Skip to main content

tv   Cavuto Coast to Coast  FOX Business  July 17, 2019 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
>> if you want a drink and a cigarette, i give it to you for heaven's sakes. get out of here. ashley: you're my kind of bartender. stuart: has the world turned upside down? isn't that right, neil cavuto, the world is upside down. neil: it would be if the guy treating. stuart: very good. neil: i don't know. thank you very, very much, stuart. we're following up on that. stocks retreating from their highs on some trade tensions. interesting development on the real estate front. evidence that the chinese are fleeing the american house market, causing activity to plunge there by 36%, largely because the chinese are really not into it anymore. we're following that. we're following temperatures shooting up. that is sparking fears that power could go down not only in the big apple, but maybe across the country. big concerns about our nation's grid. we're into that. also amazon is europe's latest big techtarget. guess what?
12:01 pm
in the u.s. there is a pile-on as well. stocks are close to records. the president is to have a rally and brag about the records. there is still the tweet fallout that the white house has to dial. we have blake burman. reporter: this will resume this evening in greenville, north carolina, where president trump hits the road to later tonight for a campaign rally there. the president saying earlier today, he will talk about the economy. he will talk about the stock market. but he also tweeted the following saying i will also talk about the people who love and hate our country, mostly love. of course the presidenting to these four democratic congresswoman who have been embroiled in this back and forth feud with the tweets and comments he subsequently made. democrats call the president's tweets an comment racist. republicans are trying to turn the attention to the policies and controversial comments that some of these congresswoman have
12:02 pm
made in the past, coming to the defense of the president today. the head of the republican national committee and the hud secretary, ben carson. listen. >> so many things come out of the mouths of these four freshmen congresswoman is offensive. it is anti-american and the president is saying, listen i love our country. >> he is not a racist. his comments are not racist. he loves the country very much. reporter: the democratic congressman al green once again filed articles for impeachment. this will be his third attempt to do so. the house will take up the procedural matters later today. it is aways away from any sort of impeachment effort that some democrats have been calling for. neil, we saw it from the tweet with the president. he wants to talk about the economy which is hot. he wants to talk about the stock market at all-time highs. he also now has to talk about these four democratic congresswoman because, he has brought this into the forefront especially here in the last few days with the tweets and
12:03 pm
comments. neil: stomped on otherwise a good message on the markets and economy. you stay in washington where you're doing a wonderful job. reporter: it is 95 degrees here too, by the way. neil: my gosh. i like you there. you're doing a fine job. thank you very much, blake burman. blake was handling the show a little bit too well couple days ago. a guy that does his job too well, jerry seib, "wall street journal" and executive editor. we're looking at this back and forth. the president is trying to come out under the wrath of these tweets. he has compelling message of economy and markets but he stomp 9 on it. can he get over it? >> that is a great questions a lot of republicans are requesting themselves. there were good retail sales up in members out. good manufacturing numbers out. economists upgraded estimates about economic growth in the second quarter. nobody talked about any of that. we're talking about the squad.
12:04 pm
i understand the president's rationale is taking on the squad to go after what they have said but also maybe to make them the fairs of the democratic party. maybe that is politically beneficial. but if we're talking about the squad we're not talking about the economic numbers you and i just mentioned. neil: right. you're referring to the four freshmen congresswoman, aforementioned "squad." they are pointing out the guy is racist no matter what he does on economy. he is racist period, end of story. that seems to be playing out in early, albeit online polls that show support among republicans picked up since the tweets came out. but among independents and democrats dropped off a little bit. it's a wash in the scheme of things. it is early as you no doubt remind me. it is telling. what do you think? >> two points on that. first of all we're looking right now at a base election. president energizes his base. the democrats energizes their base. if that is what it is about, we're feeling tenor we'll have
12:05 pm
for the next 16, 17 months. here is cautionary note, if you look at polling we have done, you have an interesting group of independent voters who don't like the president. disapprove of the job he is doing, but approve of the job he is doing on the economy. there is 10%age point gap among independent voters. those are people available to the president on economic message. if he can pull them in, that is how he gets above 45% job approval rating he has to plus 50% to win an election. those people will be moved not by cultural messages but by the economy. that is the message. can he do that? will he do that? neil: normally a good economy helps incumbent party in the white house. gerry, we base elections on electoral vote. some of the states he turned republican hand, he is not leading.
12:06 pm
faces daunting. north carolina where his approval rating tumbled 20 plus points at time of the election. i'm asking, how does he shore that up in states otherwise booming but he is getting very little credit? >> i think he probably has to deliver a message that is not just to the base in those states because, you know, just mentioned, north carolina has evolved. it is not north carolina of old. it becomes northern as more northerners move in. you need a broader message. democrats have reverse job, as long as they say things that please the base on coast, they're not paying enough attention to michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania where president trump won in 2016. democrats have to ask themselves the same question, which is, do we have a message that resonates with works class voters in the midwest, not just with people on the coasts who we'll get anyway. if you run up vote in california and new york but don't states in the middle you have not done
12:07 pm
yourself any good. similarly for president trump, run up the vote in red states by exciting your base, you don't reach the people in the middle, you're not going anywhere from where you were in 2016. they are mirror images of the same kind of problem right now. neil: gerry, good catching up with you. gerry seib, "the wall street journal" executive editor among other things in washington. we were mentioning before about anomaly with china bears watching. i find it interesting. not only the president's threat he could up the ante with the chinese including $325 billion in additional goods which essentially would target all goods from china, the latest development, the chinese are responding in their own unique ways pulling out of the american housing market. that has seen their activity plunge about 36% in just the last year. this could be tit-for-tat on chinese playing rough with us. the idea we have a deal anytime soon, this might get in the way
12:08 pm
of that. market watchers, danielle dimartino booth and gary smith. the interesting thing, chinese were flocking to the united states as a place to put their money. what better place than manhattan and big cities. we've seen it across the countries. there are very big buyers in real estate investment trusts and the like. suddenly that is frozen and stopped. what do you make of that? >> i wouldn't read too much into that in terms after government policy by the chinese authorities. these are chinese citizens who are able to get money out of the country which is difficult to today because they have capital controls. they are trying to find hard assets whether in new york or vancouver or toronto. that is certainly a big thing in canada. i think part of it is, the chinese economy is really slowed. this is not even including the tariff situation but the economy has slowed anyway by our
12:09 pm
measures. is barry growing even though they report 6% growth. neil: they just make that up, don't they? they make that up. no way they're growing -- >> they don't make it up, but a very long, smooth number that they round to basically but over 10-year period they're probably growing at 6% per year but on quarter to quarter basis obviously it is much, much more volatile. i think it has more to do with the slowdown in the economy and the inability for chinese citizens to take their money out than than the government clamping down on what people can do. they can't really buy foreign real estate anyway because they can't take out money officially. neil: they might hurt more than they let on, danielle. i think they make up these numbers but i think they make up these numbers, almost like the jon lovitz thing, you're too young, danielle, this character would exaggerate thing, yeah, we're growing at a 10% clip. all of sudden growing at 6%
12:10 pm
clip, oh. let's assume things are worse than they are letting on, we cut those numbers even further, does that compel them to make a deal with the united states? or, do they flip it around, we will stimulate our way around this and we don't need the united states? >> neil, there is talk about another couple trillion dollars that the chinese government is anticipating putting into its infrastructure build-out. i wish that $2 trillion could come to buildout our infrastructure but that is besides the point. but i do think the bigger issue facing our country today is the fact that you've seen building permits decline 6.6%. that was really surprising. it goes hand in hand with the fact that these chinese buyers, when they were the largest, since 2015. they have been the largest presence in our real estate market. neil: do you think, any of this is connected? >> i think it is connected because chinese buyers would
12:11 pm
come in buy newly built homes. explains why residential real estate is down 11% here in the united states. why we were surprised this morning with the housing permits data so much weaker than we had anticipated. sometimes, neil. there are no coincidences. neil: yeah. >> this speaks to that. we haven't even talked about, what is happening with the transportation sector today, the litany of companies, one after another. arrow electronics, lear corporation, csx, they're saying fade our original optimism there will be a rebound in the second half of the year because of this trade war, we don't anticipate that any longer. we're talking our guidance down. so at some point you have to wonder who is hurting more because of this trade war fallout? neil: that is very interesting. what she is referring to is a phenomenon we're waiting to get confirmation what is happening in the dow, s&p, and nasdaq by extension, not confirming what is happening in transportation
12:12 pm
stocks or the dow theory as it is known, have to confirm this, yet to do so. it is six or 7% from its highs. some worry that it's a worrisome indicator for this market. do you? >> yeah. it is not just the transports. small cap stocks have not really participated. neil: absolutely. >> i think you know, we're in the second week of earnings season. so far only maybe 40 companies have reported. so it is still early days. we are seeing typical bounce that you tend to see from the beginning of earnings season. as you just mentioned, the guy distance is taking a hit. if you have prolonged trade tensions between the u.s. and china, you know, i mentioned this in previous segment, i liken it to kind of the whole brexit debacle that has been dragging on for three years and the market in the uk has done okay. earnings are actually up but the
12:13 pm
pe got derated from 16 multiple to a 12 multiple because if this drags on enough, eventually companies start sitting on their hands, and they start guiding lower. their profit margins start eroding. investors will not want to pay up for that kind of scenario. and so there is a risk, even though there may not be a huge economic risk for you know, a trade war, just because you know the u.s. is 70% consumer and consumer is in very good health as we saw from the retail sales number but it could affect margins for the s&p, which is more or less global index. that could take the bloom off the road, off the rose in terms of earnings. juxtapose of pe 17.4 times expected earnings, there is not a lot of margin for error there. neil: no. >> so the market expects this v-shaped recovery in earnings. if that turns into an l, then the market is not on the right
12:14 pm
side here. i'm not expecting that but it does need to happen. neil: all right. then all l breaks loose. see what i did there? basic cable. thank you, guys, both very much. the pe, price earnings multiple looks at stock divided by earnings per share. right now that is a little rich. it is not a lot rich. depending on your point of view. some people go back in time look at past 52 week earnings versus those going forward, it's a little rich, not crazy rich. they keeping to that. we're talking about the consumer, robust, these days, more confirmations of that and prime day helping amazon and helping all in that arena. after this.
12:15 pm
12:16 pm
i don't know what's going on. i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪
12:17 pm
12:18 pm
neil: european union is investigating amazon over essentially third party selling. that you play fast and loose with numbers and don't play fair here. it follows on part of aggressive moves from u.s. regulators. washington could target some of the biggest u.s. technology names for getting too big for their britches essentially. money map strategist keith fitz-gerald on all of that. if you think about all these issues, these stocks, keith, talking about amazon, apple, facebook or google, they richly rewarded their investors and i'm wondering if this circling of government wagons worldwide is a worry? >> i tell you what, if it is over business practice, they have a legitimate concern, that is one thing. but if it is sour grapes because
12:19 pm
they didn't foster environment that created innovation to begin with, that is entirely another. i think that very much the u.s. versus global regulation scenario right now. neil: so when you look at amazon, for example, it is not in the same controversial sort of field as facebook or google but it did catch the attention of european regulators, face it, don't like retail behemoth competition in their neck of the woods. what is the fallout here? >> you know the fallout, sounds very scary in the headlines but reality of the situation is, this conversation if they were to have it should have taken place 30, 40 years ago. i don't think it impacts amazon's business model one iota. it is no different from a market manager in heidelberg or recommending the bourse at christmas. they don't know retailers than any other.
12:20 pm
the question is whether or not the internet is involved. neil: target of various government probes is that a high point you say slow down or what? >> not for me. i'll tell you why. because most of the antitrust regulation, the concerns over business practices, those were levied at a time where the consumer was being hurt. arguably it is not the consumer that's being hurt. prices have gone down. delivery times have gone down. so the benefit is very, very real. if they go after them on something like that, they have to change structure of the laws. that won't stop them from trying to grab headlines. neil: keith, thank you very much. good catching up. >> thanks, neil. neil: there are numbers. there is emotional testimony behind those numbers, from families of boeing 727 max victims today. fbn's kristina partsinevelos with the very latest. reporter: neil, moments before the hearing start that they hired compensation expert ken
12:21 pm
feinberg. ken feinberg has experience with the 9/11 crashes as well as several school shootings. they will distribute $50 million to the family members of victims. this is going to happen over the next course, or next little while. that money is independent of any lawsuits that are being filed right now. speaking of lawsuits filed by members of the family victims, paul gave testimony today. he lost pretty much his entire family, his mother-in-law, wife, three children. here is what he had to say about being haunted by what could have been. >> i think about their last six minutes a lot. my wife and mom-in-law knew they were going to die. they had to somehow comfort the children during those final moments, knowing they were all lost. i wish i was there with them. reporter: he goes on to say his 6-year-old loved the galaxy.
12:22 pm
his 4-year-old loved singing. his nine-month-old was a very happy baby. he questioned the intention of boeing and the faa why they didn't do more. listen in. >> it is hard to trust boeing with their apologies given that they have not reached out to us. i do believe that they did that in the days leading up to the paris airshow for commercial reasons. i believe it's a publicity stunt, they just appeared on cameras to apologize to the families. reporter: he went on to say boeing should have been investing in safety. instead they went to repurchase their stock after the crash. we reached out to boeing, received statements just moments ago. boeing said, we truly regret the loss of lives of those in the accidents. that is two accidents we're talking about for 737 jets, one that happened this past march, ethiopian airlines and the other one happened in october for
12:23 pm
indonesia. boeing says they remain committed to working with community customers and the aviation industry. you have n j.r. ogoe, the 35-year-old man and other victims filed a lawsuit against boeing for negligence. the hearing is going on right now. neil: the numbers are put into perspective. kristina, thank you very, very much. we're getting word they might be making progress on the debt ceiling. the treasury secretary who is abroad for the g7 finance ministers meeting had spoken on the phone with nancy pelosi raising that debt ceiling. the treasury secretary said they will essentially run out of money while they're still out on august recess, that is congress, wanted it resolved and soon. this might be a step in that direction. we shall see. meanwhile it is getting hot in much of the country. by saturday, 100 degrees plus in parts of the country, including washington and new york city. what that could mean for you and potential black yachts, yeah,
12:24 pm
again. -- blackouts. again. all in one place. because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. you need decision tech. when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. [ sigh ] not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. it's soft... the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening
12:25 pm
and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, and the door ensures a watertight seal, so you never have to worry about leaks. kohler's walk-in bath was designed with convenient handrails for added stability and safety. the wide, ergonomic seat is tilted back for comfort and stability. it has a channel so water won't pool on it. and it positions you perfectly by the controls. while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders, warming up your body before, during and after the bath. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. honey, are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with powerful, fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. oh yeah, that's the stuff. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer.
12:26 pm
and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of min. would you mind passing my book there. once again, that's... and financing is available for qualified purchasers. you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar.
12:27 pm
neil: remember a blackout last week in new york city? it could happen all over again. a heat wave expected to scorch over half the country. in the big apple, bringing temperatures up 100 degrees or higher. that is not a good environment for utilities that deal with demand on air-conditioning and all the rest. a con-ed spokesman was quoted earlier in the week how this could put a real crimp on the system. michael, i remember your words at the time, we expected there could be service outages, those things happen during heat waves. that will be intense. are you saying more or less it will happen? >> every year we spend over billion 1/2 dollars getting ready for heat waves just like this. our crews are ready to respond to any service problems that
12:28 pm
might occur during the heat wave. but we're prepared. we are ready for this every year. we spend billions on our system in transformers and circuits and upgrades to get new york through. we've been running, the most reliable grid in the country for a very long time, and we'll continue to do that we'll get through this and get through it safely and people will be okay. it will be difficult to folks because of the heat. we ask they stay safe, conserve energy, together we will pull through it. neil: all right. but there must have been something to your saying that was possibility last week at this time, temperatures in the '80s. there will be upwards 50 or 20 degrees hotter than that. that will put more train on the system. what do you do to control that, mitigate that? >> first to clarify what happened over the weekend wasn't due to demand or heat or strain on the system. it was something, our engineers
12:29 pm
identified as a problem with a relay protection system, which they have addressed. so, really -- neil: when you say they have addressed, they fixed, how do you know that kind of thing can't happen again? >> we've taken steps to fix the problem that was with a relay protection system and they're okay. we feel fully confident that we're to the going to have a repeat what we saw last weekend. really the focus is the heat. we prepare for heat every year. we build around our system and invests the ability of our system, our electrical component to get people through heat waves just like the one coming up this week. our crews will be staffed around the clock. we'll have our command post open. people will respond to any service outages that might occur. we'll not be alone. i'm sure other utilities around the country will do exact same thing. together we'll get through it. we'll be okay. neil: how do you feel at con-ed
12:30 pm
when the governor more or less threw you under the bus, that no birthright or con-ed has as utility for the region? >> we've been serving new york city for very long time, for decades. new york has the best grid of any city in the world. our employees, 12,000, women and men are proud of the work we do every sip gel day to give new yorkers the kind of reliability that they expect and deserve. you know it is unusual as what the weekend occurrence, weekend outage was, our crews got the power back on to 72,000 customers within three to five hours. not a lot of grids can do that. we really are proud of our workers, proud of the city's emergency responders. help from the state we get as well. so you know, these things happen. they're unusual, highly unusual events but we did get through it. we'll be okay. neil: i hope you're right. thank you very much. good having you. a look at the debt ceiling battle, there are signs within the last few minutes they might
12:31 pm
be able to address this without having a debt ceiling implosion here, that would essentially shut down the government. the progress they're making after this. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪
12:32 pm
12:33 pm
today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. is where people first gathered to form the stock exchangeee,
12:34 pm
which brought people together to invest in all the things that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪ >> are you speaking to nancy pelosi? >> our teams are in communication, our chiefs of staff. >> shouldn't it be face-to-face? >> i agree. >> she is a new member, not the speaker. she has every right to sit down with her any moment, anytime
12:35 pm
with any of us. >> she is speaker of the house. she can ask for a meeting, sit down with us for clarification. neil: "the squad" not endeared to the speaker. producer capitol hill chad pergram with the latest. what do you have, chad. >> we'll hear from the speaker for percenthis time with ther kerfuffle on the floor to and over this resolution by president trump over racist language. that is 1:00. later today, al green, democratic congressman from texas will try for a third time to get the house to try to impeach president trump. they have done this on two occasions before. i will give you two numbers. think will be important. the first vote, december 2017 they moved to table, to euthanize this, bottle it back up in committee. the vote was 238-126, with four democrats voting present.
12:36 pm
they tried in january of last year, the vote was 234-121. the difference now, that democrats control the house. there is more energy among people from like "the squad" and other democrats to try to impeach the president. that will give us a good metric where they stand on this. al green laid out the case for impeachment this morning. >> have sown seeds of discord among the people of the united states. has demonstrated that he is unfit to be president and has betrayed his trust as president of the united states to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. reporter: it is important to note that this will not be a vote up or down on impeachment this will be two steps parliamentary moved to table push aside. al green says that is vote saying you're for impeachment or not. he said if they don't move to impeach president trump, these are his words, quote, there will
12:37 pm
be blood on hands of members of congress, maybe even us. he cited what happened in charlottesville. that is why one of the reasons why al green wants to impeach president trump because of inflammatory language he made because of race. neil: thank you very much. you remember seeing this emotional moment on the floor of the house when emanuel cleaver, a pastor by training a missouri democratic congressman, threw down the gavel said enough, i'm out of here. he is with me on "your world" at 4:00 p.m. eastern time to express his frustration with both parties and mean, nature of the deet bait on the hill. emanuel cleaver, pastor, congressman, joining me on "your world." the debt deal remains very much off the table, for the time-being. although progress we're told and some transatlantic phone calls to boot. to "axios" reporter stef kight what is anything is happening on that front.
12:38 pm
time is wasting essentially, right? >> time is certainly ticking. of course people, congress members are saying they're close to a deal. they're optimistic. in years past we always see this issue come up. debt ceiling is important issue and a great bargaining chip. nancy pelosi using to expand debt ceiling to get budget proposes moved forward. we're seeing this back and forth. we're losing time. eventually, hopefully we'll see something work out but also, it is crazy right now. politically tumultuous. nancy pelosi basically censured on the house floor. not exactly the best time to find common ground. neil: one of the things that nancy pelosi had been insisting on, maybe we can do a two-year budget deal to take drama out of this. apparently that was not making much headway. the treasury department says at least agree on raising it.
12:39 pm
we'll get into those details later. treasury is arguing they will run out of dough while still on august recess. is that true? >> right. so most members of congress expected to have more time to figure this out. treasury saying no, we'll run out of funds early. we need to get this done before congress leaves at august recess. as i said, nancy pelosi want to decide on a two-year budget deal. make this less dramatic, make it not a yearly budget fight we've seen over the past few years but meanwhile the white house is saying no. let's go ahead and. raise the ceiling now before we go into august recess. neil: here we go again. we'll watch it very closely. stef kight, "axios" reporter watching this closely. you hear about the debt ceiling. technically the government cannot spend a penny more unless
12:40 pm
they raise the debt ceiling. we've done this hundreds of times if you think about it, it is all kabuki theater. the treasury argue unless they do that, they will be up to deadline, if you don't make payments social security and others you're technically in default. more after this.
12:41 pm
12:42 pm
12:43 pm
neil: all right. we're getting word out of the united nations iran's foreign minister is accusing u.s. with economic war against iranian citizens that amounts to terrorism. once it stops, other things can follow to de-escalate tensions, presuming talks with the united states. it comes at the same time we're looking into linking iranians with a tax on the number of tankers including those from ethiopia and on and on. former national security advisor to dick cheney, john hannah. the fact they hold out possibility of resuming talks, but first of all, that the united states first up, economic
12:44 pm
war, what do you read into that? >> well i think that is where the iranians have been for the past several month, neil, since they began this escalation in the gulf in particularly against the tankers but also against saudi target as well as u.s. targets and a shoot-down of the drone, they're feeling this incredible squeeze, i think unprecedented in the 40 year history of the islamic republic. their economy is being brought to its knees. they are desperate to get the u.s. to back off or get the europeans to step up and make up for what they're losing economically and so far it is just not working at all. neil: now we have long argued they are behind tanker attacks on a host of countries including united arab emirates, british, they claim no. we have proof. back and forth, back and forth. what do you make of it? >> the u.s. seems quite
12:45 pm
confident that these in fact were iranian sabotage against international vessels with the gulf. with the british last week there is almost no doubt that a british naval vessel had to intervene to stop iranian speedboats approaching a british oil tanker. there is reports this morning that in fact a u.a.e. ship has gone missing, may have been picked up by iranian revolutionary guard. this is not stopping. it is escalating. it only put as greater premium on the u.s. priority of getting an international flotilla to mobilize, get international naval ships into the gulf, to protect international oil, 20% of which transit that strait every day. neil: you know, john, why would the iranians be that bold if not stupid or maybe both in the face of actions that will certainly alienate the europeans, some of
12:46 pm
the last friends they have got to keep this deal, whatever is left of it afloat? >> i think the iranian calculation right now is, that they can push up to a certain line with these kinds of low level, calibrated attacks, that the europeans so far haven't stepped up, despite some of these iranian violations including on the nuclear deal that the europeans warned against. the europeans for now are saying we'll give diplomacy a chance. this has not reached a level yet that we're prepared to go back and impose sanctions on iran. of course the president himself has been restrained in response to the shoot-down of our drone. he stopped an attack already underway. the iranians are reading into that, i think, neil. at some point they can continue to push this. and the west may not be prepared to respond yet. neil: john hannah, thank you very much for catching up on
12:47 pm
this story. meantime catching up with charlie gasparino on the joe biden push-up contest story. yes, two old guys going at it, with push-ups. can't see what it is yet.re? what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic. i love this thing. it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat.
12:48 pm
i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star.
12:49 pm
12:50 pm
neil: "the wall street journal" is reporting, we are waiting for a press briefing on the part of nancy pelosi the speaker, who we're told plans to meet with occasio-cortez amid these party tensions, whether she is a racist, back and forth, got sidelined with attack on president's tweets, back and forth. whether that represents an olive branch, sharing the love, is anyone's guess. want to keep you updated on that, that is about ten minutes away. meanwhile jeffrey epstein bail hearing for tomorrow, charlie gasparino on that, much, much more. >> i will have a full write up
12:51 pm
on fox business.com because i've been spending last couple weeks as this thing heated up. i did a story on fox business three months ago when this thing was heating up, when it looked like he might be charged. he obviously has been charged with the u.s. attorney for the southern district. one of the things i hit on in the story was always a urban legend, it was printed too, that jeffrey epstein got off with relatively minor slap on the wrist for having sex with minors because he was a wall street informant for the government. that he helped crack some case against bear stearns, his old firm. i found out that is not the case and so now the question is, what got him off early? we're going to see i guess in the next couple weeks what that is. so i've been speaking with a lot of people. i will have a full write-up on this, here is some whacky contradictions of this guy, neil. incredibly brilliant. there is no doubt about this, yet he got fired from bear stearns in 1982 for some
12:52 pm
stupid thing like expense account thing he lied on his expense account. that i found out in last couple weeks. odd for a guy this smart. a math genius who basically understood without going to college, he has never been to college the tax code. neil: is that right? >> inside and out. he was known as a billionaire. he is obviously not a billionaire. he is, still rich, $500 million, but here is another baffling thing. he was a guy mixed easily in high society. there is thing out, donald trump dancing with epstein. neil: from 1992. >> it was all women there. neil: right. >> he was a fixture, he wasn't just donald trump, it was all of them, bill clinton was around him this guy was a fixture in new york society. women loved him, women, not girls. he was with a lot of elegant women over the years. yet look what killed him -- got him, seedy charge of child prostitution essentially. it is disgusting. neil: right.
12:53 pm
>> the last contradiction people are trying to get their hands around, five or six people i spoke with this week, they can't understand how he returned back from france, literally. he has a plane. he has liquid wealth. look at assets the u.s. attorney released. he has cash, got stock. got couple hundred million dollars of that stuff. he has a lot of assets, his residence and everything. he knows they're coming after him. this thing was well-telegraphed. we wrote our story they were closing in march. look it up on foxbusiness.com, yet he came back from france which has very weak extradition. famously roman polanski escaped from france on a similar type of charge. his was a similar. raping an underage girl. so it is baffling that he would do that given his intense intelligence. like i said, i'm going to be writing this up, neil. and again, the big question is, i'm trying to get my hands
12:54 pm
around, how did he make all his money? the best i can tell you is this. he didn't do much trading although he did do some. neil: right. >> for his clients. he had one known client. from what i understand we'll find out the other ones as this thing progresses. his big thing was tax avoidance. he was an expert at the tax code les wexner, billionaire took him under his wing. after being fired from bear stearns he maintain ad relationship to the firm, everybody from the man, to the woman, they didn't know about the underage kids. he did that, whatever it was on the side. they said he was brilliant, charming, and a guy you want to hang around. that is how crazy. neil: a lot of people hung around him. >> it will all come up. there will be a lot of embarrassed people basically because, because of this, but in their defense i really believe that trump had no idea.
12:55 pm
i really believe bill clinton had no idea. what i'm getting -- neil: he was a rainmaker. he made a lot of money for folks. >> he had one really good client. if you get one really good client you can mill that, that was wexner. they loved him in new york society. they loved him. neil: i wish i had more time. i want to get into the biden push-ups. >> what is happening with that? someone wanted a picture of you doing push-ups. neil: they wanted to see you. >> on "outnumbered" last time they had me on for years ago, i don't know why they don't want me on anymore, i did push-ups with harris faulkner on my back. neil: that is probably the reason. thank you, my friend, always good seeing you. charlie gasparino, thinnest man in all of tv. waiting for a nancy pelosi news conference. we're told she buried hatchet, hopes to with at least one
12:56 pm
member of the squad. whether all four, we don't know. more after this. $4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade.
12:57 pm
to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford? let's hear what actual customers are saying. - with the hartford, not only did i get a better policy and better coverage but i got a better rate as well. hundreds in savings. - [matt] in fact, four out of five aarp members aged 50 and over who switched to the hartford from companies like allstate, state farm and geico, got a lower rate with the hartford. - when i first called the hartford, they couldn't have done anything better. he said were we able to save you some money? i said absolutely and he goes i hear that quite often. - [matt] not only are people saving hundreds when they switch to the hartford, they're getting amazing benefits, like lifetime renewability. it's the hartford's promise not to drop you even if you're in an accident. - it's a great feeling and a very comfortable feeling to know that i'm not gonna get dropped. - [narrator] drivers 50 and over can
12:58 pm
save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. to get your free, no obligation quote, call the hartford at the number on your screen or go to the website on your screen. - [matt] did you know that the hartford has the only national car insurance program endorsed by aarp, in fact, they've been working together for over 30 years. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. - i would recommend the hartford to friends, relatives, anybody. - certainly when we needed them, they were right there for us. it was pretty impressive. - [matt] see for yourself why 96% of customers recommend the hartford, based on their claims experience. - try the hartford, if you don't, you're missing out. - [narrator] to get your free, no obligation quote and see how much you could save, call the hartford at the number on your screen that's the number on your screen.
12:59 pm
or go to the website on your screen. the buck's got your back. neil: all right. want to take you to washington, d.c., waiting for nancy pelosi. she's going to address what we know, what little we know is she either plans to have or has already spoken to alexandria ocasio-cortez, the new york congresswoman, part of that four-person freshman congresswoman squad, as they're known, who have been very critical certainly of the president's what they deem to be racist tweets. even accusing the speaker little more than a few days ago of the same type of reaction to them, whether they have all buried the hatchet or whether one of them has with the speaker, anyone's guess. nancy pelosi is going to be speaking shortly. the read on all of this from markets that are sort of focused on other things. the dow down about 45 points, "wall street journal" james freeman, barron's associate publisher jack otter and anne
1:00 pm
berry. so much we don't know. i don't want to hazard guesses here. but it would be in everyone's interest certainly within the democrat party to start getting along. and i'm wondering if this is a step in that direction. >> well, they definitely need some kind of unifying catalyst. i think it may be a step in the right direction. the question is, is it enough to rally around a common cause when they still don't have a candidate who has good enough name recognition or impetus to take on donald trump. neil: talking presidential candidates there. jack, one of the things that's come up, the markets normally don't get fixated on these battles, personality or otherwise, but they do if it distracts from the good economic and market message, right? >> well, it's so surprising that donald trump would send out an outrageous tweet. i can see why wall street would stop dead in its tracks and try to deal with it. neil: you are very jaded. >> you know, it's number one, it's the fed. number two is the fed. number three is earnings.
1:01 pm
i think this sort of stuff is really not that important right now. as we get the slightest bit of clarity as who could be the democratic nominee, then i think wall street will start to pay attention. certainly health care stocks have responded to the possibility of a bernie sanders in charge sort of thing. i really don't think it's terribly focused on this right now. neil: to jack's point, indirectly anne's as well, the president stomped on his message with these tweets about, well, comments, different people can interpret it differently but he had a good message, they were fighting amongst themselves, the squad and the speaker, so let them kill each other, and he weighed in and made comments that got people off the discussion of record-setting markets, strong retail sales, consumer numbers, et cetera. what do you make of it? >> i think he's got a good story on the economy. i think the rude inappropriate commentary on twitter, though, i think it's yet to be determined whether that helps him or hurts him. neil: the republicans have
1:02 pm
actually helped him. it boosted his approval. >> the idea that unity among democrats which i think generally would be a good thing, i'm not sure that's good for them politically, because i think this is roughly what he wanted, is he wanted that embrace on the house floor last night between congresswoman omar and speaker pelosi, he wants to define the democratic party generally by the extremism of congresswoman omar, aoc, et cetera. neil: you have to wonder, though, whether democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, they want to put down these battles or minimize them because they think the president is vulnerable. they look at these polls in battleground states, where he's trailing, even in states where the economy is booming like north carolina, the president is down double digits. >> one thing we learned from the last election is the polls don't really tell you anything up until the last moment. we are still so far away. we have so much lead time still, until we get the nomination. i think this is just noise until
1:03 pm
then. i think you are exactly right. it's the fed, the fed, it's the economy until it's not. none of this is really going to be relevant in the end. neil: in the end, obviously both parties want to have a united front. the republicans seem to enjoy that on this whole tweeting issue more, you know, than democrats. not universally but i'm just saying, just a handful who challenged the president on that and even then it was a mild rebuke. i'm wondering, that could explain that it's support among republicans, it's actually increased since all of this fuss, even if it dipped a little, you know, with the democrats and independents. is it a wash? >> there are a couple dynamics here. one, we all know the best way to get your tribe to rally around you is to start a fight with another tribe. wag the dog. trump is a master of this. i think to suggest that the "journal's" editorial yesterday referring to the literally
1:04 pm
centuries of this trope, go back to where you came from, i would not accuse republicans of rallying around that. i mean, i hate to say this, but imagine barack obama telling three jews who were born in this country to go back to israel. imagine the uproar. i don't think anyone would rally around that. i would like to think nobody is actually rallying around these specific comments. what they are rallying around is the battle is on. you can certainly find statements from aoc and others that the majority of this country would disagree with politically. they are a great squad to pick a fight with. neil: i'm wondering when thomas freedman is writing in the "new york times" about how democrats are botching it and donald trump could get re-elected because they are, to your earlier point about the presidential candidates we have seen thus far, espousing things even democrats don't go for. >> the concern there especially
1:05 pm
after watching the last debates, it's not just about the squad, it's about how that really radical message that the squad embraces is also being embraced by so many of the leading democratic candidates for president. i think what you find is bobby jindal wrote a piece for us this week saying trump is not as crazy as his opponents. i think that's ultimately where a lot of voters may come out and i think that's why -- i think that's where investors are. because you can say it doesn't matter now, but if they think a warren or sanders is going to get elected, you are going to see equities move on that news. i think it's reassuring -- neil: in other words, if it's getting closer and looking more likely, the sell-off the president was talking about a couple weeks ago would happen if it looks like he's going to be -- would happen. >> for all his faults, the president is presiding over a relatively benign government in washington. yes, ceos are concerned about
1:06 pm
trade and global growth, but the tax and regulatory environment is excellent and that would shift radically, especially if warren or sanders gets elected. >> you know what column was excellent, by the way. >> appreciate it. >> but they're shooting themselves in the foot. it's amazing. what center left politician or center right politician wouldn't love to have donald trump as their opponent? yet they are fielding a bunch of people who -- neil: well -- [ speaking simultaneously ] neil: if you think about it, one of the things freedman was getting into was he's exasperated as are probably many democrats to your point, they could be blowing, potentially, blowing it and he says dear democrats, this is not complicated. just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more jobs. the person who can gain the support of moderates and suburban women who abandoned
1:07 pm
trump in the midterms and swung the house to the democrats, that candidate can win but spare me the revolution. >> i think they need someone who plays in the middle of the fairway, just sort of there as a neutral soundingboard against which the slings and arrows -- neil: -- that passion can come out and vote and vanilla won't win against donald trump. >> i think the point thomas freedman is making is trump will say something at some point that is really explosive and divisive, perhaps even more than we have seen right now. neil: that's impossible. >> i think -- neil: but he survives each and every one of these assaults on his latest tweet and, you know, just fine. >> i think that's right but i think what you're saying is someone like warren or sanders is so clearly going to alienate people. if it's that option that can stand firm, say sensible things,
1:08 pm
posit sensible policies in the middle of the fairway that don't spend $60 trillion on medicare for all, that kind of person at least has a shot. i think he's saying no one right now has a shot. neil: isn't it the economy, stupid? i don't mean the old bill clinton analogy but consumers are a big part of this. two-thirds of the economy. to man or woman, they are spending like crazy. we are seeing it in amazon prime deals that are eclipsing black monday and friday sales combined. then you get retail sales report which was up strongly four strong months in a row at a clip we haven't seen in decades. you're getting some of the beneficiaries of these banks who are reporting earnings, saying their consumer lending business is very very strong. that part of it doing very very well. so if you're that strong and confident in borrowing and moving forward, wouldn't that benefit the party in power in the white house? >> yeah, and i think this is why trump beats warren or sanders, because basically -- neil: polling wise so far --
1:09 pm
>> i understand that, but when voters focus on a particular agenda of a particular opponent, they basically have a pre-2016 message which is it's great for ceos but workers are not thriving in this economy. the irony right now, ceos are nervous. they don't like the trade stuff. but as you said, the average person is enjoying this economy, is spending, you are seeing it in retail sales numbers, in bank earnings, the consumer business is very strong. neil: didn't donald trump use that strategy when trying to take down his democratic opponent? that it was a bifurcated economy? >> what i would love to know from tommy freedman at the "new york times" and all his liberal pals -- neil: tommy, is it? la-di-da. >> they're saying is trump going to get re-elected and i think maybe what some of them are really saying is, with a secret ballot, i'm going to have to vote for him if the alternative is marxist revolution. neil: interesting. i'm looking to the china trade thing, how that plays out.
1:10 pm
it's going to be crucial. the tweeting battle notwithstanding, you get a deal with china, all bets are off. i guess if it's a good deal. right? >> i think that's actually a very interesting piece in the "journal." neil: this is getting ridiculous. >> with the dallas fed rob kapler. he basically said people have kind of accepted there's going to be a long-term new normal with china. well, we start getting into trouble when we look at investment by the business community into longer term cycle spends, talking manufacturing, whether there's unpredictability and volatility around non-chinese trading partners like mexico, for example, or places like vietnam that people are going away from china towards. that's when we start getting into real trouble. china has been accepted as sort of a different paradigm. i think it's about keeping stability in the rest of the trading -- neil: am i the only one focused on this? the china thing had an interesting wrinkle today in
1:11 pm
that they are pulling out of real estate. anecdotally there have been reports to that effect but to the degree now, some of these latest numbers, largely as a result of the chinese bowing out, 36%. now that isn't necessarily coming as an edict from beijing but i wonder where this is going. >> i don't think that's going to have a huge impact on either the economy, certainly not politics. it's a fairly small slice, i suspect it's those skyscrapers in the sky that are really more safe places to put money. the russians are doing it as well. it doesn't have a huge effect on the real economy. so yeah, i don't see that as a big factor. neil: you did see the weakening numbers we have been getting on china. you can't believe all those numbers because they are so off the charts. but is there slowing? >> in a relative sense. neil: relatively they are off from what they were. that can compel the thinking to make a deal with the united states, right? >> there is certainly every incentive from the chinese
1:12 pm
government to make a deal with trump. you see that in all the recent economic data but remember, this is a hardcore communist tyrant we have had running the place since 2012. so wouldn't necessarily bet on -- neil: hang on to that thought. nancy pelosi. just swhee what this is all abo here. >> this country lost a giant of the court and a clarion voice for justice, equality and rule of law. justice john paul stevens. justice stevens was a true guardian of the constitution. he made history not only as the longest serving justice, but as one of its finest. our country mourns his loss. he will be lying in state monday. the service will be tuesday, and again, a great loss to our country. last night, i had a particular pleasant experience which was to sign the legislation which enabled us to use the washington
1:13 pm
monument as a backdrop for the moon launch. pretty exciting. i hope everyone will take advantage of observing that as we observe that historic event in our country's, the world's history. it's pretty exciting. so here we are. as you know, we campaigned on for the people agenda, lowering health care costs, building bigger paychecks, cleaner government and to that end of bigger paychecks, this week we will have three bills on the floor. raising the minimum wage, raising the minimum wage. it will increase wages for up to 33 million workers and lift 1.3 million americans out of poverty. it would help secure fairness and equality for women, many of whom will be the beneficiaries of this, giving nearly 20 million working women a raise and help narrow the gender gap,
1:14 pm
that wage gap that disproportionately impacts women. we are also proud to pass this bill tomorrow on the anniversary of the seneca falls convention which america declared that all men and women were created equal. we will also continue on our promises to workers. today we will honor our promise to be -- to the hard-working men and women of labor as we lift the cadillac tax, protecting health benefits that workers have negotiated. and next week, the house will move to pass the butch lewis act, ensuring that millions of americans who receive retirement -- will receive the retirement and benefit securities that they have earned. we are very pleased with the outcome of all of the back-and-forth on the census, proud of the testimony the house council made before the supreme court, because the census is a pillar of our democracy,
1:15 pm
enshrined in our sacred constitution to ensure that we are all equally counted and represented. and so we will continue to hold the administration accountable for the policy decisions. this is not about partisanship. it's about patriotism. now having instilled fear, hopefully we can allay that fear by having people sign up for the census. as we approach the 200-day mark of our transformative majority which is coming up soon, house democrats will build on the bold promise we have made on our for the people agenda. we talked about lower health costs by preserving the prescription drug benefit and lowering prescription drugs and preserving the pre-existing condition benefit, and some of that legislation will be coming up next week, raise workers' wages, i talked about that,
1:16 pm
reduce the role of big dark money in washington, hr1, but part of hr1, we had divided into parts to save our federal elections, voting rights act and the rest, and we're hoping to get some of these passed. as you know, senator mcconnell has called himself the grim reaper. we have news for him. these bills are alive and well with the public, and public opinion that lincoln has said can make almost anything happen. we look forward to that. questions? reporter: any news [ inaudible ]? reporter: next week at this time, robert mueller will be here. what is your expectation for his testimony and is there a chance that after he's come all the way, there might not be any clarity on the findings of his report? >> i think the report has
1:17 pm
brought some clarity and his own public statement brought further clarity, and now when he speaks about it, more people will know what is in the report. i think we should approach it with all of the appropriate seriousness of purpose. this is about our country, our constitution, and the separation of powers, obstruction of justice, issues like that. so i would say that again, it's about patriotism. let us listen, let us see where the facts will take us, and let us have it be as dignified as our constitution would require. then we'll see what happens after that. we'll go where the facts will lead us. reporter: [ inaudible ] will it be the opportunity to punish the president, sending the message we aren't going to allow him to make america a racist country.
1:18 pm
[ inaudible ]? >> in terms of bringing up impeachment? well, for articles of impeachment to succeed, i haven't really actually seen his articles of impeachment. we'll deal with that resolution on the floor. but as i have said over and over again, with all the respect in the world for mr. green, he's a very prayerful person and he cares very much about our constitution and our country, so as i say, with all the respect in the world for him, we have six committees that are working with following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in. that is the serious path that we are on. not that mr. green is not serious, but we will deal with that on the floor. reporter: will you enable him? >> i don't know what we will do. we will deal with it on the floor. reporter: on the debt ceiling,
1:19 pm
we were talking to steven mnuchin. what is the pathway, what are the stumbling blocks to get this done before the end of next month? >> let's start with next week and engineer back. we would like to have something on the floor next thursday. so that we can send it in a timely fashion to the senate so that they can go through their shall we say particularly senatorial process to get it done in time before they leave, so if we're talking about next thursday being on the floor, we have to back up almost until this friday to have an agreement reached so that we can duly note it. pursuant to the new rules we don't count weekends in the 72-hour notice so we have to have something that we can post sometime this weekend so that the time ticks away in order for us, before it goes to rules and
1:20 pm
to the floor. so when we have an agreement, we will write it up and we have to do all of that by friday evening. reporter: what are the policy issues [ inaudible ]? >> it's all about money, right? i think i said yesterday, if you read my letter, it was very clear. our concern is the additional initiative that had been added for veterans, whether you approve of the policy or not, they have become the law and we need to cover them. we don't think that that should be coming out of the regular base, so we don't want the veterans resources to be competing with each other or competing with other very valuable domestic priorities. so i think we are understanding
1:21 pm
each other and when we have an announcement, you will be the first to know. reporter: on your house resolution condemning the president, were you surprised that more republicans didn't side with democrats and what do you think at the end of the day was achieved given that it wasn't -- it was essentially a party line vote. >> it was not legislation to go to senate and to be signed by the president. it was for us to say and by the way, in the most gentle way, you had no idea the provisions some people wanted to have in that resolution. this is as benign, it condemned the words of the president, not the president, but the words of the president and in doing so, it anchored itself in the words of ronald reagan. ronald reagan, beautiful speech by ronald reagan which i reference all the time.
1:22 pm
so you would have thought that that benign approach might have appealed to them. but when you say were you surprised, were you disappointed, my expectations are not great, but you always hope that they might do the right thing and say that that language that the president used was not -- was beneath the dignity of the president, beneath the dignity of the people he was criticizing. by the way, we were offended that he spoke in such a way that members of congress, but we were offended that he said that about people across the country all the time. go back where you came from. and that by its definition, those words are racism. if you go look in the a.p. and other places where they define certain words, that's what that is. but we weren't saying he was racist. we were saying the words that he used were racist. so that was as gentle as it could be, considering the
1:23 pm
inappropriate ne inappropriateness and disgusting nature of what the president said. so we did what our members wanted to do and had a very strong 100% vote on it. reporter: the president is clearly trying to cast this broader debate as a choice between him and your more progressive members. this fight has now dominated the conversation this week. you've had your resolution. the democrats are rallying behind these members. are you concerned that the president is goading you? >> you know what, with all due respect, let's not waste our time on that. we're talking about what we're going to do to help the american people. our caucus is unified on all the facts. throughout the whole campaign, i said to the candidates don't even mention his name. everybody knows who he is. you don't have to describe him to anybody. let's just talk about what we are going to do. we are going to devote the whole month of august to our for the people agenda, which was successful in terms of connecting with people and their
1:24 pm
concer concerns. still, the cost of health care, the stagnation of wages and the distrust of government are still -- loom large as concerns for the american people. that's what we're going to be about. we're not having him set our agenda. we are setting our own agenda. reporter: do you have any concerns that the focus on impeachment today and the votes on the floor related to it could jeopardize robert mueller's appearance next week? >> no. i think we will get rid of all this right now. we did our resolution expeditiously. we will deal with the -- mr. green's resolution, but we do have to have a clear path. i do, i do think that the president is trying to, and we can not buy into his pall that
1:25 pm
he wants to create over everything. we all know the argument that can be made against us in terms of our philosophy, in terms of our priorities and the rest, and the president knows the argument that can be made against him and therefore he wants to distract from them. you have to give him credit. he's a great distractor. that's what this is about. so let's just take it to a better place. let's take it to a better place. america. the president wants to make america great again, we all do. what does that mean? what is america? so many times we have come together to talk about america, america as our ideals in the constitution. an example to the world of founding documents that rejected a monarch and put forth separation of powers, article i. the legislative branch having that priority and that is being dishonored by the president of
1:26 pm
the united states. what is america? we the people. we the people. nation of immigrants, by and large, and he is denigrating all the newcomers that come to our country in complete opposition to the beautiful words of ronald reagan in the last speech that he made to the congress -- to the country as president of the united states. america, this beautiful land from sea to shining sea and beyo beyond, god's gift to us that he is almost every day but certainly every week degrading and saying that we're not going to deal with climate on the basis of any science. really? what is america? our values. and that's the debate we have all the time, the battle of the budget and the rest in terms of how we invest in our children's future and how these things all come together, that under the guidance of our founders, we the
1:27 pm
people, they said in the pre preamble to the constitution. they also said e pluribus unum, from many, one. we knew we had to be one and that beautiful guidance is something that we must constantly keep in mind as we engage in our differences, that at the end of the day we want to be unifying, not dividing. i wish the president would read that. thank you all very much. neil: you were listening to nancy pelosi. not quite what we had calculated amid all this talk she had made peace with congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. she made a brief reference to those who do not necessarily share the opinion to radically go after impeachment at this stage might be a mistake. she did say this impeachment effort that's being pushed by al green among others in the house of representatives, the vote will go on and she feels that everyone will be able to be satisfied with the results, that
1:28 pm
they will be able to express their grievance with the president, his tweets notwithstanding, whether he conducted impeachable offenses. she doesn't think any of that's going to get in the way of bob mu mueller's planned testimony next week. back with james freeman, jack otter and anne berry. she is obviously in her remarks, trying to say you know, we want to hold the president accountable for his words, we have, we don't believe the president's a racist, we believe his words are racist, but she's not letting go of that because any time you use the "r" word, it sticks. that's what i'm sure she's hoping, right? >> i think she was very measured in trying to make sure she was attacking the words, not the person. i think the reason she's doing that is she is, i think, trying to create a little bit of distance between her and the squad in terms of the degree of rhetor rhetoric, the ignition she puts behind what she says.
1:29 pm
she was very careful but is sort of saving her bullets. she's gearing up going into the next week or so. i think she's picking her spot. neil: that depends on what the president does to respond to this. >> well, i think she's trying to be the grownup here. so often, all parties fail miserably at that. they make an attempt, then sink lower than their opponent. i think she's desperately trying to be that person and i think definitely trying to build that distance with the squad, because they realize that that's a losing game and we have been saying, we were saying it for 15 minutes before she went onstage, that's a losing game. she needs to distance herself and the party. neil: you can talk about the adult. you might argue that ironically, neither republican or democrat, someone like emanuel cleaver was, who walked out of that saying it had become a circus. i'm going to talk to him later today. the democratic congress , he sad
1:30 pm
this has got to stop. >> she wants to move on from this issue. she started out with a laundry list of items -- she didn't -- speaker pelosi didn't put on a red hat but i believe she said the president wants to make america great again, we do, too. neil: she was the same person who said he wants to make america white again. so they each play this game. you are talking about saying his words were racist, he wasn't racist, but again, you use the "r" word again and again and again. >> i think so, but i think she can't not, right, because there was this moment the democrats stood behind the "r" word. she can't divorce herself from that completely without divorcing herself from the party. she is trying to thread that needle which is how do i stick to the party line, stick to the consensus view, but i do create the distance. neil: you think that was her message about getting to the
1:31 pm
squad, tone it down, guys? >> i think she is trying to say that is just one piece of the dialogue right now. there are really important pieces of legislation we are putting forward that should be the stage stealers. let's try and dilute that a little bit and focus on the bigger picture. neil: i want to bring -- we will get into this argument. patrice, i had a chance to speak to the democratic congressman from texas yesterday. he has been targeted by the so-called squad, these four fre freshman progressive congresswoman, to be primaried because he's too moderate, works too much with the president and they don't like it. his reaction to that yesterday. >> well, certainly, this group called the justice democrats, i think they are not democrats, quite honestly. they are socialists. they want to impose their vision to texas and we certainly know that in texas, our vision is very different from what this social what i call this justice democrats, which are really
1:32 pm
socialists, they're not really democrats. neil: what did you make of that? he was not burying the hatchet there. >> no, he wasn't. but he is making an interesting point which is that this squad is pushing the democratic party very far to the left, farther than a lot of moderates would be comfortable with and it's going to be difficult for them to be elected in places like texas, where over the past couple of years, i think democrats are seeing some pickup in areas like austin. so you know, the more they tie democrats to the socialist party, i think it's great because it presents a really great contrast of those who actually support free markets and capitalism versus those who want to redistribute everything we worked so hard for and give it willy-nilly to everyone else. neil: you always hear about battling for the soul of the party, whether it's republicans wanting to go far, far right populist or they want to be rockefeller type republicans. the democrats are dealing with that themselves. a lot of them have been talking about it. it began with steny hoyer.
1:33 pm
it continued with nancy pelosi saying yes, these four congresswomen won in their districts, they are to be commended, they are passionate, but let's not forget the 36 others who came to the house who are more of a moderate bent. i think her message is that's how we're going to win. >> yeah, certainly 2018, the model for democrats that worked were moderate candidates in swing districts, not giving the aoc socialist message. the problem, though, is it's not so easy for nancy pelosi to dismiss these new back benchers because they have been so influential in democratic politics. nl neil: and they get the media oxygen. >> the green new deal, endorsed by every democrat senator running for president. so aoc is not speaking to a small group in washington, although i think she speaks for very few people nationwide. she's very influential within the congress. neil: i go back to markets and
1:34 pm
if you indulge me on this, i wonder the closer we get to the election and it looks like that is the winning message for democrats, then let's say it is continuing to poll well, in a general election, wall street would fret over that, right? it's not a red or blue thing. they are worried about losing green. >> good line. yes. they would. but think about a couple things. first of all, the health care stocks seem to have baked a lot of this in already. contrarians coming out saying time to buy health care. also, think about how hard it was to pass the affordable care act. obama, you know, pulled every string barely made it across the finish line, with what frankly is not a terribly radical health care plan in the global scheme of things. medicare for all is, at least for americans, so the odds of that actually getting through the house and senate i think are pretty slim. so i don't think -- i think -- neil: although many of them raised their hand when they talked about the candidates,
1:35 pm
about swapping their own plan for that. >> swapping their own plan, i'm sorry? neil: for a public alternative. >> oh, exactly. neil: patrice, could i ask about that? you obviously with the independent womens forum, the argument has been that the president still has his core now voters and they are by and large, not exclusively, but not so fortunate with women and these comments, niece athese are polls, i don't want to put too much stake in them at this point, but that he's losing ground with women as a result. not insurmountable but notable. what do you think? >> i push back on that, neil. when we look at the exit polling, we saw he won women -- he lost women, only gaining about 41%, 42% of the female vote. when you look at 2018 and the results there, women went for republicans by about 39%. so maybe 3% lost -- neil: wait a minute. when you say women by what margin? >> sorry. the number, the women who voted
1:36 pm
for republican candidates in 2018, waiit was about 39%. neil: versus how much was it for democrats? >> 59%. something like that. neil: a lot less. >> that's still a lot less. but you're talking about it's not a perfect apples to apples. neil: i got you. >> what i'm saying is there is a strong core of support that supports president trump both on the economic issues but also on immigration, also on foreign policy. so in suburban america you do have some women who don't like the rhetoric he uses and some of the language that he uses, but they do like his policies. which is why i think the campaign is launching into this kind of going after women because they recognize that if they can peel off enough of those votes and get them back, those women can make a difference in some of these swing states. neil: let's go back to the point, whatever the difference in the sexes when it comes to economic security, looking after their kids, they are pretty
1:37 pm
similar, aren't they? >> if you look at who controls a lot of household spending, it disproportionately falls to women. studies have shown that. that's why marketers are trying to get to the household female decision maker. neil: my wife gives me an allowance. >> it's the economy, stupid. when it comes to moving to the election and cash in consumers' pockets, i think that's going to be a very powerful piece of the puzzle that voters including women, including men of all genders are going to be thinking about as they cast their vote. neil: thank you for waiting through that whole event. you are very patient. you are getting work done on your laptop. patrice, always a pleasure. thank you for taking the time. we are following that. you know, the point we were making earlier, the markets are dissuaded or moved by any of this, they have a funny way of showing it. we were down about 46 points before nancy pelosi started speaking. look at that. we are down about 46 points after. so there's no, you know, connection there. yet.
1:38 pm
after this.
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
neil: all right. facebook libra could be the savior or the sinner. anyway, it's the people behind it getting grilled today. this is coming from the house of representatives, but it's going to continue. edward lawrence has a lot more on that. edward? reporter: neil, this debate is not over. facebook now trying to convince members of the house of representatives that launching a global currency for them is a good idea. like the senators, members of the house of representatives had issues with facebook's privacy concerns and other company issues they have been having. lawmakers asked the representative from facebook, if they would consider waiting to launch libra until the laws can be written to catch up with the technology. >> so the risks are very great.
1:42 pm
now, firstly, this is only my own personal belief, i don't think you should launch libra at all, because the creation of a new currency is a core government function and should be left to democratically accountable institutions that are accountable to the american people. reporter: republicans wanted to know how facebook plans to police libra, specifically there's a concern about terrorists using the network to fund their operations or other criminal entities. another concern is facebook will try to impose its social will upon the network, upon libra, meaning that if facebook does not agree with your ideas, then you could be barred from using the currency. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back on the stability of the currency of libra. the head of libra, david marcus, says that because it will be based on a reserve with a basket of currencies, it will be stable. >> the thoughtful answer is if you abide by the law, you have
1:43 pm
access to it. that is the thoughtful and the right answer but you haven't given me that which gives me great pause and concern that the model of libra is going to be the model of facebook where we get to decide. that concerns me. reporter: marcus testified that the large cash reserves will be held by large banks around the globe. now, the interest on those reserves, he testified, would go to run the libra network. it also go back to the governance bodies, the 100 or so companies that would govern libra as well as money to the original partners, the original investors in this currency. back to you. neil: boy, everyone wants to look into this. edward, thank you very much. edward lawrence on capitol hill. you might recall yesterday, the billionaire peter thiel telling the president you know, it might be a good idea to look into google and its ties to chinese entities and their top security folks. google denied that but that has not stopped the president from recommending that his attorney general start sniffing around.
1:44 pm
cyber security expert liza garber on what that would mean. >> it's an interesting story. there are so many privacy, antitrust data collection issues for all of these tech giants and right now with google, one of the additional issues we can add is its relationship with china. neil: now, i guess he is charging that that began with thiel or that they are infiltrated by chinese intelligence, but does google even operate in china? does china even allow it to operate there? do they rely on alibaba and that kind of thing? >> google actually does operate in china in a sense. it has set up what they are calling a research facility dedicated to researching capabilities for artificial intelligence, a.i., and that's been in use for some time. in fact, the reason why peter thiel came out with some of these comments is partly on the heels of a report that was released, new research came out using a.i. for different capabilities, including chinese
1:45 pm
military activity, and that's part of the problem. google is saying they would never help china's military, but by participating in the chinese economy, by participating in this research facility there, they are in fact helping the military. neil: but isn't the president's real problem with google that he thinks they are biased against him, biased against conservatives in their search engine, everything else, that that's what bothers him and this might be the excuse to go after them? >> trump's had mixed reviews on google. earlier this year he said everything's fine after he spoke with the ceo, but then he's gone back and forth on whether there is bias. it's something the senate has been hearing since yesterday, some of these issues of bias in the social media platforms themselves. really, what it comes down to is there is no transparency for any of these technological giants. you look at the recent $5 billion ftc fine against facebook which is really a drop in the bucket for them, i think they make that every 49 minutes, i read that statistic. neil: that's probably about
1:46 pm
right. >> yeah. in general, we really as consumers can't see what's happening with our privacy, we can't see where their research capabilities are being used and it's definitely being used in china. so something has to be done. but i'm not sure if treason is the call to arms. neil: all right. we will watch it closely. thank you for taking the time today. appreciate it. all right. well, this is something about technology that elon musk wants to do to implant a computer chip in your brain. we wanted to try this out on charlie gasparino. he's not here, but our panel is. they are still here. one of them is going to volunteer. after this. what's going on up here? can't see what it is yet. what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic.
1:47 pm
i love this thing. it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat. i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star. i come face-to-face with a lot of behinds. so i know there's a big need for new gas-x maximum strength. it relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort fast. so no one needs to know you've got gas. gas-x.
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again! neil: you know, i shoo'ed my
1:50 pm
panel away way too early. good thing they're still here, to talk on a subject near and dear to their hearts. elon musk cooking up a brain implant technology that they just put this chip i guess into your skull, and i don't know what good it does but it's there, and it follows you and tracks you. this way my wife can keep track of my dunkin' donuts visits. i don't know where this goes. you know, i keep hearing this is the wave of the future and all this. i just think it's like big brother. it's a little scary. >> it's super-scary. it's also one of those things where science fiction can really become science fact. when i read about this, elon musk positioned this as a way of potentially treating cognitive degenerative diseases but if you go back and look at other technologies like gene editing, that started off as a way to help with therapy and medical usage but has turned into something more onerous. i worry this will go in a
1:51 pm
similar direction. neil: what do you think? >> there are uses most of us could agree with but it could go off the rails real quick. >> i think at a certain price, i'm willing to let elon implant it in me but i'm worried given his track record he won't implant it on time. neil: or the power will just drain. you will stop mid-track. you know, this technology has been around awhile. we do it with pets to keep track if they get lost, whatever. but it's another matter, this goes beyond just identifying where you are, but it can help you with diseases, but it is just another reminder of how technology could change the way we literally behave on a minute by minute basis. >> elon has a response to that. he's sending it to me right now. >> it will improve my cognition, i'm willing. but depending on your preferences, you are already pretty dialed into the grid. if you're worried about another privacy invasion. neil: you're probably right. speaking of elon, what he's up
1:52 pm
to, tesla is still pushing these self-driving cars, this technology that now has expanded to almost every major car company, including renault earlier today, indicating it's going to buy the biggest battery maker, electric battery maker. this technology is obviously going places. not the chip thing, but you know, driverless cars. that's the future. >> yeah, i actually have more confidence in him, and he has -- he has created great technology. i think the technology is going to be there, it really is there in many ways already. the problem is regulation and litigation. i think that's why it's not going to be expanded and used -- neil: would you get into one? he hopes to have other fleet of taxis. >> it's funny -- not funny, it often ends up in tragedy but it's because the machines cannot account for mistakes people make. then the machine will probably, if it's not already, be a better
1:53 pm
driver than a person very quickly. but anticipating the weirdness of individual decisions by people. neil: they still say the studies, they have a much much higher safety and accuracy rate than individuals. but still, i don't know. it would freak me out. >> just if you heard auto pilot was going to land the plane, you would probably rather have a human doing it just because we are programmed to think that way. but to james' point, i think it will be regulation for me. how do you train a machine to make a split-second decision that might require split-second is actually too long, even less than that, to decide between, i don't know, a pedestrian or harming the occupants of the vehicle? neil: that's where the chip would come in. you can at least say oh, my god. all right. finally, netflix earnings are after the bell today. this is not a company we look at earnings or revenues, just how many additional subscribers they've got, right? what do you look at when netflix comes out with numbers? >> i think it's definitely subscriptions. i think also looking at where they are going to try and push
1:54 pm
their content towards. so international growth has been a real engine for netflix, much more so than -- neil: but they are losing some of that, right? >> they are. i think it's a lot more competition, whether it's disney or amazon coming into the space. what's interesting for netflix, will they diversify their content, go into audio, go into music, what else are they going to do and how are they going to start clawing back some of those slots they have lost, whether it's content going back to some of the original studios or is there something more creative they will start doing to fill those spots. neil: they are spending a lot of money on that content. >> i'm not sure they have a huge advantage in this very competitive market against a lot of people putting billions into new content creation. they were first at creating a great customer interface. whether that's a durable advantage over time, i don't know. neil: you think now with some of these other offerings, that they are at a disadvantage? >> i think you can count on disney to have a pretty appealing consumer-facing product, yeah.
1:55 pm
neil: i'm also wondering about the whole appeal of this, you know, the whole appeal to begin with, you cut the cord with these guys and hulu and some of the others, and now those who have done so are actually paying more than they did when they had the cord. i'm wondering if that is going to be a problem. >> absolutely. people have to make decisions and the question is will netflix be the winner. and can they be a winner with this massive debt they're piling up. that's the number that i'm watching when it comes to netflix. because they are spending so much. disney has got it in the vault. others will figure out creative ways to do it. neil: all right. guys, i want to thank you all very much. see, i didn't make any of you out to get that chip implanted. if you see charlie gasparino on the way out, wouldn't that be fun? all right. james, jack, ann, thank you very much. take a quick peek at the corner of wall and broad. we have the dow down about 37.25 points. it's still doing quite well if you think about it. records reached a couple of days ago. by and large, the market is
1:56 pm
unrough unruffled by these developments. it's a remarkable testimony to a market that simply will not stop. more after this. -driverless cars... -all ground personnel... ...or trips to mars. $4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go.
1:57 pm
1:58 pm
hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate...
1:59 pm
and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ >> we don't ever want to pass up it seems an opportunity to escalate. that is what this is because we want to just fight. i abandon the chair. neil: for regular viewers of this show we had democratic missouri congressman emanuel cleaver on a lot. he is joining us on "your world" at 4:00 p.m. a pastor by training, democrat by party. he fed up with both about the antics. he is really ready to rumble. we'll be doing that, a couple hours from now, charles payne. charles: you your relationship and chemistry with him is amazing. i cannot wait to watch that. you guys are great together. neil: thank you, charles.
2:00 pm
charles: we're talking about summer doldrums. more importantly waiting for the fed. right now we're looking to see what the fed may say as we look at the "beige book." it will help inform what happens next. let's go to jennifer schoenberg at the fed. jennifer? reporter: economy was holding up just fine in mid-may through mid-july in line with what we saw in the spring but manufacturers across half the districts are grappling with major trade uncertainty anecdotal evidence across the federal bank 12 districts shows. they saw a further weakening in activity during this period due to tariffs. anecdotally in the boston federal reserve district that tariffs led to higher cost, lower demand and higher uncertainty. they said it was hard to find suppliers outside of china, that the cost of finding a new suppliers outweigh the benefit. they are hiring consultants to ac

34 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on