tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News December 13, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
today. the dow on a tear today. less than 100 points away from dow 20,000. if ever there's a time to look at your 401(k), this might be it. we will be looking at 401(k)s and the stock market, but first the big fuss over an elector meeting six days away. democrats demanding election tors get an opportunity to see what role russia played and whether they hacked it or made minced meat of it. the implication being that the other agencies were involved. by pushing the election tors to see what they have, are they sending out a reminder that the election tors switchors switche.
i raced this earlier. >> i think it is good for the process. transparency. neil, look, the russians interfering in this election, that's unprecedented, that's wrong. >> do you think to the degree it influenced the outcome of the election itself? >> no. i think that trump had enough votes in wisconsin and pennsylvania, in iowa and industrial states, but that's not the issue. the issue is interference in our electoral process by a country that's been very unfriendly to us. >> this is the same, i take no issue with fighting them for bad calls, we all make bad calls, in 2003 there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. the same cia that said in 1998
that it was surprised by india having nuclear capability and nuclear tests. the same cia that said in 1990, the cia was caught off guard when saddam hussein invaded kuwait. the same cia that missed 9/11. they have a track record like neon diets. why are we automatically assuming what they're saying is unequivocally true? >> it is not just the cia, it is 17 agencies. it is national security agencies, state department intelligence. >> there were 13 others at the time. >> neil, it is not good that the president of the united states is belittling our intelligence agency. he is the main customer. and for him to trash our intelligence agencies is a very bad precedent, it is wrong and, you know, the fact is the russians did interfere. >> didn't democrats press the intelligence agencies when george bush went to war based on
a cia claim and other agency claims there were weapons of mass destruction. then it was okay to go after bush for that because the information supported the view in retrospect with regrets over going to war. now having it the other way around, donald trump is saying it might be russia, might be china, other entities, what's wrong with having doubts about a so-called consensus view that's been wrong, often times more often than not? >> because the cia, our intelligence agencies, their mission is to provide unvarnished, nonpartisan information. >> i understand that. but they have gotten stuff wrong. >> there's a dispute there but there's no dispute on the russia issue, neil. you know that. the problem is that donald trump -- >> no, i don't know that. i am not sticking my head in the
sand. we have john bolton saying he is not surprised that a country or countries were trying to mess with our election. he's not convinced it is russia acting alone. could be if that's the case to go after them, or it could be china or other places, north korea comes to mind, they have a record of tampering in other things and cyber threats to our country. what i am saying, would you agree to the same rush if we had hillary clinton winning the election and trump votes were stating this and we ought to explore russia or any other country's role in the election, would you be just as zealous? >> yes, i would. this is why it is important the bipartisan senate committee, john mccain, lindsey graham, jack reed, republicans look into this, that the president ordered a national intelligence assessment of the issue. let's look into it and find out but let's not trash our professionals in the intelligence agency in the cia.
>> wish we had trashed it in 2001 and 2003 and in '98. wish we had trashed it ahead of bay of pigs. >> we did trash it. but right now, neil, it is so obvious the russians interfered. >> it was so obvious a cia plan to launch an attack on cuba against castro would work. it was so obvious that the indians didn't have any any nuclear capability until they proved they did. we learned it is obvious after the fact. i am taking no sides. i applied the same standard to whoever won. >> well, look, $70 billion we spend on all our intelligence agencies. >> and i mentioned a half dozen examples it was wrong. >> they're our best vehicle to know what's going on. >> you're not even entertaining the possibility that data could be wrong or not complete or other countries could be
involved. i'm not an apoll gist for donald trump. you're gathering the electors together and have them vote. >> he doesn't want intelligence briefings. he trashes them. that doesn't make sense. >> let's say we found out russia was involved. say we found out russia was involved. what do you want them to do, not vote for donald trump because now intelligence that russia was involved? what's the purpose of this? >> no, the purpose is to find out what happened with the russian involvement. >> all right. say russia was involved. electors know russia was involved. do you want them to vote differently because they find out russia was involved? >> they should vote their conscience, no. i don't think it will change the outcome. >> why do it. >> no reason they can't ask for this information because it is in the national interest.
>> it seems like it is in democrats' interest to get the results of the election by putting seeds of doubt that might be very well justified, but you tell the electors that russia was behind hacking the election. you guys decide whether that can weigh on your conscience. that's what you're saying. >> the electors themselves are asking for this probe. >> that russia was involved. are you then telling or it should be in their conscience to flip their vote? >> they should vote their conscience but i don't think it is going to change and shouldn't change the view. the numbers indicate that donald trump won the election. >> all right. i'm sorry that got nasty, we did save time talking over one another. this burns my goat. comes back to why do this at all, why make this information available to the electors, if they have to know russia was involved and hacked the election and you're telling vote your
conscience as a result, what you're telling them to do, you still want to vote for the winner of this, if he might have benefitted from hacking by the russians even though you cannot prove, a, that they were involved on their own and b, that it altered the outcome of the election. which no one proved on the latter point. then ask the question why gather electors together to debate this if the only interest is to give information out. it is out there. i tell you what they want to do, they want to reverse the election outcome. if it were switched around, they would be crying holy murder, but again, that's just me. i'm looking at the history of unequivocally intelligence that wasn't wrong unless it concerned bay of pigs or bringing down fidel castro or 2001 and the attacks on 9/11. some big exceptions. now what? retired army lieutenant tony schaefer, young america's
foundation, emily da chin ski and robin vier a. we begin with you, robin. to what end, you can't make the argument this altered the election outcome, you want to make the argument that the russians were involved hacking our election, what difference is that supposed to make six days ahead of election tore meeting, that they should switch votes as a result? >> neil, governor richardson had it right. comes down to transparency. people fear what they don't know. electors need to have the information. >> so any information as he outlined, then what should they do? >> if you consider yourself an american patriot, you would want to remove the threat of foreign adversary interfering with our election. >> offensive, bothers you. what do you want the electors to do, not vote for trump? >> no. i want them as governor richardson said to take the information into account.
>> take it in account and do what. >> vote the way that they're -- >> you don't mean that. colonel, what i think, he is a good man, not meaning to put him on the spot, to what end is this rehashing, even if russia were involved, no doubt about it, to what end and tell the electors this. >> neil, let me be clear, governor richardson is not telling the truth. there are not 17 agencies backing up the cia report. this is completely insane. this is a straw man. there's one agency that has gone back and looked at information that jim clapper put forth on november 17 that there's no link. cia has gone back on its own, my judgment is that the anonymous source that called "new york times" was an attempt to involve itself in domestic politics. otherwise you see nsa and fbi
saying on these dates we observed these events. you're not seeing that. you're not seeing transparency as the democrats keep saying, there's no transparency. >> i want to give them all of that. for the purpose of argument say russia was behind it, if russia alone was messing up our electoral process, no one has taken the next leap to say it effected the outcome. what they all seem to be saying including governor richardson, we just want the electors to be aware. that's a line of bunk. you want them to switch their vote. you want to plant a seed of doubt to switch their vote, even though you cannot prove it switched the outcome of the election. you're putting doubt out there to take the election back. that's how i see it. i could be wrong. that's how i see it. what do you think? >> for me, look, i think that's exactly the point. everything that's going on here is trying to create not transparency but plant seeds of doubt. >> the good colonel weighed in on that.
do you think that's what's going on? >> i think that's what you're seeing when there's a recycled line about voting your conscience because governor richardson didn't have a good enough answer. bottom line, is this relevant to the way they vote, is this briefing relevant to the way they vote. if you cannot answer yes, it is a waste of time. i find less trust in the cia to be very interesting considering when i grew up in the bush years it was never the case. bottom line, did russia make people pull levers in wisconsin, ohio, pennsylvania? absolutely not. there's your answer to the question. >> robin, if you had the best knowledge we have now, that they interfered in the election, maybe acting alone, argue about the intelligence, give you the benefit of the doubt and say the russians were alone in doing this, then what? telling the electors so they know and find out what we now know, knowing it is out there, should that be enough to kpel th -- compel them to change their
vote. >> hamilton wrote the papers to prevent this. i don't know if they should change their vote. they need more transparency. >> what do you want? i gave you transparency. here we go. the russians were involved to hack the election. we don't know, can't make the next leap whether it effected the outcome, very unlikely. you are saying what? they have an obligation to do what? >> donald trump said it could be a 400 pound man. we just need to know what happened. >> i'm telling you. it was russia. i will buy this stupid argument it was russia acting alone. then what do the electors do with it? >> vote their conscience. >> that's not an answer. >> there's doubt about the outcome of the election bought your candidate lost. then saying she won the popular, fine. where is this going? colonel, where do you think this is going?
>> neil, no doubt. look, give them the benefit of the doubt. something is wrong with the election overwhelmingly no matter what, the electoral college victory is mr. trump's. therefore everything i have seen, i have seen this constantly the past week, democrats have done everything to plant seeds of doubt. and by the way, if they can't destroy electoral college, they'll destroy the relationship between america and russia before it gets going. >> i wish we had more time. this is sticking in my craw. very good discussion. we look at this intelligence, folks, and you think about it. remember the same group that's telling you now that intelligence is undeniable, unequivocal, the same group that wouldn't latch on after the fact to cia intelligence that said there were weapons of mass destruction later questioning that, embarrassed by that for getting into a war they would later regret and blame on the same agency they're praising now. that, my friends, is bull.
the market.redict but through good times and bad... ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. just getting this report that ibm. over the next four years, no indication as to whether this ties in with incoming trump administration but would follow a string of companies that indicated great commitments to the united states and beefing up operations in the united states, wouldn't surprise me if it was trump related. nevertheless, this on a day the dow is sprinting ahead close to 20,000. we have gotten within about 450
points today, or actually within 45 points. finished about 88 points away after a record lunge. 19, 911. what drives this, since the election, this trump rally that has seen small stocks do even better, double that gain. market watcher dave mainy with thoughts on that. what do you think is going on, dave? >> i think what you're seeing is the confirmation of a feeling which caught everybody by surprise on election night, when it was kind of like gee, we never thought he could win, after that sharp overnight drop, everyone said this isn't bad, it is good for consumer sentiment and frankly feels fundamentally good for business. i think what's happening is that penny is dropping, dropped into the machine, people are
internalizing it. markets are not terribly sentimental or emotional anyway. i think there's a hard, clear eyed analysis that says you know what, this is a fundamentally different and better business climate and this should mean good things for corporate earnings and for stock prices. >> do you think any of this could be disrupted if the hunt to get information on russia being involved in the election could rattle investors, if it looks like it might succeed getting electors to peel off donald trump. 37 would have to do so for that to happen. but what do you think? >> sure. if it were to get any purchase or traction, but i mean, my own sense or read is that it is not. but i think if it did, sure. the uncertainty that would inject into the market would be immense and you would see if that were to happen, you would see a crash. but i don't think that's going
to happen. >> would i buy this market at these levels, if someone came up, said i have been out of this market forever, and i want in, what would you tell him? >> i would tell them to exercise a little caution. i think the track record of the market going where it has been is casting no dispersion on what's been done. i think the trump administration or transition has been better than trump the candidate for kind of making people feel good about the economy. i think his choices have been terrific, but that's a separate thing from where valuation levels are. >> good to talk to you. dave mainy, out of beautiful denver. 20,000, might happen tomorrow. we have fancy graphics and music for that i think. it should be a party when it happens. meanwhile, forget about what cabinet secretary, why so many
well, donald trump is certainly moving fast putting a cabinet together. he has a record number of individuals to put in there, besides just the cabinet secretaries, talking about the underlings which seems to grow. want to show you in lincoln's time. they were showing me this. there's lincoln's cabinet. team of rivals. a team of neighbors looked like there. i do want to show you barack
obama's. little crowded around the table. that's press, doing this to make the point. they need a lot of chairs. and a lot of it has to do with the fact that over the years in order to give an area or specialty status, give it a cabinet level department like energy and education and on and on. ken blackwell, good to have you. >> good to be with you. >> lot of people are giving the president-elect heat because his choices seem to be for shaking things up, not even taking their department out of existence. i think of that with rick perry, former texas governor that's often said of the energy department that we don't need it. now likely energy secretary, he could maybe lead the charge to dismantle it. people are aghast at that. what do you think? >> i think the choices have sent the right message to the market and the market is responding right on cue.
look, he had a mandate and that was to turn over the tables and not to embrace the status quo but to actually change things, put the harness back on the reach of government in our lives, give the free market a chance to work, grow, produce jobs for working americans. i think he is sending the right message. if you read his book "the art of the deal" you get a real sense he is about going after the best talent. i think given his agenda, he is going after the best talent and putting together a masterful cabinet. i am not so much concerned about how many seats are at the table, i am concerned about the reach of government in our lives and i think he is set on putting the harness back on government and giving our individual freedoms a chance to blossom. >> i also think they have the
wrong perception of what a cabinet secretary should do. should he or she be promoting their department or changing it if it is proven ineffective to a deal. if it goes too far, being overly intrusive with regulations and requirements, let's say the epa, a good example. when scott pruitt comes along to say wait a minute, the way we have been operating is not correct or poz der. when you willy-nilly keep demanding hike after hike of minimum wage to get to $15, you're doing more harm than good. who says that's necessarily her as ee. redefining the role of what cabinet secretaries should do and -- >> you know, the reality is first we start from the fact that it is donald trump's labor department, it is president trump's department of housing and urban development.
these secretaries don't have exclusive control over those departments. their job is to carry out the trump agenda through those departments and one of the things donald trump understands is that there's too much bureaucracy, too much constraint on free market enterprise and an economy that's not producing enough jobs for working americans to go to work. i'll tell you right now, he's going to get a lot of table pounding and screaming and jaw jacking from the left, but neil, i'll tell you and you already know this as my dad used to say, dogs don't bark at parked cars. thank you, ken blackwell.
all right. the president-elect has an ambitious tax cutting agenda, should be a no brainer he gets it all through. apparently he didn't check with mitch mcconnell. the republican leader of the senate mentioned revenue neutral tax cuts which leads me to believe the tax cuts might not be as generous as the president-elect wants. what's going on there? that's next. a silicon valley server farm. the vault to man's greatest wonders... selfies, cat videos and winking emojis. speaking of tech wonders, with the geico app you can get roadside assistance, digital id cards... or even file a claim. do that.. yeah, yeah that should work. it's not happening... just try again. uh, i think i found your problem. thanks. hmm... the award-winning geico app. download it today. and i thought, well, you need to go to the doctor.
i was told that is was cancer, and i called cancer treatment centers of america. dr. nader explained that they can pinpoint the treatment. once we identified that there was this genetic abnormality in her tumor, we were able to place her on very specific therapy. our individualized care model gives each lung patient specific treatment options with innovative procedures that are changing the way we fight lung cancer. we have excellent technology that allow us to perform very specialized procedures for patients who have lung disease. to learn more about these targeted therapies and advanced procedures for lung cancer, ....
i can only speak for myself but i think this level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable. my preference on tax reform is that it be revenue neutral to the government. >> was that mitch mcconnell's way of saying don't go crazy on the tax cuts, mr. president-elect. he of the united states senate after all. so he is sending out warnings, don't go too far or too fast or too big, i don't know. but i do worry about him sort of pricing in what would be modest tax cuts if that's the case. former economic adviser to president reagan, that worried me. i don't know if he is sending a
signal like rein it in. >> i don't think so, neil. i think he wants lower rates, get rid of deductions, exclusions, exemptions, trump talked about that as well. where mitch mcconnell was focusing was infrastructure spending, he wants to be sure that doesn't go awry, become like stimulus spending. >> i understand that. he was talking about tax breaks. and he was talking about static accounting. i don't want to get boring. >> that's true, you're right. >> you and i both know you don't price a tax cut like a spending initiative, that comes actively down the road. he is right to fear near term makes deficits worse, probably will, but in short order revenue comes flowing in. tell the washington police that, the revenue, not spend it like drunken sail leors. >> the first tax bill with
reagan was not revenue neutral, was static revenue negative. >> reagan knew and you knew. >> that's what we did it for. it was to pump start the economy and really get it going. >> can't pump start with a meager tax cut. you might as well not do it at all. >> let me say this about that, if i can, neil. the '86 tax cut was spectacular, cut the highest rate from 58 to 28, corporate from 46 to 34, raised and went through 14 brackets to two and made it revenue neutral, getting rid of deductions, exemptions, loopholes. it can be done well. i'm worried about rhetoric behind it. but i think there's no worry. he will get corporate down to 15%, reduce marginal rates on personal income taxes, 100% capital purchases, and most of
all symbolically, get rid of the death tax. that's the most disgusting tax. >> i am with you on that. i think tax cuts, big ones, will do just what the doctor ordered. when i hear you talk revenue neutral and that's well and good, take nothing away from that. i worry it is my op i can, short term in thinking. >> it is. >> to get something revenue neutral from the moment out of the gate, you'll never get anything big. >> i love the position you take. that's the position you need to take. and i agree with you 100%. let's not talk about revenue neutrality. let's talk about dropping marginal rates period. then when we look at the code decide whether in fact to get rid of loopholes, deductions, exemptions. don't use that as the first line. i had all those problems with reagan, not with reagan but with the others that said you have to first balance the budget before you cut tax rates. that was the only nun-hart bill
and never made it. we got it with jack kemp's bill which cut rates right away, bang. then waited until the economy was booming and then go in and start to cut spending and maybe get rid of loopholes. but you're completely correct. don't start with the weakest hand. >> well put. that's even better. don't start with the weakest hand. thank you, my friend. >> thank you, neil. fun to be with you. five weeks since the election. five weeks. and the whining and every excuse for coming up with why it happened. i'll tell you why it happened. but i have to think of the right words to say and clean it up for you. right after this. cartels, militias, terrorist groups. they all need a place to park their cash and cherna is their dirty little piggy bank. we're going to insert into the country while nobody is looking. we're going to steal their money, sir? no, we are going to destroy it. we're going to finish this mission.
ended up being an obsession and the fact that the russians were doing this was not an obsession. >> had he not written that letter a week or so before the election, she would have won. >> it is now clear that so-called state news can have real world consequences. >> weeks after the election that brought us donald trump, democrats are not letting go. fake news accounts, russian hacking, whatever you want to call it, democrats are not looking at the reality here. charlie joins us from outside, not so shivering cold. quite shivering cold. what do you make of this, john? >> reporter: you know, i think i was vjust born or about to be born, when john f. kennedy ran against nixon, there were questions whether kennedy stole the election, whether there was a fix in with the chicago mob outfit to give him illinois or
maybe west virginia. there could have been a recount. what richard nixon did, he did the honorable classy thing, no recount, i am not putting the country through this. john f. kennedy won the election. you would think at the very least that barack obama and harry reid should follow the example of richard nixon. i mean, it is pathetic. donald trump won. it is not going to change, the electoral college is going to vote him in. all of the recounts, two of them so far, michigan and i believe wisconsin say that he's won. it's over. they should work with him or rebuild the democratic party to try to win the base that they lost. they lost the white working class voter, they're mad about it. they lost them because they ignored that segment of the population for many years, not just the last 8 years. this has been going on in the democratic party where they sold out, for example, west virginia coal miners in favor of new york
environmentalists. they paid the price big time now. they lost. >> you know, we talked a lot about wall streeters, not monolithically republican, say let them keep talking about it, let them keep shifting the blame, they'll never get their act together, never acknowledge why they didn't make a pitch for average workers displaced, whatever you want to say, and that they welcome that. but i generally find it to be damaging to getting stuff done when the parties can't move together. republicans would argue that's what hurt them dealing with democrats when they had the run of the table, now you'll hear the opposite when the republicans have run of the table and only one party is getting stuff done. do they worry about that on either side? >> you know, listen, we're in a fractured -- look at the election results. donald trump won in three states that gave him sort of the electoral college landslide it was. electoral college landslide.
in three states won by a total of 110,000 votes. he didn't win michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania by huge margins. that's what got him over the top we should point out, winning by a small margin. also lost popular vote. this is a divided country. that said, republicans maintain house and senate. there's a legislative mandate for free market economics that trump proposed on the campaign trail. and the democrats rammed a lot of socialism down this country's throats over the last couple years, even on popular socialism, obamacare which was never quite popular, even when pitched to the american people back in '09 and '10, they rammed it through and now they're paying the price. the republicans are going to put through an agenda at odds at what obama stood for and democrats stood for, lower taxes, less regulation, and obamacare will be changed or fixed. hard to put that have in the bottle, something is going to happen.
they don't have anyone to blame but themselves. i have been critical of trump but he won, he has a legislative mandate, house, senate, states, statewide races, republicans are really in a good position now to pass a major anti-obama reform agenda, better than they have been in a long, long time, and quite frankly, i think they're going to seize on it, saw what happened the last 8 years. >> thank you very much. and for braving the cold. talk about the wildcard developments here. what if the electors that meet in six days are convinced in increasing numbers, say 27 at a minimum do this, maybe more than 30, and all of a sudden donald trump isn't an automatic victor. then what? is this economic recovery, kiss it all good-bye? ople you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis,
you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
all right. there is always an expression to sanctions on the part of regulators to make sure that they are ready if everything hits the fan at once. they all passed the so-called test. . it's crucial because if we were ever to revisit a banking or financial meltdown, the idea is to make sure that they are ready for it. . joining us right now, president obama's top economic adviser, austin goolsbee. great to see you. >> great to see you, neil. >> what do you make of wells fargo wouldn't be ready for such
an occurrence? this is all stuff built on supposed chains of events that might or might not happen but should that be a worry to folks? >> i think it should be a worry. you know, i think they should be comforted in a way by the fact that there is still somebody watching. there's two things. one is a stress test to make sure that you have enough capital to deal with terrible events. the other is a living will that is more like a will that says you can't be too big to fail. you have to put forward plans that if everything goes wrong, here's how we would break up your firm and dissolve you. >> that would break it up, austin. who breaks it up? if it was pushed to the brink there, the first call in place, the will part of it, that the bank itself break itself up or what? >> the bank -- it would go to
the fed. it depends on who it is, might go to the fed. the bank has to have outlined the break the glass plan. if we mess up royally, here's our assets, here's the way they are structured, here's what pieces you can sell off and how to close the position. >> but what about advanced market conditions as we were in eight, nine years ago? then what? can you see a situation where if it's citibank, that we wouldn't intervene? that it's too big to fail? >> i can see not intervening, or as you know, one of the big changes in the regulatory regime that we are in now, if trump doesn't rip it up, is that you're not allowed to be bailed out andve as you were before. you have to be broken up and sold off if the government is going to intervene. you can't personally -- >> it doesn't rule out
intervening. >> it does not rule it out but -- >> you just can't be the same way that you were before? >> yeah. exactly. >> could you ever envision -- it's not a right or left thing or republican or democrat thing, but i always wonder when people say that will never happen again, history proves itself it will repeat itself. can you envision a fast market freefall where, you know, things happen so fast that that's exactly what happened? >> i can envision it. i'm a paranoid person looking for where the risks are. i would like to think that we have, at the very least, put it off and made the damaging consequences of an event like what happened in 2008 smaller on the rest of society that's a lot more of the costs would be borne by the people who did it than they were in 2008 but i think
you would be naive to say nothing like that could ever happen again. >> this rally we've been having, is it a continuation of an obama rally or a president-elect rally? what does austin goolsbee think? >> i think in the run-up to the election, there was some nervousness, the stocks went down a bit. then when trump was elected and let's say at least made clear he wasn't going to do the most radical or disruptive things he had campaigned on, i think there was a pent-up bit of relief, i'll call it. so some of it comes from trump. >> austin, always a pleasure. thanks for stopping by. >> great to see you. i want to show you this woman on a plane being dragged off. you won't believe what got her dragged off the plane. after this.
all right. you don't see this every day. a woman dragged off a delta flight at detroit airport. trace gallagher, what happened? >> the official statement from delta was she was taken off delta because she violated boarding procedures. witnesses say the woman was mouthy, had a huge attitude and blew by the gate agent without showing her ticket. then she said she deserved overhead bin space. the police got on and she refused to get off so the officers tackled her and, as you can see, they dragged her off the plane. faa regulations say if you board a plane without showing your ticket, you must be removed. as the woman was being dragged off, she didn't say anything but you could hear people saying that she must have been tased. though there are no reports of police using a stun gun. the video runs about two minutes. so it's kind of unclear if they
dragged the woman all the way up the jetway into the terminal or if she eventually walked on her own. the woman was issued a citation but has not yet been charged and we should note a couple of weeks ago a trump supporter was videotaped on a plane shouting, donald trump, baby, and then shouting derogatory comments at clinton supporters. he was allowed to fly but he's been banned by delta for life. >> take the bus next time, you know? >> trace gallagher, thank you. people, everyone needs to come back up. and maybe this will do it. i want to take one last look at the closing dow figures. tomorrow could be the day. if tomorrow we do it, it would be the shortest climb from 1,000 point level to the next. a lot of this is optimism about
what the economy holds. keep in mind, tomorrow is the day we see the federal reserve hike interest rates. this time, no one sees panicked by that. we'll see you tomorrow. good night. hello, everyone. i'm dana perino along with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, greg gutfeld and eric bolling. this is "the five". >> a big surprise at trump tower as kanye west meets with president-elect donald trump. details on what they discussed, later. into but first, new developments on the transition front. the president-elect confirms he will nominate exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson to be secretary of state. condoleezza rice praised him as an excellent choice and he's called a man of great integrity that will protect the interests of the