why is san francisco placing political correctness over the safety of its citizens? that's next.
. trish: i have to say this was an unbelievable story. talking about anarchy, the city of san francisco is ending its partnership with the joint terrorism task force after local activist groups accuse the fbi of unfairly targeting muslims. critics say this move could put americans in danger and for no good reason. you think? i mean, the fbi antiterror initiative has certainly been successful in stopping extremist activity within the u.s. and therefore let's be simple here, it's needed. we need the fbi. we need the fbi, and we need cities like san francisco working together with the fbi. in fact, do you knowhat the task force is responsible for stopping at least 93 terror attacks since 9/11? and that they rely heavily on local intelligence for their investigations? in other words, the city government, the federal government working together. we need that. we need san francisco to share its intel and san francisco
needs the fbi to help them. well, my next guest says this whole thing is just not san francisco's decision is quote extremely and dangerously irresponsible. former nypd commissioner, a guy who knows a thing or two about sharing information with the feds, bernie, he joins me here on set now. good to see you, sir. i still have this, and i thought, look, it's san francisco; right? and we know san francisco has its liberal tenancies. but my goodness. you're talking about the safety and well-being of one of the largest cities, bernie, in the entire country. >> yeah. but, trish, it's not only the city of san francisco that you have to worry about. you have to worry about what's out of that terrorist task force in san francisco that you would have an impact on some antiterror effort in the united states and abroad. trish: they could be working, terrorists could be working in san francisco and san francisco police would not be sharing it with national law enforcement, therefore they could pull off something else in another city?
>> well, you have loopholes that could be missed. so a terrorist task force like this, the fbi's task force consists of local police departments, the state police, and the fbi. they're put together in one to make sure that intelligence's gathered, intelligence's communicated amongst all, and that we don't miss anything. prior to 9/11, we had one in newark, new york city, l.a. there were probably ten around the country. now they're in most of the major cities of the united states, and they should be because the fbi only has 14,000 agents. they have more than 1,000 of these inquiries targets that th're oking at right now. trish: this is just -- it's crazy to me. i mean, why -- >> it's irresponsible. it's dangerous. it puts the lives of american citizens in danger here and abroad. there's stuff that comes out of these investigations that lead -- trish: is there any way to
stop it? i mean, is there a way that the feds can say, listen, san francisco, you have to get with the program. >> well, the feds can go in, the fbi can go in and subpoena certain stuff from san francisco, from the police department. but this should be easily accessible information. and the whole nonsense that, you know, the fbi may be targeting muslims unnecessary. well, there's no substance to that. there's no actual substance evidence of that. this is all political. it's generated by the left wing, you know, political parties, and it's dangering the lives of people in the u.s. trish: it's a shame that this gets boiled down to politics because people are not thinking about the big picture. let me ask your thoughts on this. do you think there was any kind of warrant issued to tap into communications at trump tower? do you have any gut reaction, even your background in law enforcement? >> first of all, i think
there's something to it. you know, there's obviously they went and attempted a pfizer warrant in june. there was another warrant, another fisa application in june. trish: so trump's not making up this, in your view? >> there's too much smoke about this. plus the new york times story, the intelligence about stuff that was gathered or stuff that was being gathered. you know, my question is was it a fisa application? was it a title 3 intercept? . trish: what is a title 3? >> it's a criminal wiretap. you know, either way -- trish: easier to get? >> it's easier to get under criminal circumstances. but they would have to have a target. they would have to have probable cause to believe something happened. but either way, the interesting thing for both of these is nothing was obtained trish: got to go but thank you so much, bernie. >> thank you. trish: we'll be right back kids . i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when
liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance well, what are you doing o take care otomorrow -10am? but... staff meeting. 3:45? tai chi. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios the automated investing solution.
but we've had four people, four experts on this show today that they think he is onto something. in other words, why was there this warrant in the first place? they think there was one, and they question the political motives behind all of it. i want to hear from you. head to my facebook show page and tell me what you think of that story. liz claman has you from here. liz: i do. and you know what, trish? i don't know if we can do this. can we show airline stocks at the moment? they're getting hammered in this final hour. we'll show you these three. united continental down nearly 4%. delta getting killed nearly 3%. jetblue down 4.5%. give us a second. we're going to show you more travel stocks getting crushed and pointing to president trump's second run at immigration executive order. he signed in the oval office just hours ago and here's the question. will the revised order announced by attorney general jeff sessions, secretary of state rex