tv The Intelligence Report With Trish Regan FOX Business April 6, 2017 2:00pm-3:01pm EDT
most crucial one and the one that has the most at stake, not only for dealing with the north korean threat but the gaping trade gap, the gap narrowed 10% in the latest month. the president says that's a sign of things to come. we shall see. trish regan to take you through the next hour. trish: thanks so much. neil. we're going to stay on the picture as we watch rex tillerson secretary of state, and premiere of china, xi jinping, as they get into -- well, looks like we'll get music here. as soon as that starts, i'm going to ask the producer to tell me so we can listen in. he'll be getting in a car headed to mar-a-lago meeting with the president there, an as neil told you, he's not a golfer, it's down to business and this president has really made china a bit of a pinata in terms of the word punching bag in much of our economic troubles, he has stated has been derived from some of china's issues and the fact
that china continues to grows an economy in a world such as this, it has made it increasingly tough for american workers and american manufacturers. so you can imagine there will be a lot on the agenda, certainly from an economic standpoint. north korea as well being a big issue that the president will be looking to get the chinese's help on. other issues like intellectual property being a big sticking concern for the u.s. china effectively stealing a lot of our technology and intellectual property has long been an issue, and, of course, the currency itself, the yuan has not appreciated in ways that the u.s. would like to see. a number of our treasure secretaries have made that point as well, of course, as president trump. there they are, they're getting in the car, the motorcade is going to go off. rex tillerson seeing them off here as they head to mar-a-lago
where they're going to begin these meetings. he's there, as you just saw with his wife by his side, and they'll be sitting down with president trump. there's a lot to discuss as i pointed out. this has been a big issue on the campaign front, and donald trump sort of pointed out that as china's economy has grown, we have effectively dwindled. are they eating our lunch? we're going to talk all about that. we have peter kiernan, who's going to be joining me, best-selling author and wrote a book very critical of some of china's policies. so we'll be talking some more about that. i am joined right now by ford o'connell, who's a republican strategist, and i just want to point out, ford, this is a message, donald trump's message that was very anti-china that definitely resonated on the campaign trail. now you get him sitting down at the meeting, and, you know, you can't exactly spout off some of the things you said to your
supporters out there in the rust belt. what do you anticipate will come of this? what do you anticipate will be the opening line from donald trump? >> china and the u.s. need to work together to shut down the north korean weapons program. look, the only people that can do this is china, and basically, donald trump has to find out the right sticks and carrots with regard to economic trade, potential sanctions to make sure this happens. right now north korea's weapons program is a clear and present danger not only to the united states but the rest of the world, that's going to be issue number one. issue number two as you pointed out is trade, and the fact that basically we're running a $300 billion trade deficit to china and have to make sure americans can compete in the global market and at home to put people back to work here. trish: i want to break this down. you're talking about north korea. if we are to get chinese cooperation on north korea, doesn't it make it harder for us to sit there and say, listen, you need to do more to appreciate your currency.
you need to make it easier for american businesses to be active in china and got to knock it off with the intellectual property stealing. if they want their cooperation on one thing, how do we get them to do what we want on others? >> this is where trump has to draw on his big selling point. he is the chief negotiator in the art of the deal. there is a lot at play, and north korea, it has to do with patent laws, steel dumping, a lot here, and donald trump is going to have to find a way to make china understand that we can work together to improve both countries. you know, one of the other things i want to point out here. one of the reasons why china doesn't want to put pressure on north korea is because they're concerned about a refugee situation themselves from north korea. so there's a lot going on here. trish: indeed, stay with me, ford. we are joined by peter kiernan, he is the author of a book called "becoming china's" --
can i say it? bitch. you have concerns about our relationship, peter, you voiced them in this book, what do you think needs to happen as we confront the north korean threat and the economic threat. >> i agree with the commentary this is a very layered and complicated relationship. and most important is for these two men to form some sort of relationship. right now they don't know each other terribly well, they're quite a bit alike. trish: really? >> president x going through tough times, he was one of mao's good buddies and fell out of favor, and he went to live on the farm, so to speak, he is completely out, he went from the top of society to the bottom, and tried very hard, applied five times to get in the communist party and only on the fifth try did they let him back. he had to work from the bottom to the top of the organization. trish: he has something in common with donald trump because he's an outsideer?
>> they are business guys, struggle, know how to make a deal. these are people who understand. just to put it in context, donald trump is make a lot of exciting noise about the trillion dollars he plans to spend on infrastructure over the next ten years. put that in xi jinping, period for four, five years, in each of those years, he spent over a trillion dollars in each of those years on infrastructure. trish: okay! a man after donald trump's own heart. >> he understands how to build his plan for the next 15 years to spend a trillion dollars per annum every year on infrastructure. they have a lot to understand, there are prickly issues between them. trish: you think about china and the stumlues spends has not performed all that well. you heard of the ghost cities, cities in china that they built with infrastructure spending funds from the state and no one lives there. that's the fear, right? when you allow government to spend that much, do you run that risk that none of this even gets used or it's not --
the appropriate allocation of capital? >> here's the appropriate allocation of capital is the exact right question, trish, because what he's decided is i'm going to wager all in on china. so they are in the process of building 70 airports right now. do they need 70 airports? probably not. but the reason they're building the ghost cities as a perfect example is 15 million people a year are moving from the provinces, from the farms to the city. so imagine, that's in new york, chicago, l.a. being created every single year. they're building in advance of this. why? the whole country is betting on one thing. of the g7 or the g20, china wants to be g1. trish: this is where it gets tricky because we have held that spot for a good long time, and now we're in jeopardy of losing it to china. anyway, i'm going to see you again in a bit. more china to talk about. thank you so much, peter kiernan, ford. stay with me, the other big
story is the senate leader triggering the "nuclear option" political showdown on capitol hill as the left aims to undermine our democracy. but what's it going to cost them? our own adam shapiro in washington. >> reporter: the vote to confirm neil gorsuch as next justice on the supreme court will most likely take place between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. tomorrow friday. it invoked what many people call the "nuclear option". this is just simply a parliamentary procedure that lowered the threshold to end debate on a supreme court nominee and prevent filibusters on supreme court nominees like the one democrats were using to prevent a vote on judge gorsuch. marity leader mitch mcconnell said democrats actually forced the issue. >> our democratic colleagues have done something that is unprecedented in the history of the senate. unfortunately, it has brought us to this point. we need to restore the norms and traditions of the senate
and get past this unprecedented partisan filibuster. >> reporter: well, the old threshold required 60 votes to end debate, requires now a simple majority, 51 votes, after invoking the "nuclear option," the senate voted 55 in favor, 45 against to avoid cloture and filibuster, and moved toward a vote on judge gorsuch, that could happen late tomorrow afternoon or evening. he is expected to be confirmed. the big question now is filibuster remains at a 60--vote threshold on legislative issues. they say that will stay intact for now. the future could be in jeopardy as both sides get ready to do battle, trish? trish: all right, we're ready for it. thank you so much, adam shapiro. joining me now republican strategist ford o'connell back with us and radio talk show host ethan berman. i'll tell you one thing, i know this, americans do not like obstruction, if you poll the
average american, you know who they hate the most beside the media? maybe bankers, wall street? they really hate congress, they don't like the fact politicians get to washington and don't get anything done. let me ask you, given all the hostility to judge gorsuch on the left and the confirmation process, is that going to cost them? politically? >> no, i don't think -- i don't think will, because let's go back t2013or a second, the republicans who filibustered 10 other cabinet level nominees and ended the filibuster on that. i think it's good to end the filibuster when the president wants to put people in positions of power, according to our constitution, he needs consent of the senate. never said he needs 60 votes in the senate. trish: you misunderstood me. but i just wonder, isn't this going to cost democrats here? in other words, democrats that were getting in the way of the process? their constituencies know that they basically forced republicans into having to use
this nuclear option, and even if you say hey, it's time to use it, the point is these guys forced them to do so. >> just like the republicans did 3 1/2 years ago! did it hurt the republicans? no, it's not going to hurt the democrats, fires up their base. the republican base is fired up. the democratic base is fired up. i don't think this hurts anybody, i think it moves our country forward and is a good thing in the end. trish: your take on it, ford? >> i like ethan's revised history. actually the democrats started this under george w. bush, filibustering his lower court nominations and in 2013 harry reid invoked the "nuclear option". the republicans had no choice because essentially if the democrats weren't going to accept gorsuch, who were they going to accept? and what never gets explained on tv, everyone hears about the lower federal courts and what harry reid did. the lower federal courts and the united states supreme court are interconnected. a lower federal court crafts the case, that outcome has a
direct bearing on the united states supreme court regardless whether you have nine conservatives or nine liberals up there. i think this is a bad day overall, what's going to wind up happening going forward, a short-run victory for the republicans but we'll have justices who no longer are bipartisan who are going to be far more ideological, every united states senate seat up for grabs is a referendum on the supreme court. trish: in this case, the "nuclear option" the conservatives favor, because they have donald trump there for the next nearly four years. >> if we have justice ginsburg or justice breyer get off there. this could wind up affecting the legislative filibuster, that could be good for republicans right now but bad for america in the long run. what looks good today does not look good tomorrow, and the democrats will get back there anyhow. trish: ethan, you are shaking your head, why. >> i don't agree. the legislative filibuster is in place, i disagree with ford, that we're going to have political judges?
this is an utterly misrepresented by so many people, including people who should know better, former attorneys general coming on tv and talking about this. there is a fundamental split among the legal community, among professors, lawyers, judges, about how to interpret the constitution. we make it political because that's how we like to talk about it, but it's about how you interpret the constitution. there is a split, and some people like it one way, some like it the other. as we've seen with many supreme court justices, they change over time too. trish: i'm out of time. got leave it there. to your point, yes, there are different ways of interpreting it. i think it should be pretty straightforward, you just need to uphold the law, don't need to make the law, don't need to be look at the constitution in a way that can remake the world in your eyes. just read the law, uphold the law, that's all that is asked of you. i want to take a quick market check. up 60 points on the dow in positive territory.
if we can show you an intra-day chart, i can show you what happened as paul ryan came forward and said it looks like health care will get done that. is front and center on the agenda, and the market was really struggling as we began the day, but it was a reversal, and we are just off the highs of the session right now at 20,708. president trump says normer national security adviser susan rice may have committed a crime by unmasking the identities of trump associates who were swept up in surveillance of foreign officials. all of this as the chairman of the house intelligence committee devin nunes steps aside from the committee's investigation into russian interference in the election. we've got a lot of news developing. see you back here in two. [ engine revs ]
brace yourself! this is crazy! [ tires screeching ] whoo! boom baby! rated pg-13. [ screams ] [ screams ] i've spent my life planting a size-six, non-slip shoe into that door. on this side, i want my customers to relax and enjoy themselves. but these days it's phones before forks. they want wifi out here. but behind that door, i need a private connection for my business. wifi pro from comcast business. public wifi for your customers. private wifi for your business. strong and secure. good for a door. and a network. comcast business. built for security. built for business.
trish: breaking today everyone, representative devin nunes is stepping aside from the russian probe after the left cries foul saying he is nothing but a distraction from the whole investigation. all of this as president trump tells "the new york times" that he believes susan rice may have committed a crime when she unmasked the identities for trump officials. take a look here, front page of the "new york times," guess what? no mention of this story. you have to go all the way to page 15 where they just bury it altogether, and check out this headline, i want to show you, turning to page 15, it says "trump offering no evidence suggests rights committed a crime." joining me jordan sekulow and fred weiss, justice security fellow. we know where the media is coming from when it comes to donald trump. the "new york times" had this, they had this quote from him
and didn't seem toanto run it. they didn't nt him saying that she may have committed a crime. when they ran the headline, they said offering no evidence, he says, that she might have committed a crime and buried it on page 15. okay, so we know they're biased. let me ask you about the truth, however. could she have committed a crime? jordan, first to you. >> yeah, absolutely. and there's a number of provisions. one if she was under the color of law, using fisa surveillance to do something improper. that's a crime. five years in prison. if the surveillance wasn't legitimate. that wasn't done for foreign reasons, foreign surveillance, wasn't done for national security reasons, that could be a crime itself, and sharing it with people that are unauthorized that shouldn't get the info. a separate crime. then the espionage act, the leaking part. if she's tied to the leaking, that's a 10-year. yes, there are definitely potential for criminal conduct here.
that's why there should be a grand jury impanelled to look at people like susan rice, loretta lynch, remember the executive order signed the final 17 days of the obama administration, signed a new executive order for, when, the new administration that expands the raw intelligence that's shared with intelligence agencies from one agency, the nsa to 16 other intelligence agencies. what? they did that for donald trump? i don't think so. trish: if she did this for the political gain, she could be facing real problems. fred, let me ask you, because you're from the intelligence community. if something was that serious, if you were really concerned about an individual in the trump campaign, wouldn't it be that the cia or the nsa or someone in an official nonpolitical arm of our government would actually come forward with this? why would it be up to -- why would it be up to her to reveal the name?
>> first of all, if susan rice had a problem about someone in the trump campaign committing a crime, she should have informed the justice department. concerning donald trump's tweet that she may have committed a crime. we're talking about the demasking of names from nsa reports. lot of people think that must be a crime because apparently multiple trump officials had their names unmasked. well, it's not a crime to ask for the name of an american in an nsa report. this is an unusual request, but it is something that the nsa does as long as there's good national security reason. even if she asked for all obama officials, that will be okay, but if she leaked this information or if she leaked it, gave it to people she knew would leak it, then she did commit a crime. >> that's important to point out. it's not just leaking as we think of susan rice calling a reporter. i get with the unmasking itself. by the way, if you take that
information and give it to someone else inside the government, that right there, may not be considered a leak as we think of it, that would be criminal conduct. not just civil here. we're talking about criminal conduct it. all has to be investigated. the end of the day is we're not getting enough knowing susan rice did unmasking and she's saying she was not the actual leaker if she was involved in the leaking process and gave it to someone as fred said, at would be criminal conduct, and that's why donald trump, our president said may, may have, no one is passing final judgment on the actual criminality. what we do know is it is highly suspicious because of who the main actor is here, it's susan rice, someone who can't be trusted. trish: well, you know, she doesn't have the best track record, think of benghazi for that. jordan and fred, thank you very much. new news breaking, legendary comic don rickles passing away at his home in los angeles this morning. don rickles known for abrasive comedic style, poking fun at
everyone who crossed his path. even frank sinatra. reports say his death was caused by kidney failure. rickels is survived by his wife barbara and daughter, he was 90 years old. we'll be right back. can i get some help. watch his head. ♪ i'm so happy. ♪ whatever they went through, they went through together. welcome guys. life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you.
. trish: let's take a look at amazon.com. the founder there, jeff bezos is planning to sell about a billion dollars a year of his amazon stock, all because he wants to fuel his blue origin rocket company. pun intended. rocket company aiming to launch paying passengers on 11-minute space rides, starting next year. it's pretty neat, right? you can see amazon trading at all-time highs, it's off just a touch right there, perhaps on news that mr. bezos himself is going to be selling quite a bit. today, everyone, president trump is meeting with the chinese president, xi jinping, for the very first time.
two leaders have a lot to discuss, north korea, the global terror threat, the disputed territory in the south china sea and also got trade. after all, we've been running a big trade deficit with china. china has taken advantage of us on trade and all we want is a fair deal. just this week, he vowed to get tough on trade speaking at a builders conference in washington. watch him here. >> the era of economic surrender has come to an end, come to an end. we have surrendered as a country to outside ieresting. the era of economic victory for our country has just begun. we didn't just offshore our jobs. we offshored a big, big part of the american dream. we enriched foreign countries at the expense of our own country, the great united states of america, but those
days are over. trish: you know, i'll tell you, the fear has been that china is going to turn into the united states of america, what we once were, and we're on our way to becoming france. how does that change? what do we need to do? and what is donald trump talking to xi jinping about. i'm talking to peter kiernan author of becoming china's you know what? along with peter brookes. we have two peters here. we talked about the north korea issue, let me talk about trade. americans are feeling it, you could graduate from high school. get a good job at the local factory, take care of your family with that. those days are gone, and people are blaming countries like china. can we change that? can the days ever come back? is it china's fault? >> the answer is probably yes to all three questions.
in 1994 we began ceding ground to china and began creating millions of manufacturing jobs, precisely the type you are describing. the problem is it's hard to bring those back, particularly lower down the value curve we're going to have more manufacturing. we'rthe number two manufacturer in the world, but the notion that manufacturing output is going to create the same level of manufacturing jobs is a false one. i'll give an example. we produced more steel than 1984, but with 25% of the employees because there's so much technology and productivity that's been brought in. trish: in other words, you're telling me that ship has sailed, technological advances are making it such workers are increasingly getting displaced, so not necessarily just china that's to blame here, but just evolution as we know it? >> china figured out the number one rule of development in economics. you can't survive forever by being the low cost manufacturer.
many other countries manufacturing cheaper than china today, where wage rates are well below china. china is trying to move up the curve and saying with people come partner with us and build more effective and powerful -- >> peter brookes, as we try and deal with the brave new world where china is increasingly getting ahead, there's been a lot of things thrown out there as potential solutions to helping our domestic economy. one of them, of course, is the tax on any imports coming in. do you think that's a worthwhile policy to pursue? >> well, you have to take a look at that, china will resist that, of course. the president has to have a very matter of fact conversation with president xi about trade. i mean, as we were talking about the challenges of bringing back some manufacturing jobs -- trish: so what if he rejects it. peter, so what? fine, he resists it.
i'm asking selfishly for our economy, is it the right thing, the best thing, what do you say peter kiernan? >> i think what we want to do is build a detente. these are two men that understand each other. donald trump wants to build a man, talking to a man who spent 2,000 years building a wall. they understand one another. president xi is probably the most capitalist sensitive president we've had in china in a long time. trish: what is it that we offer? what can we do? what's the goal to say, look, it's not okay you are slapping big tariffs on goods coming into our country? >> tough talk of the type we have not had for a very long time. trish: why haven't we had that, peter? >> look back, when i was a boy, peter you look much younger and you are much younger. when i was a boy, we had the smartest minds in our country
focused on every twist and turn of the soviet union. henry kissinger, john f. kennedy, zbigniew brzezinski watching russia who has been watching every twist and turn of china in the united states. who's that person in the obama administration on point. you can't name that person. we haven't been paying attention to china. china operating outside our field of vision and planning and plotting and strategizing how to top us economically. trish: yeah, we got to get serious. >> one of the things that could happen this weekend is these two gentlemen have the capacity to start talking tough trade negotiation. trish: you are hopeful, i'm hopeful, too. thank you so much. breaking news, dustin johnson ranked number one in the world is pulling out of the u.s. masters after hurting his back when he slipped and fell on stairs. he was the favorite to win the tournament after becoming the fourth player in history to enter the masters after three
straight pga tour wins. johnson is no stranger to freak accidents. in 2013 he had to withdraw after injuring his back lifting a jet ski. all right, masters kicks off today. ivy league students have a losing touch with reality. you know when asked what they think is a bigger threat, president trump's policy or isis? guess what they said? we'll tell you. stay with us. the comfort in knowing where things are headed. because as we live longer... and markets continue to rise and fall... predictable is one thing you need in retirement to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing brighthouse financial. a new company established by metlife to specialize in annuities & life insurance. talk to your advisor about a brighter financial future.
my frii say not if you this protect yourself.ary. what is scary? pneumococcal pneumonia. it's a serious disease. my doctor said the risk is greater now that i'm over 50! yeah...ya-ha... just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia- an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and y even p you inhe hospital.