tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business May 3, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
regarding barr an everything else. so far no word back. invite is out there. jerry nadler of the house judiciary committee talked about getting mueller but so far no response from mr. mueller. let's go to my buddy charles. hey, charles. charles: good afternoon, everyone. i'm charles payne. this is making big money. breaking right now the economy is booming. markets firmly in the green following stellar jobs report. the unemployment rate falling to the lowest level since 1969. the private sector adding 66,000 more jobs than wall street expected. we'll break down a few highlights and a few lowlights for you. a bombshell report how president obama's administration spying on the trump campaign during the 2016 election campaign season. could this be an underlying reason why democrats want to discredit william barr? facebook bans several far right high-profile users for
being quote, dangerous, promoting violence and hate. what about the first amendment? is this a crackdown on free speech? that and so much more on "making money." ♪ charles: 263,000 jobs added in ape as the unemployment rate drops to a 49-year low. 3.6%. that number, folks, much higher than expected with construction and trade jobs jumping and wages rising as well. the question, what does it mean for the markets and the overall economy especially with the 2020 presidential race heatings up? joining me payne capital senior wealth manager courtney dominguez, and john lonski and hadley heath manning. hadley, let me go to you first once again everyone is surprised. once again everyone is shocked this economy which is supposed to be late cycle is going back
as far as 2016 acts like a young whip every snapper. -- whippersnapper. it is going and going? >> this is good jobs report, good news to start the weekend. unemployment rate at a 49-year low, but look at unemployment rate for civic groups, women, hispanic, americans with no college education, americans with disability, our veterans, there are record lows among those groups. we also see a positive trend when it comes to wage growth, not just nominal wage growth but real wage growth. meaning taking inflation into account. this means americans are making more money. taking home more money and good news for americans in the workforce. charles: john, one of the things she mentioned. less than high school, workers without less than high school diploma went down, but bachelor's degree went up.
this gets to the point we're seeing an economy where it is just not about the upper echelons of our economy. folks less than high school diplomas getting out there and getting big-time jobs. >> rising tide lifts all boats. that is going on right now. so great to hear people from the bottom rungs of the income ladder are finding themselves better off because of the economy. because of the policies of the trump administration. charles: you know, courtney, i go back to the jobs report last year that was on february 2nd and it was for january. it beat the street. initially the market went up, then it crashed. the dow was off 666 points because wages were up 2.9%. we've been on a stretch a long stretch we're over 3%. why, what has changed for wall street? why is wall street okay with these numbers, historically a report like this would have instantly triggered some selling? >> i would argue wall street is not necessarily okay with it. this is one of the most hated
bull markets of all time. numbers keep oning out we're not expecting. we're seeing really good data coming out showing how strong the economy is. charles: why is the market reacting way it is even going back to the february 2nd report it crashed? >> you can only take good data for so long without ignoring. people are finally not ignoring. >> good news is good news? >> good news is good news. >> inflation well-contained. core inflation, 1.7%. the past 25 it averaged 1.7%. wall street is getting over the inflation phobia brought on by a very low unemployment rate. charles: hadley, of course, getting back to the original premise here this, is supposed to be a late cycle economy, and late cycle economic recovery, over a decade old, a premise was brought up this week i find president interesting. since we had the great recession the federal reserve toyed around with all kinds of different
experiments, operation twist, quantitative easing, some say we may never have another recession. is that too farfetched right now? >> i would never say never. i think it is important we continue to keep the right economic focus in place when it comes to the economy. for example, i believe a lot of what we're seeing right now is as a result of not just the tax cuts and jobs act with a really jobseeker focus and jobseeker friendly labor market but we're also seeing the effect of deregulation. it is basically a business friendly climate right now when it comes to our public policy approach. if we continue to take that approach then we're definitely reducing the chances of a recession or a downturn that affects americans and their families. charles: john? >> i want to quickly add our friends down under in australia have not had a recession in more than 20 years. come on, we're, our recovery is 10 years old. maybe we have another 10 years to go? charles: some other potential
inputs now. the market obviously, we've got wind at our sales. the economic data is getting better and better. first quarter gdp was better than anyone thought. last spending number for consumers was better than anyone thought. retail sales was better than anyone thought. is this the kind of fuel the market needs because it looks like the fed is on hold for now? >> i couldn't agree more. seeing a real strong consumer an wages going up and unemployment is going down. consumer is almost 70% of gdp. having a strong consumer means we're seeing a strong economy. that stronger consumer saving more and adding more to the markets that is the catalyst we'll see to have the markets go further. >> we have 3.6% unemployment rate. in the first quarter unit labor costs up only 1%. last time we had a very low unemployment rate, year 2000, unit labor costs rising nearly
4% that gave the fed and markets to raise interest rates up to levels that triggered the 2001 recession. charles: hadley, i have a minute to go. to me the worst part of this report is continued mass exodus from the labor force. more older workers and attrition. i think this also echoes back to when you look at some of these polls out there, even politicians, why there is still a part of other economy, a part of our society that doesn't seem to be participating in this. >> that's right. i mean that labor force participation number is very important. it sort of acknowledges that we have problems when it comes to the right job-seekers finding the right jobs, having the right qualifications, having the right education. avoiding some of the pitfalls, for example, we have a huge drug abuse problem in this country that keeps some people sidelined from participating in the economy and participating in the right jobs. charles: right. >> i do agree we need to address labor force participation, be
make sure we have the labor force participation as high as possible. strong job growth with addition of good jobs. unemployment rate is a function of both of those numbers. charles: absolutely. believe me, something to be addressed. overall though it's a remarkable report. thank you very much. courtney, john, hadley, really appreciate it. i want to bring acting office of management and budget director russ vaught to break down the white house's reaction. outside of champagne and confetti what did you guys do at the white house when this number came out? >> we're excited, charles. thanks for having me on the show. more good news for the american people. 263,000 new jobs, more than we expected. lowest unemployment since 1969. this is good news for jobseekers. it is good news for the american people as they have more take-home pay. this comes on last week's announcement 2.6 economic
growth. it should have been higher but we lower performed in our expectation the first quarter is one that always lag as little bit. we think there is more and more good news we can be excited about. the american people are going to benefit from. charles: russ, is this, i would also add, the report we got on productivity yesterday, the idea that you can get those kind of productivity gains with minimal pressure, labor wage pressure. are these validation of president trump's tax and regulatory policies? is that what the white house said, we asked to give us some time, this is it in a nutshell? >> absolutely. at the start of the administration they said 3% economic growth was impossible. it was ridiculous, you couldn't do it. none of the economists on the outside was saying there is any validity to it. what this president was committed to. his economic team was committed to, cutting taxes, getting rid of unnecessary regulations, growing the economy, getting people back to work. it is humming. and we've been the most accurate
administration in predicting economic growth. we hit our first year 2.5. last year's was 3.1. we're already in the first quarter at 3.2% which is what we predicted. we think it can go higher. we're very excited about that. charles: i want to ask you about that. how can you get it higher? what is the public to say reelect president trump we'll do this, this, and this, to supercharge what we've already got going? >> we can supercharge things in the area of deregulation. we can continue to cut regulation. a lot of those efforts take many years. we'll not see benefit of them until they become final rules in moving forward. we have spending reductions we put forward more than any administration in history. we need congress to act on those. we want the economic gains to be enduring. >> if congress doesn't act on them, will we get a gigantic spending bill? it was kind of a pox on both houses from that last spending
bill? >> we're in the mid of not having a 2 trillion-dollar spending bill. we don't want spending a lag on the economy, getting people back to work, off the sidelines, into the workforce. there is a lot of things to be excited about. a lot of things to point towards in the future about ways we can continue to grow the economy rand one thing i do want to know, how will the white house attack this issue, 490,000 people out of the labor force, a quarter million a month before that? largely young men who can't get in this labor force, whether it is drugs, whether it is skills, there is something missing? this is something that one of the things the president campaigned on. what is the plan of action to change that? >> many of our proposals are designed to get people back to work, whether it is welfare reform. whether reform to disability programs, to get people back into the workforce. one of the reasons why the president is so committed to
reforming drug policies as it pertains to the opioid epidemic in our country. we are trying to make reforms that get people back to work. some of those take some time. but it's a priority for the administration. charles: the clock is ticking on the nomination for fed slots. herman cain is out. steve moore is out. will this push president trump to a more traditional choice or will he continue to sort of have these maverick ideas about mixing up the federal reserve so it also has the instinct, a better intuition rather with respect main street and really what happens on the ground beyond academia? >> i think the president wants fresh thinking as it pertains to all the nominees including those in the federal reserve. to the extent he looks for candidates that share his economic thinking, lower taxes, deregulatory activities and impact they have on the economy and the fact that inflation is not necessarily going to take off, we think that is important
as a conversation to win with the american people. my guess his nominees will continue to reflect the fresh thinking that he has brought to this town, notwithstanding what the experts say. charles: this week the market hit a roadblock because of conflicting, conflicting interpretation of what chairman powell wants to get done. he laid out an amazing road map for cutting rates but then he pulled the rug but i'm not going to do it. he used the term transitory. some say because of tweets, from the pressure from the white house it makes him harder to cut rates because it looks like he is is succumbing to the white house, that he is is being bullied. do you put stock in that at all? >> no. no one is trying to bully anyone. this president has views how to get the economy going. he has strong views of policy that the fed will take. not to say he is is doing anything other than getting his views out there and starting a conversation with the american people as it pertains to his nominees. charles: yeah. well i got to tell you,
fantastic report, russ. again that would be only area i would quibble with and we want to see it continue, we do. thank you very much. >> thanks, charles. >> all right, buddy. president trump feeling the heat about the tariffs, right? aluminum an steel tariffs white house pushing forward on the new deal with mexico and canada. president trump met privately with republican senators. he wants to ease the tension. my next guest advocating for this bill, despite getting unseated by congressman alexandria ocasio-cortez in november. former congressman joe crowley joins us. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. charles: how did you get on this side of issue particularly the colleagues in the house more and more are suggesting they're not for passage? >> i have a mixed record on trade. i had supported a number of trade agreements. i did not support others. so i think this comes to this
issue with some credibility working in a bipartisan way. i think the trade is very important for our country obviously. but i also think it is not only an economic tool but really a geopolitical tool for us as well. our two closest neighbors, our two closest allies, two of our biggest, largest trading partners are canada and mexico. so i think the president's threat of no agreement really would set us back tremendously. and quite frankly i wouldn't have voted for nafta. there is no support for nafta in the house. charles: congressman. i have to leave it there. unfortunately we'll bring you right back. we have to dip into president trump right now. >> thank you very much for being here. steve, go ahead. reporter: what options are you looking at to get humanitarian assistance to venezuela? >> i had a very good talk with president putin, probably over an hour. we talked about many things. venezuela is one of the topics. he is not looking at all to get
involved in venezuela other than he would like to see something positive happen for venezuela. and i feel the same way. we want to get some humanitarian aid. right now people are starving. they have no water. they have no food. this is, mr. prime minister, one of the richest countries in the world 20 years ago. now they don't have food. they don't have water for their people. so we want to help with humanitarian basis. and i thought it was a very positive conversation i had with president putin on venezuela. [reporters shouting questions] reporter: did you tell him not to meddle in the election? reporter: talking about a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty or adding china to it or what exactly? >> we're talking about a nuclear agreement where we make less and they make less, maybe even where we get rid of some of the tremendous firepower that we have right now. we're spending billions of dollars on nuclear weapons.
numbers like we've never spent before. we need that but, they are also, and china is frankly also. we discussed the possibility of a three-way deal instead of a two-way deal. china, i have already spoken to them. they very much would like to be a part of that deal. and in fact during the trade talks we started talking about that. they were excited about that. maybe even more excited than about trade. they felt very strongly about it. i think we'll probably start up something very shortly between russia and ourselves to start off. i think china will be added down the road. we'll talk about non-proliferation. we'll be talking about a nuclear deal of some kind. i think it will be a very comprehensive one. reporter: mr. president, election meddling issues with the mueller report today? >> we discussed, actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up being a mouse. but he knew that because he knew
there was no collusion whatsoever. so pretty much that is what it was. started off -- reporter: mr. president, did you tell him not to meddle in the next election. >> excuse me. i'm talking. i'm answering this question. you are very rude. so we had a good conversation about many different things. okay? reporter: tell him not to meddle in the next areelection? >> we didn't discuss that. we didn't discuss that. we discussed five or six things. we also, we went into great detail on various things, especially i would say the nuclear, maybe venezuela, we talked about north korea at great length and, pretty much that's it. also discussed trade. we intend to do a lot of trade with russia. we do some right now. it is up a little bit but he would like to do trade. we would like to do trade. getting along with russia and china, getting along with all of them is a very good thing. it is not a bad thing. it's a positive thing.
getting along with other countries including your country by the way, but getting along with countries is a good thing and we want to have good relationships with every country. reporter: mr. president should -- [inaudible] >> i don't know. that is up to our attorney general who i think has a fantastic job. go ahead? reporter: [inaudible]. >> please. reporter: [inaudible] >> would i like to, i know people from slovakia. they are incredible people. it is doing very well. doing very well. yeah, please. reporter: [inaudible] >> the tariffs have been a necessary thing for me to do because in the case of the european union they have not treated us right. we're losing $181 billion a year. we have been for many years. and the european union has not treated us properly. we'll see what happens with regard to tariffs on cars with the european union. we haven't made a decision on that. reporter: mr. president when
will you nominate a defense secretary to make it official? >> it will be discussed next week? reporter: [inaudible]. >> say it again? say it again? reporter: world press freedom day. can you say something that you can do to improve communication and relationship with the press? >> well i think i have a very good relationship with some of the press and unfortunately some of the press doesn't cover me accurately. in fact they go out of their way to cover me inaccurately. so i don't think that is a free press. that is dishonest press. i want to see a free press. today i was happy to see on the front page of "the new york times" for the first time where they were talking about spying and they were talking about spying on my campaign. that is a big difference between the way they have been covering it but that is a big story. that is a story bigger than watergate as far as i'm concerned. i want to see freedom of the press. i get treated fairly by some pros but i get treated very unfairly by other press. frankly i think that is very
dishonest. i don't consider that, when you have stories purposely written badly in many cases very much on purpose. you look at it, that's not free press. that is the opposite of free press. reporter: [inaudible]. will you invoke executive privilege as it relates to don mcmcmcgahn. >> that will be determined next week or so. i will say this, no president in history have given what i have given in earlies of it looking at total witch-hunt. i call it the russian hoax. it turned out to be. no collusion. no obstruction. it was a total hoax. and yet i was transparent. we gave 1.4 million documents. we gave hundreds of people. i let him interview the lawyer, white house lawyer for 30 hours. think of that, 30 hours. i let him interview other people. i didn't have to let him interview anybody. i didn't have to give any documents. i was totally transparent
because i knew i did nothing wrong. it turned out i did nothing wrong. no collusion with russia. think of it, $35 million they spent. they wasted over a period of two years, no collusion, no obstruction. thank you all very much. i appreciate it. thank you. [shouting questions] charles: president trump ending, answering several questions from the media. ending with no collusion. saying they offered up 1.4 million documents. 30 hours of an interview with the white house lawyer. talking about the conversation with vladmir putin where they spoke about very many different things saying it is up to mueller if he should be testifying. even talked about the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty a comprehensive non-proliferation treaty but beginning with russia ultimately with china. i would like to bring back joe crowley, former representative of new york. you were saying something about the white house and president
trump going back and forth with respect to threats on this and other things. he just in fact answered a question about european tariffs but i think he wants this to go through. i think he worked hard on this. it feels like it is the democrats who are holding it up, perhaps holding it hostage for political reasons or trying to get more out of deal. time is of the essence. can you handicap likelihood of this being ratified by our congress? >> i think there are also republican senators, particularly chuck grassley who has written a letter to the president complaining about the 232 tariffs as well. says he will not move the bill in the senate unless those tariffs are repealed. it's a separate issue as far as i'm concerned. i think on merits itself though, this agreement deserves support, bipartisan support. it is good for american workers. it is good for mexican workers and canadians. it opens up canada for the first time in a big way, to the dairy producers in our country.
the rules of origin are going to stimulate car development and carmakers here in the united states and certainly north america. overall it's a good deal and worthy of support and good passage. charles: would you say it is superior deal to current nafta agreement? >> many of us had problems with nafta. i would not have voted for nafta had i been in the house during that time. it's a 20-year-old plus agreement. it is not modernized at all for the modern economy and it needs to go. the threat of no agreement is worse than having nafta in place. that is what the president has been saying. so i do think this is better deal. no question about it. full chapter on the environment. listen i think democrats were not in control at all in the house of representatives when the deal was put together. i think they want some changes made. that is understandable, whether may 10th declaration we saw in the past when democrats were in control. that remains to be seen. charles: there is new breed of democrat out there also, a new
wing, new ideology taking hold. you know that better than anyone else spearheaded by in part by alexandria ocasio-cortez who i don't think is for this, but do you see your party, let's call it evolving, moving further to the left and being more, more demanding with respect to, you're here talking about bipartisan agreement but being more demanding about ideas that people think are so far outside of the realm of things that it is disturbing not only to the republican party but even some of the elders states people in your party? >> i, first of all, charles, this is not new in our party. obviously we had bernie sanders for quite some time. what i would suggest is, you know, vice president biden said the election in 2020 is for the soul of america. i would suggest that the primary, democrats are going through is for the soul of the democratic primary. who we are, what we want our
party to put forward in terms of ideas. i think there are some ideas coming from the sanders camp are good, aspirational ideas but i don't believe in socialism as a concept for a governing in the united states. i think the vast majority of democrats don't either. charles: representative crowley, i really appreciate you coming on. you're a straight-shooter. we'll, i hope we have this discussion again. hope we celebrate the passage of it. thank you very much. >> thank you, charles. charles: just moments ago liz claman running into warren buffett and charlie monger at the berkshire hathaway shareholder meeting. what would buffett think of coke getting into the cannabis industry? what would that do to the stock? wait until you find out. ♪
i was ready to make my mark, but i didn't know how. i was working the same job for a few years. i had a degree and some experience but no career. i opened the careerbuilder app and found an awesome job at a company i love. it even built a resume for me with skills i didn't know i had. i applied with a tap. and i start on monday. careerbuilder. work can work.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast.
♪ mmm, exactly!ug liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ charles: berkshire hathaway annual shareholder meeting is kicking off. list claim just caught up with
warren buffett and charlie monger. she has major breaking news. >> charles, you see them in the golf cart. they do not usually make an appearance during the first day. we wept back to meet with all managers of some 90 companies. i had an opportunity to talk to them specifically, we're here at coca-cola. since we landed yesterday team "countdown" has spoken to a lot of people in omaha, shareholders of coca-cola and berkshire hathaway who late last year were not happy when coca-cola announced it was possibly talking about making a partnership with a cannabis or a cbd or marijuana type of company because it is sort of the new nascent industry that is out there. i specifically asked warren and charlie about that. listen to their response. i did talk to a coca-cola shareholder yesterday who said
if coke were to get into cannabis or marijuana partnership, this person would sell their shares. would you? how would you feel of getting into cannabis. >> a big mistake. but we wouldn't sell it. >> why? because they have such a wholesome image and cannabis doesn't. >> coca-cola, there is somebody in everybody's mind in the world frankly about coca-cola. they have an awareness of a specific brand that is almost unequal. may be unequal. you can say coca-cola in 200 countries they know what you're talking about. when they say it, when i say coca-cola to you there is something in your mind. i'm not sure you would want to muddy that image a little bit. liz: let us be clear. warren buffett and charlie monger think it would be a mistake for coca-cola to venture into anything marijuana related, even fit is sort of the hot new thing. we also spoke to him, just got
the breaking news, about attendance figures. he is expecting that it may break last year's attendance figures of 42,000. he won't know until people start streaming in the doors tomorrow but you can see from these crowds here, it has gotten absolutely huge. coming up 3:00 p.m. eastern, not only do we have a list of unbelievable guests, including the governor of nebraska, pete ricketts. and of course ron peltier, the senior executive chairman of the most largest residential real estate company in america which warren buffett owns. home services of america. investor mario gabelli. much more what we got from warren buffett, including just a few minutes, the cash position right now at berkshire hathaway and it is a monster. we'll send it back to you. see you 3:00 p.m. eastern. charles: liz can't wait to see it, thank you very much. facebook in the meantime banning what they say are dangerous individuals for hate speech, but is the motivation to
the day we'll finally get something done. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away
if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.
charles: a story we broke on yesterday's making money. facebook is banning high-profile people from their site like alex jones and louis farrakhan saying they're too dangerous and use hateful speech. facebook following in the footsteps of other social media giants including twitter and youtube who have banned these high-profile personalities in the past but it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. just today "the washington post" sending out a correction lumping farrakhan with other right-wing leaders. we deleted the sweep because it inaccurately includes louis farrakhan who espoused anti-semitic views that are far
right relatable. allie beth stuckey is here. the conservative world is mixed on the decision by facebook. >> yes. so this is not, these people, these people with these platforms are not necessarily my cup of tea. certainly louis farrakhan has said things that are absolutely despicable. the question is not whether they have likeable speech or agreeable speech, what the standard is for censorship. what the standard is for being banned on facebook. they have given arbitrary, vague reasoning behind this but they haven't given any kind of objective explanation for this whatsoever. i think that is why conservatives are upset facebook doesn't have freedom to ban. they are a company, technically they can do that. what is the standard? are you going to apply this eveningly? or is it going to apply to everyone you disagree with? charles: some are saying inclusion of louis farrakhan was sort of a smokesscreen if you
will. this really opens the door. what people worry about, if you link to any materials from any of these gentlemen that then, that makes you a target, even if you happen to be a fan of theirs, maybe not even a fan but somehow you want to link to their work elsewhere that would risk getting your account closed down? >> right. even that is arbitrary because according to the bbc, they looked at one of the reasons for why they banned alex jones and "info wars" in the way you just described because they had had conversations in, according to them that glorified gavin mcinnes who has been censored as well. that seems like a very weird standard considering that snoop dog, other people on the left have associated themselves with louis farrakhan. are you going to kick all of those people off social media too? probably not. so where does the standard lie? really is it going to be people associated with people you don't like or said something you don't agree with? that seems crazy to me.
that seems like the entryway to banning all conservatives or all ideologies that don't match with the far left. charles: that is what people are concerned about. paul joseph watson, prison planet, also banned. he is not a fan of yours. i'm looking at one tweet he told you to stop being a snowflake. but you guys have had a couple encounters, yet you defended, you went on twitter to defend him and his right to have the ability to speak on, whether it is twitter or facebook or anywhere else? >> yeah of course. i mean i don't even know all of his content. i actually haven't watched his videos. i know there are popular. a lot of conservatives watch him. as far as i know he hasn't incited any violence. he might say things some people on the left consider hateful, i don't really know. as far as i can tell the things he is saying are covered by the first amendment. not just in the constitutional sense but the principle of the first amendment. the principle of free speech we hope would apply to places like youtube, facebook, ininstagram.
even though they're not constitutionally bound to keeping everyone on their platform. we would hope the principle would apply, even people who don't like me and who i don't like. it is matter kind of disagreements we might have with these people that really counts. charles: 30 seconds left. donald trump, jr., i saw him tweeting about this. at some point the white house will probably weigh in on it as well. some conservatives are saying they would like to see the white house intervene in some, shape or fashion. do you want to see it go that far or advocate for the first amendment? first amendment means private company policies, then a private company has right to do what they want? >> well i don't want, i don't want these companies to have the protection i think they currently have which is section 230 of the communications decency act which says they're not liable for the information that is posted on their website. but if they're going to act like idealogically motivated publisher and editor they should
be held to the standards of an editor of a publisher. they need to be held to the standard of libel. i don't want there to be regulation. i don't know how the white house should step in. president trump will not be in the white house forever. whoever we give the power in the white house, it will not end well for conservatives in the long run. charles: allie beth, thank you very. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> in a stunning revelation the fbi sent and under cover investigator to meet with an aide in then candidate donald trump's camp. is trump right to call this big than watergate? when did al sharpton become the new king-maker for the 2020 democratic party? we'll discuss that next.
charles: bombshell report from the "new york times" today says the fbi sent investigators, an investigator posing as assistant to meet with the trump campaign. the woman was posing as research assistant to a london bar in 2016 to discuss foreign policy with trump campaign advisor george papdopoulus. here to discuss this report,
it's a bombshell report, "wall street journal" editorial page writer gillan melcher and liberal commentator danielle mcglocklin. gillan, let me start with you, president trump was saying he was spied on, some people had misgivings on the word spying but this is interesting, this was put out by "the new york times" and people are jumping all over it as further validation. >> yeah. this is incredibly disturbing. in the last two years we had the mueller investigation looking into whether russia intervened and meddled with our democratic process. i think equally important is knowing whether the fbi was acting in a political way. getting to the bottom of this, is core about restoring faith in our democratic institutions. i think that is really important thing. americans should demand as much transparency on this as they have on the trump presidency. charles: some folks are saying, danielle, the reason ag barr went through harsh treatment wasn't because of this mueller
thing, but preemptive move on the part of democrats to discredit him, once the ig report comes out, once the investigation comes out maybe finds dirt on democratic party, they would set the stage for saying it was barr? >> they were upset about barr whether mueller was supportive of his four-page summary or not. horowitz, oig will do a report. we'll find out if there were improper political motives. i will say this at the time this woman spied, if you want to use the pejorative, they had already started a counterintelligence investigation. it was started because papdopoulus told australian diplomat, connected to russia, that russia had emails on hillary clinton. fbi's hair was on fire. so they did this as part of a counterintelligence investigation to make sure russia wasn't meddling. charles: you're confident then, when everything is out there will be democrats will have clean hands on this. >> i'm institutionalist. i do believe that the vast majority of the people in the fbi are working in the interest
of american people. charles: everyone does. everyone in the studio. everyone watching the show. we're talking about folks at the upper echelons of the fbi, people with power and influence. that is what makes it more despicable, the man and woman, average agents working the job are the ones who got caught up in this. they're ones getting caught up in now the lesser, the lesser view that we have of our top agency there? >> absolutely. i don't think it takes many people behaving badly to undermine the credibility of one of these institutions. i think unfortunately in the past few years we've seen a lot of examples. this is just the last one. even during the mueller probe text messages going back and forth. how do we take down this guy, it is very disturbing. the question that americans should be asking and have legitimate right to be asking, is did the fbi behave in a political way? charles: i want to switch gears here also. because, recently mayor pete had lunch with reverend al sharpton. looking for support in the 2020
election. they were at sylvia's uptown. to get that sort of sharpton approval is seen as the stamp of approval that is coveted by some democratic politicians. danielle, as new yorker, how did this happen any know al sharpton's record. i met him a few types. it is amazing to him, the candidates in your party have to trek uptown and kiss his ring? >> he is is unquestionably still a leader in the black community and a civil rights leader. clearly some very problematic statements -- charles: what did he do for the civil rights movement? >> has massive organization that is advancing civil rights. he is head of this. >> he also profited from pretty consistently. let's be honest this guy profits off racial division. i will be coming to the national action network 99 forum. interesting to see the money. charles: you're going to them? >> every year i go up. charles: i can't wait.
again though, you know, same week where stephen moore had to withdraw from the federal reserve because, some dumb jokes he made, because of his divorce, you know the same people who thought that was great, look at sharpton's track record. i don't know how this happens. i think that politics of race has turned democratic party upside down. your party is getting played right now. >> i agree with you that i think there is some willful blindness on part of democrats. we see this on both sides, right? wayne laperriere reported that he spent $200,000 on suits and $240,000, traveling to italy. people in the nra rank-and-file support him and membership. there is wrongdoing everywhere. i think it comes down to political, you know, who you're aligning yourself with politically. people turn a blind eye. charles: we'll not expand it to, i know where you're going with this. >> i'm not going to do what if? charles: i find it appalling and
confusing. you're both fantastic. have a great weekend. we'll talk to you soon. stocks jumping big time on the april jobs report. the question now, is it too late for individual investors to get into the market? i want to show you the last three times the dow took out a new all time high. might make you want to buy. we'll be right back. here you go little guy.
jobs report, fueling this market right now and really keeping stocks hovering right around record territory. td america -- ameritrade manager joins me now. kevin, it's one of these markets that's been unloved from the very beginning, the rally. it's been unloved certainly by the professionals and to a large degree, the individual investor. what are you seeing right now with respect to main street being involved in this rally? >> first thing, hello, charles. thanks for having me on. i'm a big fan. you know, at td ameritrade, what we tell our customers is to not listen to the noise and pay attention to the data in these markets. right now, the data is pretty strong. think about this. 3.2% gdp in the first quarter, 263,000 non-farm payroll and with those numbers, no or actually muted inflation data. so look at the bonds and what the ten-year yield's telling you, sitting at 2.53 right now, and so far, it looks like we're
in a place not a lot of people are comfortable with. it's a healthy economy with low or muted inflation. charles: maybe not that they're not comfortable with but not accustomed to. this is sort of an interesting trick, isn't it. this is something that president trump said would happen with lower taxes and less regulations but many people didn't think it could happen. >> right. a lot of people see first you get a tight labor market, then you get higher wages, then at some point, inflation is supposed to show up. so far, inflation hasn't shown up in this market yet, and it's making low interest rates, you know, don't fade the fed is a cliche for a reason, right? in october when jerome powell talked about higher rates, the market reacted. in january, when he did a 180, the market reacted then, too. since then, rates are low, charles. ten-year yield is still very low, making stocks attractive. charles: let me tell you what else the market's reacted to.
the last three times the dow jones industrial average has broken out to new all-time highs, october 2006 we had a 12-month rally for 15%. february 2013, we had a 26-month rally and july, 2016, we had an 18% -- 18-month rally, 45%. kevin, i mean, is it okay for individuals to chase this rally? >> yes. just look at a couple things. number one, charles, i have been doing this a long time and we know that this market can always go further than common sense tells you. it can go further than you think. both on the downside and on the upside. the other thing is, just look at the most simple indicator of this market in terms of the nasdaq, and that's the fang stocks. none of those are at their all-time highs. some of them are significantly below their all-time highs. so the nasdaq which is 30% -- sorry, the fang stocks which is 30%, that's leading this market higher and still has room.
charles: you had me when you said you were a fan for a long time but you really, really had me with your knowledge. you are absolutely fantastic. can't wait to have you back on again. talk to you soon. liz claman, big stuff going on at the berkshire hathaway shareholder meeting. liz? liz: this place is crawling not just with investors but with people who are fascinated by the markets and boy, do we have an amazing market day right now. we have this breaking news for you. the prime minister of the slovac republic just departing the white house moments ago. of course, president trump talking trade and security with the leader of the nato nation in the oval office. that was earlier. but during that moment, it was comments that the president made specifically about russia that are raising eyebrows at this hour. what we are going to do is take you live to the white house in just a moment and you get to hear what he said and of course, blake burman will bring you the latest of the fallout on that. in the meantime, here i