tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News August 15, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
out to see the who, the grateful dead and janice joplin. music history was made 49 years ago today. "your world" with neil cavuto starts right now. >> neil: thank you, shepard. forget a red wave that was dragging stocks down is a blue wave of democrats coming down on nancy pelosi. hello. welcome. very good to have you. i'm neil cavuto. revoking ex-cia director's security clearance may have democrats ready to romp but they're not looking to nancy pelosi to lead the charge. garrett tenney has more. the story is growing. >> democrats are optimistic about their chances of retaking the house but there's growing concern that nancy pelosi could jeopardize their predicted blue
wave. in contests across the country, republicans are making pelosi a focal point of attack ads and tying her to the liberal agenda she represents that has led to a growing number of candidates distancing themselves from the former speaker and even releasing their own ads against the california democrat. the latest to do that is kathy manning, running for congress in a gop-leaning district in north carolina. >> that's why i'm running, to clean house in washington. i vote against nancy pelosi as speaker, support term limits for party leaders and i won't take a time of corporate pact money. >> democrats need to win 24 seeds to retake the house. already at least 46 candidates have said they will not support nancy pelosi for speaker and at least nine house incumbents have said they won't support her either. at this point though, there's no clear alternative to the long-time house leader that says she's not worried about the race for speaker and wants the democrats to do whatever they
have to do to win. a growing number of roughly 40 districts democrats are targeting that means candidates putting as much separation as possible between themselves and the woman that wants to lead the party come november. neil? >> neil: thanks, garrett in washington. here's the oddity for this political cross currents today. you have everybody seizing on this idea of revoking the security privileges from brennan, right? and in the middle of that, democrats of course salivating at the prospect of the political uproar that will cause but saying they don't want nancy pelosi to be part of it. it's weird. the timing is weird. the whole frequency connection is weird. we're going to get the read on this with mattie doppler. we have kathy areu and lee carter. so kathy, do you find what is going on here odd that in the --
you sense with this dust-up with brennan and this coming in november will work in their favor, that they don't want nancy to be part of the parade? >> everyone loves the new car, the new car smell. so maybe the 55 democrats are saying that we need the new car and they're going with that. maybe the constituents want that. >> neil: they don't even know the new car. >> that is why not? nancy pelosi is proven. she's never gone against the party lines. she's not radical. she's not way to the left. >> neil: when that many are talking about her, do they fear anything? >> i think the good question is, nancy pelosi or not, what is the vision that democrats think that they are giving the american people when they're making this argument? whether or not you're going to washington to vote for someone for speaker or leader, that inside baseball argument. what you're going to washington to accomplish. what are your goals and visions.
nancy pelosi is repealing tax cuts, going back to the regulatory regime the obama administration put in place. it's everything that have kept wages low. if americans wants that, they can vote for nancy or anybody else. >> neil: when it comes to trashing the president and saying that he's a very sensitive and vindictive and all that, that came up in this press conference by going after the security privileges, you have to wonder whether the democrats that are bolting from her are bolting from the wrong person. what do you think? >> i think they're bolting from the establishment. it makes sense. there's a huge anti-establishment sentiment in this country. they're going left or right? no, we're going against what happened before. we're seeing it over and over again. is the bashing of nancy pelosi a smart strategy? on a case by case basis it is. nancy pelosi doesn't mind. do whatever it takes, people.
we just have to win. and it's nbc's fault that everybody is saying this. the problem i see with the democrats right now, when you vote nor the democrat party, what does that mean? i have no idea. is it resist, is it i'm for nancy pelosi, i'm against nancy pelosi? is it i'm for chuck schumer or against chuck schumer? and fine, do what you need to do to win, people, i get it but come up with a theme and make sure americans know what they're voting for. because right now, no idea. >> neil: i'm wondering in the light of the security questions, the press conference today, kathy, we're missing the fog for the trees here. do democrats especially those rebelling against nancy pelosi still have problems with a president who doesn't like criticism, if that's how they're reading this from former top security officials. if this was barack obama during this, former security officials criticizing him, would the
response be the same? >> i don't know if barack obama would go on twitter and have so much to say about omarosa from "the apprentice" and then take away security clearance from a former cia director. i don't think we would -- >> neil: leading omarosa out of it, but -- i have a question and you're being very rude. [laughter] do you find it odd though that in the middle of all of this, if this were a democratic president, forget all of this omarosa stuff, that there was a little bit of zeal in going after this president night after night and a lot of these security officials? whether that's a justification is another thing but it's been unusual. don't you think? >> the trust i would say is not there from the american people. we don't trust his reasons. he's so unpredictable. why did he do it? i don't think we trust him -- >> neil: are you saying we when
you mean i? all right. my apologies. so is there a sense here right now that democrats keep talking about this blue wave and that it's going to come. incidents like this help it, whether it's nancy pelosi or anybody. is it your view here that steps like the president took today reinforce the notion that galvanizes democrats? >> no. i think democrats every week have a different reason for why they're going to retake the house and have a success. >> neil: you think that will? >> absolutely not. so every time they think they have an idea, all the republicans running against them say you're better off now than a year ago. you'll be better off next year than this year if you continue to run your business the way you have. washington is getting out of your way to make your decisions. that's a compelling argument. >> neil: have we ever had this kind of dust-up between top
performing security officials and the president? >> no, i don't think we have. >> neil: is it going to move the meter on anything that you follow? pole sentiment or the economy? mid-terms -- >> i'm so fascinated by the way this all works every week. we're talking about this is the thing that is going to take down the president. omarosa, i can't believe this is it. the n word and the tapes. he's so unpredictable and crazy. >> reporter: it's not been confirmed. >> this is the story. everybody thinks this is the one. none of it does it. the thing that people like about the president and support the president is he is unpredictable and he will fight the agenda, that he is not going to do what anybody has done before. that's what people need to get ahold of. what the democrats need to do is focus on themselves, not taking down the president. >> the majority does not like the tweeting. the majority don't -- >> they'll go for the tweeting if it's the president. >> whether we like it or not
what are we talking about? what he tweets. >> neil: not right away. we have other issues. thank you all very much. by the way, if this was rattling stocks right now, they came off of their lows. a lot of it has to do with how this president is going to respond to turkey now that turkey has responded to us back and forth. they're getting tough and turkey is getting tough. blake burman is at the white house with more. >> turkey has retailated against the united states, about $500 million worth of tariffs on pretty wide-ranging group of products. everything from cars and alcohol to rice and beauty supplies. this was part of the reasoning from their trade minister earlier today saying and i quote, "trade wars help no one but turkey will do whatever is necessary to protect our industries and economy from assault." you might remember last week president trump announced he would increase tariff levels for steel and aluminum against
turkey. he said "our relations with turkey are not good." despite that, sarah sanders said the tariff escalation has none to do with pastor brunson who has been detained since 2016. >> the tariffs in place on steel would not be removed with the release of pastor brunson. the tariffs are specific to national security. the sanctions, however, that have been placed on turkey are specific to pastor brunson and others that we feel are being held unfairly. we would consider that at that point. >> brunson lost an appeal in court today inside turkey to be released from that country. he's being held for terrorism charges, which is u.s. government government strongly denies. at the press briefing sanders says that turkey, especially if president erdogan has treated him unfairly and might have
aren'ted to a threat. sarah sanders said it's something that we won't forget in this administration. neil? >> neil: thanks, blake. we're going to washington right now. senator mark warner, the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee was going to speak about the president's move to clamp down on those that have been critical of him, including the former director, brennan. let's listen in. >> thanks for coming out. what we've seen today is one more traditional norm being struck down by this president and the white house. the norm of our intelligence officials has been cast aside. it appears that this is a white house that feels under siege because of his former campaign manager's trial and obviously some of the issues with his former staffer, omarosa. this is an attempt to distract the american public from those items that this white house faces on a daily basis.
i guess to me this had an eerie memory of an enemy's list. these people were being singled out to have either their clearances revoked or in the process of being revoked to me smacks of nixonian practices, trying to fire anyone that is willing to criticize this president. that puts us in unchartered territory. i wonder if this president, again -- i thought there was a bit of an irony one of the reasons for taking away brennan's clearance is erratic behavior. i wonder if the white house can look in the mirror on that question. i wonder if this precedence will lead to the president trying to take away mueller and his whole team's security clearances, this is clearly another effort to
silence critics and not allow the mueller investigation and for that matter or senate intelligence community investigation to get to the bottom of this. >> you talk about the idea that this is a white house under siege and they're trying to deflect. what about people that would refute you and say wait a minute. the president is facing a lot with mueller and omarosa and so on and that is partisan politics. you're doing that. granted this is a big deal for him to take, but what about those -- >> i would say this. we've been doing some checking. can't find any historical precedence. one of the curious items on this list of people that had their clearances removed or in the process of being removed, didn't include michael flynn who appears as somebody that is subject to violations would be in a normal list of this kind of actions. i think what is troubling and i think i hope will be troubling
to all members of congress regardless of party is when you go out and take away people's security clearances in an effort to try to stifle their first amendment rights, what that does to these individuals and what signal it sends to other law enforcement, intelligence community officials that have to continue to speak the truth of power. >> what recourse do you have here -- >> neil: all right. continuing to monitor this here. this is mark warner, critical of the president's decision to revoke the security credentials of john brennan, the former cia director who has been critical of the president before and since he assumed office. the senator who is the ranking member of the intelligence committee saying the whole tone and tenor seems to be nixonian. the read on all of that from former u.s. attorney general, roberto gonzalez. what do you make of what he just said, nixonian, his response? >> really depends on the motivation and the facts underlying the revocation. obviously the president of the united states has the authority
to make these kinds of decisions. in the fact that there's a legitimate concern that john brennan having access to our most secret -- nation's secrets, that's compromised national security, then he not only has the authority but the obligation to revoke the security clearance. if in fact this was done in order to punish john brennan for his criticism of policies, again would have the authority to do so, but from my perspective, it appears to be petty and childish. but there's no question that i think he has the authority to do this. >> neil: you said petty. why? >> someone like john brennan does have experience in this arena. i think he can bring something to the table and providing information, his wisdom and advice to national security experts and the trump
administration. so having him involved is not necessarily a bad thing. the fact that he may dissent to policy is not a bad thing. having the experts in the trump administration hear those opinions is helpful to make sure that you thought through all of the contingency and all of the opposing views before making a national security recommendation to the president of the united states. so again, i think in this position as president of the united states, you'll be criticized. people will disagree with you. you have to accept that. again, i think sometimes hearing dissenting views and criticism about the decisions you're making is not always a bad thing. you sometimes can be educated and become a better informed leader and making really tough decisions. >> neil: do you think there was a relentlessness to it? the president was responding to that. and that was the case. that it sets the stage for him to move similarly against other security officials that have been just as critical. >> i don't know if it's really
setting the stage, neil. again, i don't know a lot of the underlying facts. i don't know whether or not there was truly a national security threat here, concerns about john brennan. obviously he was relentless in his criticism. but you know, as to whether or not it's going to set some kind of precedent going forward, i hope not. again, as i said, it's helpful for the administration to hear criticism, to be told, listen, i think there may be a better way of doing this. i don't think it's a bad thing when you're dealing with these very difficult decisions. >> neil: i wasn't clear. real quickly. we're tight for time and so are you. but it was very personal on the part of mr. brennan, saying that he's not up to the job, the worst president we ever had. one thing about being critical on the issues and the other would be just -- almost childish about it, criticizing the president for acting that way. but you can understand where the president is coming from, not that this might be justifiable
but he went further than other security types. >> there's no question that you're not entitled to the clearance. the fact that you once served for the government doesn't mean that you're entitled to retain the security clearance. so the administration, as i said, the president has the authority to make the decision. you know what? it's too much and i'm going to revoke this. he does subject himself to possible criticism as i said earlier that it looks petty and gives question are we setting the precedence. that is dangerous. >> neil: always good chatting with you. thanks for taking the time. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: what is interesting about this, folks, look at the markets as a proxy on this, whether they're panicking and -- i heard a network talking about a crisis. they had a funny way of respo respondi responding. kevin, this doesn't make sense. if we're in the middle of a crisis and the president is
attempting a constitutional one, the markets should be tanking all the more. looks like a big loss but it's half what it was. what happened? >> what happened here is the market got into more stable areas like real estate. you saw utilities. the rate sensitive sectors. it goes back to we're at low volatility in the markets because earnings did so well. one of the things you can take away from today is that macy's had a great earnings report. they sold off but it a firms what they're going to do with their capital, reinvesting in their business and as well as property, their people. that's great nor the economy here in the united states. so it was more of a recess risk today. >> neil: so we play out these dramas in washington from omarosa stuff to this every day. i know it's just noise to probably traders as many viewers. but what happens? >> i think the markets came to a
realization as sarah sanders pointed out in the press conference that a lot of turkey's economic woes are self-inflicting. they have foreign currency debt in the g-20. they funded the deficit by borrowing in u.s. dollars. when the dollar is going up because of higher u.s. interest rates, the lira is falling 40% that is a homemade problem that turkey is facing. it's contained. it's 1.5% of global gdp. so the markets came to that realization and focused on more important things like earnings at home and the strong consumer. >> neil: kevin, we discussed this this morning but this idea that ultimately it's the economy that will decide politicians fate and party's fate and not all of this side drama, not minimizing it obviously. but to susan's point what's going on right now with turkey and the battle back and forth over trade and the like, that in the end the wind at the
president's back won't be who and what he's taking out on capitol hill but what he's doing with the economy. what he's doing with the markets. do you buy that? >> yeah, i absolutely buy that. when people go to the polls, it's what have you done for me lately and he put more money in my pocketbook, mr. president. so you're seeing small businesses redeploy their capital and raise wages for their employees. so it's not just large corporate america. you're also seeing it in small businesses. so people have never been more confident. that's going to translate into the polls. this goes back to what, you know, the difference is between democrats and republicans. democrats think they can do better with your money than you can. they think the government can spend it better and people think they can spend it better. >> neil: i apologize for the crunch time. great job as always.
meanwhile, tesla's stock was tumbling today. is it because of what charlie gasparino is reporting? wait till you hear this. ptumbli. is it because of what charlie gasparino is reporting? wait till you hear this. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you
when it's too cold for camping, we go camping. when it's too hot to work, we work. too wet to keep going? nah. this is the gator xuv835. with game-changing heat and air and three-wide seating. it's never too anything for anything. nothing runs like a deere. get $400 off the gator xuv835m at any participating john deere dealer. hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan,
he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. >> neil: all right. be careful what you tweet. i'm not talking about the president of the united states. i'm talking about the guy that runs tesla. a billionaire many times over. now he's in trouble many times over for something that charlie gasparino was the first to break. he's here to explain it all. what happened, charlie? >> what we learned today with fox business, first to report, there's now a formal investigation by the securities and exchange commission into the tweet that elon musk sent out on august 7 which said two things. number 1, that he's looking to take his electric car company private.
that's okay. the second part is where he might have run into problems. funding secured. the days that followed that tweet, it's been a mystery as to where that funding was coming from. musk says he has had broad conversations with a saudi wealth fund and from those conversations, he felt confident that funding was security. others are less certain. the security exchange commission is looking to it. what we're first to report, they have issued subpoena ramping up the investigation from a simple inquiry to a formal investigation into that statement. so what could happen to elon musk? there's a range of remedies. if he's -- if they come to a conclusion that he has a problem with this. first off, he's obviously innocent until proven guilty. he could face fines, he could face sanctions and told by the sec not to tweet company information anymore, which would be on the low end of the stuff
that he would face. if things got really bad, they thought this was a real egregious falsehood that he put out, materially false information that hurt investors and i'd did it move the stock and hurt a lot of short sales, one of the remedies is a ban from the business where you can no longer be an officer of the company or director. so that's what could play out. i will say this, neil, mr. musk is fairly sharp to tesla. harpooning him is not good for the stock. one thing i will tell people, i don't think they want to put this company out of business and they probably feel if they did something to hamper his ability to run it, even though he can be quite volatile, that would be a problem for the company. so all of those things will be on the sec's minds as it goes forward with this inquiry.
neil, back to you. >> neil: i know it's night and day comparing his propensity to tweet and the president's propensity to tweet. >> not really. >> neil: but i'll say this. be careful. >> but remember, the president is not a ceo of a public company. there's laws. there's a 10b 5 law. a security act of 1935, check me on the date but you can't put out false statements to the investing public. it's cut and dry. it seems like even based on what he said after this tweet that he has these conversations with the saudis that subject to due diligence, he thinks they're on board, that did -- >> neil: or is he talking it? not criminal intent. again, it gets back to be careful. >> yeah, listen, you're right. he might not have any intent. he was blowing off steam. he hates the short sellers.
just listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her. we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. 98% are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go! (avo) right now, get 0% apr financing on the 2018 subaru outback. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
with our largest variety of crab all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. but hurry in. 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. >> neil: remember i said that brett kavanaugh bet ever work on every work on the democrat in the senate in he met with two.
you might have to rethink that strategy. we're back in 60 seconds. o late. o late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. could help them save money on car insurance? yea,that and homeowners, renters, motorcycle and boat insurance. huh.that's nice. what happens when you catch a fish? gecko: whoa. geico. more than just car insurance. see how much you could save at geico.com. i'm ok!
>> neil: all right. brett kavanaugh was open capitol hill meeting with some senators. not just any senators, a couple of democrats. what could that mean? eliza collins, what are we to glean from that? it's a courtesy, i understand, but a number of democrats are saying they weren't going to give him that. what are we to make of it? >> it's a courtesy that only three democrats have given him. he met with two today and he's met with senator joe manchin from west virginia. the three he's met with at this point are all three that voted for neil gorsuch for the last supreme court justice and three facing really tough re-elections in states trump won by double digits. they're facing pressure to support kavanaugh. they have to take the meeting. >> neil: should we say heidi heitkamp of north dakota, joe
donnelly and joe manchin. they're in big win trump states. do you think at this point or are you getting a sense that they would vote for kavanaugh? >> well, they're reserving that they're going to wait to see what happens during the hearings. i think they'll wait to the very last minute to show their hands. i think they're really waiting to see what happens with senator susan collins and lisa murkowski. the two republicans that are sort of the question marks. they have not said which way they will vote. they are both pro choice and have broken with their party in the past. so democrats' strategy is to put the pressure on those two first, to see if those two don't do it, democrats can stand united. if they do vote for him, then you have 50 republicans and he will be in the supreme court. i think that is when you'll see democrats get on board. nobody wants to be that 50th vote but they don't mind being 51, 52, 53.
>> neil: we should say the vice president can break a tie. >> yes. >> neil: and in the case of these two republican senators, they voted for gorsuch amid the similar circumstances. not as pronounced as these. >> yes. they voted for gorsuch. the republicans voted for gorsuch and the three democrats did as well. the key is gorsuch was replacing a conservative judge. it wasn't going to tip the balance of the court. kennedy was the swing vote. while he was appointed by a republican president, he was a critical decision in major cases. kavanaugh is much more conservative than kennedy. so the theory is it will be tipping the balance in favor of conservatives if kennedy is on the court. he's young. gorsuch is young. so these guys will be around for a long time keeping the court conservative. >> neil: real quickly, is it still a given at this point that they can get this done in a timetable that mitch mcconnell has outlined?
they want this decided this fall. >> they want it all decided. i wouldn't say it's a given. democrats are doing everything that they can to delay, delay, delay. great news for democrats if they didn't have to do this until after the election, but republicans are pushing. the major thing is that kavanaugh has a ton of documents to go through. like a million. literally a million. so democrats are saying they want to review all of those. republicans are saying a lot of those are from his time in the bush white house and they're simple e-mails back and forth, democrats don't need to look at those. so there's this back and forth over documents right now. the longer it takes to release documents, the longer they can push back. right now the hearings are set for beginning of september. >> neil: all right. thanks, eliza. >> thank you. >> neil: when it comes to movie pass, it was a great concept a year ago. 30 movies a month for $10. what could go wrong? a lot did and has.
in the year since, a solution that the leaders of the company came up with. millennials joining me next now are not so sure. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.
(burke) abstract accident. seen it. covered it.ce music) we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ - [voiceover] this is an urgent message from the international fellowship of christians and jews. there is an emergency food crisis for elderly holocaust survivors in the former soviet union. - this is a fight against time. what we're dealing with is coming out, meeting someone who's 85, 90 years old, can't get around, has no food, has no water, and just wants to give up and die. and that's where we come in. we are called to comfort these people, to be a blessing to their lives. - [voiceover] for just $45, we'll rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month.
call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - in ukraine, there's no supper network. they don't have food cards or neighbors that come in to help. they're turning to us because they have nowhere else to turn. - [voiceover] your gift is a life line to help these elderly jewish holocaust survivors, help them to live out their final years with dignity and love. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - what i pray is that you won't turn your eyes, but you will look at their suffering and your heart will be changed. - [voiceover] with your gift of just $45, we can rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen.
>> neil: you know, you invented this and others are taking and running with it. >> that is absolutely the best part. because you know, i love movies. i love movies on the big screen and the industry was dying from lack of innovation. over half of our members are millennials. those were the people that have been only streaming. what this does is it frees up and liberates people to discover new films in the box office. >> neil: all right. so they called it a big cultural thing. movie pass was supposed to be that draw to make you go to the movies. it began with $9.95 up to 30 movies a month. fast forward a year later and a
lot of crises and bleeding a lot of cash and now a $9.95 plan but for three movies a month. millennials, will they stay? millions joined. now a lot of people are leaving. mike gunsleman is here with us and kristina partsinevelos. kristina, what happened now? does an offer tempt you to go? >> $9.95 for three movies and only in the first two weeks of showing? no. >> neil: really? >> no. you look at the cost in big cities like new york, it's $15 a ticket, it makes it worth while. >> i think people -- there was a lot of demand for this app, which is why it did well in the beginning. the thing is, they kept changing the policy and structure. it was a good idea and now it
can't sustain itself. >> it was almost too good to true. >> yeah. >> now you can't see certain movies. you have to pay more to see them. why would i bother with it to begin with? >> neil: i think it was to suck people in. it worked. they got millions of subscribers. then the problems began and they didn't have the ability to keep with it and they had reverse stocks to the point that it got crazy. >> the shift was $166 and now it's 4.17 today. >> neil: that's true. under a nickel. >> and they're paying out millions and millions to movie theaters for people paying $9 -- people were excited but their operating costs were losses of $3 million last year and now they're $166 million because they're paying amc and others for the benefit of --
>> neil: and -- >> and i think the amc app will do well, this shows that millennials will go to the movies, theaters, mission impossible still crushing the box office but they want it on their own terms. once you lose the p.r. battle with millennials, we won't come back to you. >> neil: the thing about netflix had a similar problem and bumpy ride in the beginning. the pricy thing. then they righted their ship. they bought movie studios and the like. these guys are trying to do the same. can they be another netflix? >> i don't know if they can be another netflix unless they have great content or the rights to the movies. you are talking about mix impossible. you had movie pass encouraging people to see it but yet it was blocked at theaters and they didn't accept movie pass. still a few hurdles to overcome. can we accept that? can we overlook the mistakes that we overlooked with wells fargo and facebook and
overlooked it with tons of companies. so i think we can forgive. however, there are so many platforms out there and just more competition. i think -- >> we live an on demand life. it's not just content. it's groceries at the door and the beer for a party. >> neil: no problem with that. sign me up. >> rootbeer particularly. education like going online. we put all of those around our lives. >> neil: it did start something that people were interested in. so someone will perfect this. might be them. an uphill battle. but others have come along. >> i think that movie pass will be the sacrificial lamb here. >> neil: really. >> yeah. they're leaving.
er that going to amc. >> amc has spent a lot of money to renovating theaters. >> neil: very cozy seats. >> and vip seats where you can drink alcohol. >> i know. why do you think i go there? look at a movie? >> it's more of a selling point. you're there with friends and drink a glass of wine and beer and enjoy a movie in a theater. it's acceptable. >> neil: i thought you were working to hard to go. >> that's why i don't go. >> neil: bottom line, they're trying to resurrect themselves. a lot of people have come back from the ashes. don't count anyone out but they have ticked off investors and customers. both of these guys are telling us, they're optimistic. this will be the fix and the cure. but don't you remember along the way getting hit hard? >> yeah, when you're share prices drop so much. and the p.r. image. i mentioned they lost the p.r. battle. it will take awhile to drawback the subscribers for sure.
>> they really angered a lot of people. you have cancellations from this building alone. people don't want it. >> neil: but it does include 3-d. >> not imax or 3-d then what am i paying for? >> the beer. >> if you're in a big city because it's so expensive to go. >> alcohol, big seats. no one is sitting in front of you. these things matter to movie goers. >> neil: you're the person behind me kicking the seats. all right. >> so you want me at the movies? >> no. >> neil: all right, guys. thanks very much. the battle royale over something the interior secretary had to say about the response he's getting after this. your insurance rates skyrocket after a scratch so small
you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ chair, new laptop headphones, with free 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax.
>> neil: for bernie sanders, ryan zinke was saying that climate change is behind the wild fires in california. we'll talk to him tomorrow. ahead of that, let's go to trace gallagher for the latest. >> as ryan zinke was touring northern california for the wild fires, whether or not you believe in climate change, that's not what is causing wild fires to get worse. fires are getting worse because the state's forests are overgrown and to reduce the fire danger, the interior secretary says the forests need to be thinned out. watch. >> the drought conditions has
created the dryness and the temperatures are rising. whether that is cyclic or not, but regardless of climate change or not, it doesn't relieve me the responsibility or the secretary's responsibility to manage it. >> even though the federal government owns most of the forest land in california, secretary zinke is accurate when he says it's tough to manage because when the feds plan to remove trees, environmental groups file lawsuits to block the removal. now bernie sanders is going after the interior secretary tweeting and i'm quoting, "no, secretary zinke, the record-breaking wild fires have everything to do with climate change. we have to confront the reality that climate change is destroys lives and taking concrete steps to avoid its consequences". while the vermont senator is focusing on climate change, even experts that acknowledge shifts in the climate say it's nearly impossible to link individual fire seasons or weather events
to a changing climate. instead, they say extreme fires are caused by a series of negative conditions. neil? >> thanks, trace gallagher. you know this whole idea that companies, public companies are accountable to their shareholders. elizabeth warren had an added feature on that that is so passe, the share-holder only thing after this. are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes,
or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. and it's also a story mail aabout people and while we make more e-commerce deliveries
to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ] ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ hi there.me! so, what do you look for in a vehicle? sleek designs. performance. dependability is top on my list. well then, here's some vehicles that deliver on that. woah! wow. oh jeez! that's our truck! it's our truck! and they're our cars! that's my chevy! chevy's the only brand to earn j.d. power
dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs three years in a row. awesome. i'm proud. it's like a dynasty. it's impressive. >> neil: business networks and shows like this one, companies have an obligation, morally, ethically a fiduciary responsible to their shareholders. public companies. elizabeth warren said it goes beyond that. the host of fox business networks making money charles payne on that. she was saying what? responsibility goes beyond? >> we are talking about
shareholders versus stakeholders. one of the stakeholders? employees. the environment. maybe some consumers. in other words, these folks should be part of the decision-making process and be rewarded as much as shareholders were taking the risk of the first place. i will tell you i love this topic because i think a couple things are happening here. first we have tried this in this country under the banner of conscious capitalism. there was something striking in her op-ed in "the wall street journal." she mentioned milton friedman. the last guy who took him on, ceo of the container store. fabulous company. went to 11,000 stores. he says we know our employees, defining conventional business. famously expressed by the late american economist milton friedman. with all due respect, at the container store, we find it's better to take care of our employees than anybody else. really taking care of the customer.
the language is the same. conscious capitalism. whole foods did it. star brooks. it's a movement, and i've got to tell you it's a dangerous movement because i think these companies are already held accountable by consumers, by employees. if you don't like the company, if you have the opportunity, you quit. >> neil: if you don't treat your workers well, they are going to bolt and it's not going to help. >> the reason i mentioned the container store, hot ipo. open with $43 in late 2013. by january 2016, it was $4. the i.d. you can run publicly traded companies with this manifesto has failed miserably miserably. >> neil: it is a double-edged sword, right? you run a business, you have to treat your workers well. you have to make money. how do you balance it? elizabeth warren is saying more companies, tax cuts. buy more stock, they are not
helping people. you say? >> she is right in the sense that we have to be very careful in the business world. this gallup poll that came out, the headlines the democrats embraced socialism. that wasn't the real headline. 82 my 29 years old, 60% of them had a favorable view of capitalism. now. young people are ready to reject this system completely. doesn't have to be socialism but they do not think -- >> neil: does it put pressure on companies to do more or prove they care more or that they are not so great a question mark >> absolutely. it puts a lot of pressure on companies improve day care, that they are quote-unquote sharing the wealth. >> neil: that's what she saying? >> she is saying it should be a government mandates. >> neil: that's what bothers you. this edict, the government capitalism is decided. >> in a military, there is a
general. the commander in chief, then the five-star general. you have a pecking order. employees do have a voice and they should. i think for the most part they do. when you start talking about them getting seats on the board of directors and getting to judge their bosses, it's a slippery slope. >> neil: but the obligation that companies are somehow missing people, being stingy with raises, you say? that is what is fostering this argument on the left. >> there's a lot of ways you measure this. these buybacks are huge and they are huge and they been huge for a long time. i've seen a massive increase in capital expenditures. a company builds a new factory. you hire construction workers. once the factories built, you hire more employees. it's not a direct injection into their employees' pocket but it's the kind of commitment or you know you're going to have your job for a long time. >> neil: well put. always good thing you.
charles, always a pleasure. gary johnson on running for this senate in new mexico. he's here. that's going to be good. it's going to be fun. here is "the five" ." >> jesse: i am jesse watters with judge jeanine, juan williams, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five" ." we start with a fox news alert. stunning news out of washington. president trump revokes the security clearance of former cia director john brennan. press secretary sarah sanders reading a statement from the president explaining why. >> any benefit senior officials might glean from consultations with mr. brennan are now