tv Bulls Bears FOX Business February 15, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EST
do that. never going to happen. >> not the world we live in. you got to deal with reality, weird as it is. thanks for joins us. >> bulls & bears starts right now. new reaction pouring in after president trump declares a national emergency to secure funds to build a border wall. >> i'm going to be signing a national emergency and it's been signed many times before. it's been signed by other presidents from 1977 or so it gave the presidents the power. it's very simple. we want to stop drugs from coming into our country. we want to stop criminals and gangs from coming into our country. nobody has done the job that we've ever done. i mean nobody has done the job that we've done on the border. by creating such a strong economy, you just look at your
television to see what's going on today. it's through the roof. what happens is more people want to come. so we have far more people trying to get into our country today than probably we've ever had before. so we have a chance of getting close to 8 billion dollars, whether it's 8 billion or 2 bill clon or 1.5 billion dollars, it's going to build a lot of walls. >> this is bulls & bears. joining me on the panel to discuss this and much more heather diseum ra ga, garry b. smith and jonas max ferris. welcome everybody. you just heard him. president trump is expecting to get sued over this move declaring a national emergency. and sure enough the new york attorney general just issued this statement, quote, declaring a national emergency without legitimate cause could create a constitutional crisis. we will not stapped for this abuse of power and will fight
back with every legal tool at our disposal. jenna ellis joining us now. the aclu has just filed a suit. how does this play out? does it get stuck in the courts? if so, for how long? >> yeah, this shouldn't get stuck in the courts. and if anyone on the judicial panel anywhere is looking at the constitution, they're looking at the national emergencies act, then they will see that the president used his discretionary power provided by congress to declare a national emergency. we haven't seen this kind of controversial and just political rhetoric over a declaration of national emergency really ever. this just comes down to political gamesmanship and should go directly to the supreme court so that hopefully the originalist majority on the supreme court can say once and for all we need to protect our border and that's well within the scope of the president's authority. >> hi, general i that.
jenna. it's heather. the firs first national emergeny under president wilson to prevent the transfer of u.s. ships to foreigners during world war ii. so do you think this should have been issued, this type of congressional power in the first place? >> yell, that' well, that's a gt question. if congress thinks they've extended national emergency power too broadly then they can go in and change the law. but the supreme court said in 1981 that congress can't delegate a broad authority and veto an action by the executive branch that's vested with that authority simply when they disagree on policy. congress would have to go back and change the law in order to narrow this. and that may be a good idea. >> jenna, this is garry smith. two questions. there is, i believe, 31 national
emergencies existing, even some from the quarter administration that could go on in purpose duty. perpetuity. but it looks like 30 of them relate to terrorists activities. don't sell ships to north korea, that kind of thing. my first question is what umbrella do you think this will fall under if any, if he needs an umbrella. and second of all, maybe more importantly, you said this should go to the supreme court. however practically what do you see the legal path this will follow and how long do you think it will be tied up in the courts? >> the umbrella is the national securities act. and while we see examples of terrorism being used, we see other examples like president reagan closing the border, we see other examples like 9/11 with president george w. bush declaring a national emergency. there are a lot of instances that fall under this broad discretion. simply to say that border
security doesn't fall within that general purview isn't realistic and not a great legal definition. and as to your second question, it really depends on where this is form shopped. i think that president trump is right, we're going to see several lawsuits in the ninth circuit and those will likely be adverse to the president and have to make their way up to the panel. the department of justice would be very wise in simply seeking a petition directly to the supreme court to address this very quickly and cleanly. >> in i might, this is adam la shin sci with fortune in san francisco. i'm not a constitutional law expert the way you are. it seems relatively clear to me that this is a matter that was legislated carefully over the past several weeks. so congress not only has looked at this but they've looked at it clearly and they spoke and they passed legislation that the president has signed. so it seems unusual to me that the president would have good
constitutional standing for a matter where the congress has legislated. there's in question they've legislated and they didn't ledges late the wall. >> they did ledges lat ledge gi. >> they have a question about the law, we've legislated on it, the answer is no. >> these are mutually exclusive alternatives. >> i understand that. that's a good point. >> yes. >> jenna, jonas ferris. here's the part -- we actually talked on this show a few weekss ago about taking money from the nuclear submarine budget. i think it's a good idea, but legally, let's say it goes through. what would aoc do? can't they have a national emergency in eight, 12, 16 years, global warming, that's a national emergency, we're going to move money into this. how do we stop that if this goes
through? >> well we need to be genuine conservatives. that's the answer. and conserve our rule of law which gives limited specific authority to the federal government and to make sure that we aren't going over broad with this. right now the national securities act while it was designed to narrow the president's authority with a declaration, it doesn't provide a great definition. this is one instance that congress should go back and really carefully consider that. >> aren't you agreeing with what i asked you a moment ago, which is it really isn't unclear at all. congress has been very clear to the president and that's kind of the guidance that the constitution is looking for. where congress is clear on a funding issue, there's noo question. that's now it's resolved. >> not at all. these aren't mutually exclusive alternatives. president trump said there's 1.5 billion for the wall but in order to have border protection -- he was clear about his care and love for american military soldiers.
>> you're changing the subject. you need to talk about the constitution or not talk about the constitution. >> but the constitution provides that congress can legislate on these types of issues and they have issued, in 1976, the national emergencies act. there is nothing in that act that would say that these two signing this bill as well as declaring a national emergencies act -- let me remind you the president has declared the national emergency under current law before he is signing the new bill. so exboost factor in the constitution could dictate this was declared under previous law, not the new bill. >> he could legally do it and it will likely backfire and get held up in the courts. we're just showing a full screen of the breakdown, ways he can get the money and where he can get the $8 billion that he asks for. is there any amount of this $8 billion -- he's really going to try to get half of the $8 billion. is there any way to get the money easily without having a legal challenge?
>> that would have been if congress would have been able to provide it and everyone agreed. i think that was the original goal. so because congress is only providing some of it, now there are some unsecured appropriations that's within some of the defense spending and other places that he's able to get the rest of the funding for border security. that's under the pursue of the chief executive officer of the united states. where he's getting the money is absolutely constitutional and if we want to change these types of acts, we need to go to our congressmen and women and say take a look at this for future aocs or some of the others that may come and try to declare other wide ranging national emergencies that we as the american voters wouldn't disagree with. >> jenna, going back to garry's point. you can't hold gold as a national emergency. has there bj one where money was
reallocated from one area to another. one. the iran is still in effect since the carter administration. we're taking money here and we're going to put it here. >> the supreme court interestingly has never overturned or vacated a national emergency. and so this is where we need to actually look back and see what has our government been doing. are these things that we need to maybe elect some people who will go back through and either repeal some of this or, you know, just narrow it down. there are a lot of things that the trump administration i think has wisely brought up so we can see that our government historically has completely overreached and has been -- not overreached in a matter of the constitution but overreached in the sense they're doing things that maybe we the american people disagree with that our money could be used elsewhere. like, for example, a wall and border security. >> jenna, how do you think this is going to play out? look into your crystal ball and tell us all what you see as the resolution. >> i think this is going to come down to chief justice john
roberts. and that's really going to be the deciding vote to see whether his personal animus is going to -- >> come on. it's not a personal anni amimus. i find it hard how you could conclude as a lawyer that that could be a personal matter between chief justice roberts and president trump. >> if he was generally calling fairly and applying the constitution, then this is an outcome absolutely 100% in president trump's corner. anything else would be the result of activism. >> this battle is going to go on for quite some time. thank you for coming on and taking all of the questions from us. in the meantime we have good news absolutely on the market. the dow soaring more than 400
comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. with who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business.
i love the custom ink design lab because it's really easy to use. they have customer service that you can reach anytime. t-shirts help us immediately get a sense of who we are as a group. from the moment clients walk in, they're able to feel like part of the family. - [spokesman] custom ink has hundreds of products for your business and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today we've had a negotiation going on for about two days. it's going extremely well. who know what is that means because it only matters if we get it done. but we're very much working very closely with china and president xi who i respect a lot. very good relationship that we have. and we're a lot closer than we ever were in this country with having a real trade deal. lauren: market getting a major boost from the president's optimistic comments on trade
negotiations with china. high-level talks that are now expected to continue into next week. even though we still have frankly very few details, the dow closed up 443 points. we ask are stocks getting ahead of themselves, is it time to put the cork back on the champagne bottle if you will. what you guys think? >> i don't think the market was ever down because of the trade tariffs thing. i don't think it should go up a lot because we're getting closer to a resolution. i think the fed almost caused a recession last year and that was the big fear in the markets and the pf president was aware of t. now rates are lower than they were. that is what's supporting the market. you saw weakness in the consumer yesterday. it scared investors. it could have been a fluke. they're coming back into buying homes, mortgage rates are down significantly from last summer. the rates were going up too high. they're at good levels. it probably won't cause a
recession. that's what's driving the stock market, not the trade deal at this point. >> i have no bone with any of that expect that i think the trade deal does weigh on the market. and i think that what's going on here, i think the market is reacting appropriately because it's looking increasingly likely like we'll get a toothless trade agreement with china, meaning things will go back to the way they were before we had all of this nonsense about trying to imposing tariffs on the chinese. let me withdraw nonsense. i don't think it's nonsense. it's important that we challenge the chinese on these things but we're not really going to. the president will wave the white flag and move on and the markets will be delighted. >> let's say we're super successful. there are some expense that will benefit. tech companies who have their ip more protected, they might have higher earnings being able to sell stuff in china. there are other companies that make money from getting stuff chief out of china.
those companies will hurt them. it's going to hurt the companies benefits. there's good and bad. i think it's a relatively net neutral on the market compared to are we going to that teeter into the recession that other countries are having. lauren: i think out of the ip grievances being the heart of the issue, there are grievances that all of the state owned industries get by china in the government. this there is one win on the table. china going to end the policy to give sub isdy to consumers who purchase cars in china and thus that was hawrgt u.s. auto makers and others around the world, putting us at a disadvantage. that is getting to some of the issues and hopefully we'll get clarity on ip stuff too. >> just barely. "the wall street journal" is also reporting that china will increase their chip purchases from the u.s. >> $200 billion. >> the way i read that, that's
basically asking the u.s. to change their supply chains to move it out of mexico to china. doesn't that give china more power in the end? >> it would give them more leverage but i guess it's fixed to president trump, what he thinks is the heart of the issue, narrowing the trade deaf sis. we buy a lot more from china than they do from us and we want to reverse that. the fact that they're willing to buy 200 billion in semi conductors or chips over the next six years is a positive step in the right direction to narrow the deficit. >> i hate to say it but everyone so far is completely wrong and i am definitely right and i'll tell you why. >> you do not hate to say it. >> i love to say it. i'm going to go through the brady bunch boxes. to heather's point, the subsidies, who cares. we subsidize a bunch of industries in this country. i don't care in china subsidizes
all of their industries. when they dump all of their goods over here, i could care less. number two, jonas is wrong because the market did care about china. >> industrial surging. >> you're also wrong. adam is right but also wrong because it does not matter, it is the perception. but here's the thing. it all comes down to simple math. it doesn't matter if there's a deal, there's a no deal, we charge tariffs on the entire $200 billion. the gdp of the united states is at 19 trillion. the gdp of china is 14 trillion. that's 33 trillion dollars. even if we collected every single dollar of the 200 bim on, it's 0.02% impact on the gdp. they could charge tariffs tomorrow and you're not going to see one iota.
so i guess is anyone else is right besides me. >> he didn't get to me and heather yet. >> because heather doesn't think we have. >> i got to heather right at the beginning. >> because gary knows that we have a crash for clunkers program and we're still giving out money. it's just like china. no. gary, i appreciate the lineally linline byline criticism but itt significant nowf -- even if the tariffs were 25% it's not enough for the economy and corporate profit to move the economy significant enough in the long run. >> one quick thing. if this had gotten bad -- again, i don't think it's going to. i think he's going to give up tail between his legs. but if it had gotten bad and totally disrupted the global supply change, ie, the stuff that we make in china -- how could it? it's only on $200 billion worth of goods. >> adam, i don't think the global supply chain makes sense
now. it doesn't route products through other countries to avoid tariffs. like it's already garbage anyway. there's definitely room for improvement on that, i would say. >> all right. well, heather wrap this up for us. >> one company released earnings say that the tariffs hurt us, they're one -- john deere is one of numerous companies saying that the tariffs impact us and we hope it doesn't escalate to march 1st where they resume in escalation and the tariffs increase to 25%. it would be bad. lauren: got to end it there, guys. >> let me give you my take. i think companies do a good job just like when there's a hurricane or a snowstorm. they're good at hiding their problems. >> blaming the weather. >> tariffs and stuff like that. it's a big cloud. >> agree to disagree. lauren: new fallout from amazon's stunning reversal to scrap plans for headquarters in
new york city. but what is the message that new york and its democratic leadership is sending to other big companies out there? >> we're closed for business in queens, everybody. we're closed for business here. don't bring your big business here because if you're too big, you get the are of seekers. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and as a man... uh... or a woman... with very specific needs that i can't tell you about- say cheese. mr. landry? oh no. hi mr. landry! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
i have... but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.
what i don't get is we made an agreement with them, they chose new york city, we were keeping the agreement, guess what, some community activists wanted to see something else. they wanted changes or they had differences. that's part of life. and instead of an actual dialogue to try to resolve those issues, we get a call saying we're taking our ball and going home. never seen anything like it. lauren: neither have we. new york city mayor bill deblasio reacting to the stunning reversal by amazon to call off plans to build a second headquarters in long island.
deblasio saying that amazon through away a big opportunity. but democrats are celebrating amazon's retreat and 25,000 high-paying jobs as a victory. let's bring in julie samuels to talk about this. we want to know, julie, what is the message that new york has sent to big companies? stuart varney said earlier today, he was right, that stein says drop dead. >> i think we run a rel risk of that. i think that the message -- i hope it's not drop dead. but the message is listen, we're going to make it really, really, really hard for you near. all that said, i still feel very bullish on new york, i feel bullish on tech in new york. we can talk about that a little more if you want. but what amazon was doing is making a big bet. and it's those big bets that i worry that we've put a chilling effect on. >> looks to me like listening
to deblasio, like he really isn't taking ownership of the fact that he blew it. he has a role to play. his bully pulpit is to corral the activist and convince them don't ruin things guys and girls. they did. he's saying the right things but i don't blame amazon for running from that disaster. it was only going to get worse. >> i mean, amazon is a company and they needed some kind of security, they needed some certainty. they were making real investments here in long island. hindsight is 2020. i could give you a list of things that everyone did wrong. here we are today, it's friday, the day after, and now that 25 to 45,000 new tech jobs are not coming to long island city. >> first of all deblasio has never seen anything like this because it never would have happened under block berg. this deal would have been signed and done. it's not like this isn't a top
tech destination, google is here increasing staff, silicon valley. by the way, the other top destination is taxed as highly as new york. this story that new york is going to lose. seems like these companies go where there's good infrastructure, nice place to live and good talent. that's what new york needs to lead with and keep the taxes lower for everybody so they don't have the carve out good deals. they didn't pay taxes federally in the last two years, amazon. i got to give a little aoc. i'm not sure why elizabeth warren got up and started stealing aoc's thunder. >> i hear what you're saying and i think that new york has all of the ingredients for building an amazing tech industry. it still does yesterday, does today and next week and next year. google has a huge presence here. you're right. but that has been really good and positive incrementing growth from google.
google started with one person in an apartment in new york and going to be close to 20,000 in a decade. and you will also see, of course, all of these companies that you don't think of as tech companies becoming tech companies in new york. all of the financial institutions. the tech ecosystem is growing and it will continue to grow no matter what happened. i agree with you on that point. there was, though, on the table a really big bet. a lot of jobs in a moment, in a particular location in a city that's had a hard time attracting jobs and that now is off of the table. >> well new york overall, julie, may not have a hard time attracting jobs but in long island city queens, you're right, that area may. i wonder out of the $3 billion that was offered in incentives, $500 million of that was a grant. the rest was performance based over ten years. you have to bring in 25,000 jobs and do xyz. i'm okay with that. but maybe to jonathan's point, a company that pays nothing, zero in federal income tax because of
loopholes, maybe if they get rid of the $500 million grant then progressive democrats like alexandria ocasio-cortez would have been okay with it. >> do you really think that we wouldn't have heard the push back. >> governor cuomo, mayor deblasio should they have reached out differently? instead it seems they were somewhat surprised by the backlash. >> there was a lot of surprise about the extent of the backlash. i was a member of the community advisory council. there were more than 40 of us on there. just this week they told us there would be 40 meetings. the mlu was not a finalized deal as we all know too well now. it was not a foonlized deal. it was process that was going to take 18 months requiring input from the community, require hammering out the terms of the deal but we never got the chance to get there. i think you make a good point
about the incentives and the subsidies. if we want to have a national debate and incentives and subsidies, i am all for that debate. i don't know where i come out on it quite frankly. but every state and city uses them and it would have been absurd to not expect new york to get in there and fight for its citizens. >> thank you very much. coming up, california republicans say new plans by the governor to scale back $77 billion high speed rail line. it's just a game of bait and switch. are they right? we debate it coming up. ♪
lauren: hi speed rail fail. republican lawmakers in california are now calling for a new referendum vote on the $3.5 billion in federal money the state was awarded to build a high-speed rail line between los angeles and san francisco. taxpayer money. your money. democrat governor gavin newsom says he wants to use the money for a smaller rail project
through the state's central valley. well gop lawmakers are calling it a bait and switch and a waste of time and money. we're joined by one of them right now on the phone. we welcome california republican assembly men vince fong. welcome to the show. thanks for calling in. why is this a bait and switch and what do you expect to happen here? >> there are clearly mixed messages coming from the governor. thank you for having me. the governor is backtracking on what he said. but the speech i heard, the governor finally acknowledged that the high-speed rail project in its current form is not viable. something i've been saying quite some time. grossly over budget, lacks transparency and accountability. but the biggest problem i see is the project is no longer high-speed rail, not even close. and that's not what was told to the voters in 2008. and so it's a complete bait and switch. we have to be honest with the public, give them an opportunity to revote on the new version of
the rail plan if the governor is truly sticking to that. to be clear, i believe the scaled down rail project is no longer high speed. it should be scrapped entirely. >> assemblyman, gary smith. i agree with you 100%. this solves none of the problems not that it would. it doesn't go through metro areas. my question is more general in scope. it seems like, you know, california is about as rich and as big as france, for crying out loud. gdp. and in so many areas -- i'm not blaming you specifically -- it can't seem to get out of its own way. is there something fundamentally wrong with how the state is run taking on billion dollar boondoggles like the one we just talked about? >> well sacramento is broken. i'm on my second term. but if you look at all of the projects that sacramento has undertaken, whether it's the dmv
or high-speed rail, we've been plagued with inep ineptitude ana lack of good management. in this case when we're looking at high-speed rail, why continue to throw hard-earnedded tax dollars into a flawed and failing project. of course you've got to remember, this is not sacramento's money. this is the money earned by people in california. we need to always remember that. >> vince, jonas ferris. i don't want to throw gavin under the bus. he notices that everybody did mess up this project, routed through every district and the whole thing is a boondoggle. in florida we have a high-speed rail and it works. in fact not only are they expanding it, i believe they're going to go from las vegas to l.a. why are you letting a florida high-speed rail succeed where your own people -- you can't paul it off. why is it so crooked there. why can they do it in florida and not california and what's the plan to make it happen there.
i think your state needs it. >> that's a good question. right now, if you agree with high-speed rail in concept that's one thing. but the way it's been tried or attempted in california right now, i mean the ridership numbers have never been real, always overstated. promises of private investment. that hasn't materialized. and then of course they there te been three or four audits of the system and over and over again it's been identified of just bad management. there are plenty of projects in the central valley, whether it's water storage or clean water projects that would be a better investment and improve the quality of life of everyone in the central valley and everyone in california. this is not a project that is going to come to fruition. and even if they try to do it, it's going to be overbudget and it's going to be flawed. >> vince, it's heather zumarraga. i was hoping you could explain against trump tweeting to governor newsom that he owes the
state of california or him, not personally, owes $3.5 billion to the federal government. but under the recovery act grant it was originally stated to finish construction to receive this grant by september 2017, then extended through december of 2020, i believe, or 2022. i'm sorry. do you have to give the money back? >> well, the reason why this section was chosen is because the money came through the federal rail administration. so this was the segment that i think met the criteria. but regardless of what -- right now under the current status quo, if california fails to deliver this section, they would have to pay the money back. that is in the statute. so i think that's why the governor is continuing with the central valley portion because he doesn't want to give the money back. but right now if you look at the current time line of high speed
rail authority right now, they're not even going to meet the 2022 deadline. there is no assurances that this line, even the scaled down version would ever been completed. and if you listen to the governor now, he is backtracking from even his speech saying, you know what, nothing is going to change. we're going to continue to do what we're continuing to do. >> assemblyman, didn't you know that, you know, high-speed rail is going to overtake air travel. congresswoman ocasio-cortez. we have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. coming up with, howard stults has a new challenge for democrats that would knock him out of the 2020 race for the white house. we're going to tell you what it is next. ♪
this isn't just any moving day. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.
it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during the ultimate sleep number event. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. during our presidents day weekend special, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 36-month financing. ends monday. sleep number... proven quality sleep
who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com. the former starbucks ceo said he would be willing to abeen don his presidential ambitions if democrats nominate a centrist who would make it too difficult for him to win as an independent candidate. this comes as -- this is great. a new fox news poll shows that schultz is already facing a pretty uphill battle with over 60% of voters having either never heard of him or having no
opinion of him at all. whoa. that's pretty -- i would be insulted if i were mr. schultz. >> yeah. he spent a lot of money to get that -- those poor approval ratings. look, you know, this is further proof, if you needed any, that he is not cut out for politics. there has not been in the history of politicians a politician who said i'd be happy to quit if you could nominate somebody better than me. howard shut is somebody by the way who has a lot of charisma in a business setting and very lit until a political setting. >> all right. hold on a second, guys. i want to get to breaking news. new video just came in from new york congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. she was just asked why she appears to be celebrating the loss of the 25,000 jobs coming from amazon that they were bringing to her district. let's roll the tape and get your response on the other side. >> what this is a celebration of is that everyday people in the
community stood up and they wanted a say in what was happening in their own back yard. you know, it's not the community's fault that the moment they said hey, what are the details of this, where are the benefits coming from, can we secure more, you know, they came to the negotiating table and amazon said we're not going to negotiate anything, we're just going to leave. lauren: what do you make of that, heather? >> wow. i think it's a legitimate thing to want for you town, the headquarters, and that's why this may be the biggest economic mistake of all time that new york didn't follow through with this. but she clearly doesn't understand or have a grasp on the advantage and benefits that this would have created for long island city and all of new york. lauren: it helps all of the businesses employed or helped out by those new workers. >> were those clogs? >> can i say quickly? i happen to agree. i think it's a bad move for her
district. but i think he knows exactly what the people who elected her think. i think she's right exactly in tune with them. lauren: i think about the restaurant, the dry cleaner, the nail sassoon, all of those businesses that would have been supported. >> i don't disagree. >> i think she should have chosen birkenstocks and not clogs. it was a little loud. i think she had a win and i think she deserved it in some ways. she's new and then she raised attention to this issue. lauren: you like aoc. >> i like her that nasty. when she runs with gavin newsom after he finishes the high speed rail, they're going to make a great ticket. back to howard schultz, he's right. there needs to be pressure to run independent candidates. she's going to run some day or warren because there is no threat from the senate, from somebody who makes sense. he's not my favorite billionaire
but someone needs to run the center making economic and social policies that make sense. i back him on this even though he's done some mistake for the product launch. lauren: go ahead, gary. >> two quick comments. first on the howard schultz thing, i agree. that was the quickest campaign in and out ever. i don't think the left is going to have a centrist candidate. what do they have, joe biden? he moves less than shut, i think. and on the aoc thing, they have a saying let vero be vero. that's code word for let's keep living in the '50s with no proguess. i'm wonder fg the aoc legacy will be short sf sighted. that years from now people will be wondering why didn't we try to build up when we cold this portion of the area we represent instead of it sinking slowly down into a sinkhole because
state of the art technologyt makes it brilliant. the visionary lexus nx. lease the 2019 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. lauren: it's going to be a huge week for nascar fans as the daytona 500 takes place. reporter: what do you do when you get to this track, the home of the great american race? i tried to do that with a rookie in a pace car. take a look.
i am standing here with a rookie. not a racing rookie, but a rookie to the monster monster cup series. this is what nascar is about. you are going to put me in that cash and show me why this track is as famous as it is. reporter: you are going to show me way it's got? >> everything it's got. ready? >> it's a camaro. reporter: you go as fast as you possibly can.
during the race how fast are you going? >> average 250. we get momentum. getting a big run. the test speeds [inaudible] so more than 100,000 people are going to cram the daytona international speedway sunday. it's likely to be a shellout. jj watt is the grand marshal. this morning 9:00 a.m., i got these words for you.
inflatable hot tub and bud light for breakfast. i saw it all over the infield. lauren: totally intimidated, dagen. have a beautiful president's day weekend. president trump: the order is signed. i'll sign the final papers as soon as i get it to the oval office and we'll have a national emergency. and we'll then be sued and they will sue us in the 9th circuit even though it shouldn't be there, and peel possibly get a bad ruling, then we'll get another bad ruling, then we'll end up in the supreme court and hopefully we'll get a fair shake. liz: president trump declares a national emergency to get funding for a border wall. the trump white house