Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX News  June 2, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
paul: welcome to journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. special counsel robert mueller wednesdayy made his first public remarks since he took over the russia probe two years ago saying that there was insufficient evidence to prove a broader conspiracy between the trump campaign and moscow during the 2016 election, but noting thatle his office did not concle that president trump was innocent of obstruction of justice. the special counsel, however, claiming that charging the president with a crime was not an option. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the
12:01 pm
president did commit a crime. under longstanding department policy, a president can cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that h is unconstitutional. charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we couldio consider. paul: james trusty is a former justice department prosecutor. to show, good to have you here. >> sure, thanks, paul. paul: here's the larger question for me, what do you think he was trying to accomplish with this statement? because if he only wanted to say, as he said he did, within the four corners of his report, then why issue a statement outside the four corners of that report? ct>> that's exactly the right question. what's interesting to keep in mind, he's not independent counsel, he's special counsel which means he still was operating within the chain of command of doj. so this is almost like a line prosecutor telling the boss, hey, by the way, i'm going to do
12:02 pm
a press conference and talk about my findings. it's a very unusual circumstance. the fact that he's standing up there alone, is crazy. the second part that he just wanted to make a statement where he is emphasizing i'm not giving you anything new, well, if that's the case, give a written statement. i think he was trying to bang the gong and say, i'm done, this is the last you're going to hear from me. i'm going to go back to a farmer, maybe, but i don't think it really worked. and s i do think there was some daylight created when he talked about the obstruction piece of this and how the olc opinion controlled or didn't control his findings. if yount look at the report and readoo it, it does not say we we refusing to make findings because of the olc opinion. to contrary, it talks about the thorny issue of criminal intent when it comes to proving obstruction by the president. so there is a little daylight ththere that i think is aggravating a.g. barr. paul: that daylight you're talking about is between his report, which was more expansive about criminal intent on obstruction of justice, and his statement, mueller's statement
12:03 pm
this week which basically said the reason we didn't -- at least the implication was the reason we didn't indict on obstruction was because we couldn't because of this order. and that has turned out to be the thing that democrats have grand and said, see, aha, now it'sow our job to help with impeachment. to move ahead with impeachment. some of them anyway. so do you think he intended to give that impetus to impeachment or is this accidental? >> >> it's hard to know because anytime you try to summarize two years of investigation, as barr has been finding out in recent weeks too, you're always going to be accused of leaving something out or of overcertain sizing -- overemphasizing one component or another. but again, to have any distance between what he said the other day and that report makes you wonder what the motivation is. certainly, it sounded like to emphasizewanted we never really had a shot at determining whether there was a violation of the obstruction law. and the reality is, you know,
12:04 pm
volume two is all about the facts. there's not a dispute about the facts, it's the legal significance of them which is why i think barr is saying, hey, he could have reached an opinion, but rod rosenstein and i were happy to do so. paul: what happens if congress says, hey, you made the statement, we're not sure what you meant, come on up and tell us. i think there are democrats in the house and lindsey graham in the senate, they might call him up there. can he resist that now? >> well, i think he can try. he's resigned, so it's not something that really fits under an oversight capacity because he's no longer with doj. what's interesting to me is i think this is a big case of be acareful what you ask for. that if the democrats think they'll get a lot of mileage out of emphasizing the kind of obstruction light or obstructionist facts that are in the report, they also have to know the republicans will spend a whole bunch of time asking questions about how this probe started off, how the team was comprised, a peter strzok, lisa
12:05 pm
page -- paul: right. >> there's a lot of stuff that would come out of the hearing that's not going to be pretty for one side or the other. so i suspect there's a lot of posturingst here, but i'm not se anybody wants to put him under oath on a witness stand. paul: he could just go up there and say, i'm sorry, i'm pointing you to page 322, and i'm not going to go beyond that. i suppose that could be his response. >> right. i mean, of course, with congressional testimony as opposed to courtroom testimony it's all about the big speech and then maybe an incidental question mark at the end. so i'm not sure that even non-answers don't feed the beast in terms of people pulling stuff out from that report or pulling stuff out from his comments and getting on the evening news. paul: as you look at the report nonow after several weeks and wt mueller said this week, do you think there's a case for obstruction of justice charges to be brought if not an indictment, then in an impeachment? >> yeah. the political question is the impeachment question, that's a
12:06 pm
of fish than ae criminal indictment. paul: let's talk about criminal. >> i think the report does give this an acknowledge ifment, there'skn two different types of obstructionist classes here, or at least potentially obstructionist. one is publicnt statements, pubc actions by the president, you know, bemoaning comey or bemoaning this probe. the second is when he yells at underlings and says get rid of this guy, get rid of that guy. i think there's problems with either one, but in terms of proving criminal intent. that's the issue here. obstruction usually works in the shadows, not in front of 350 million people. so tweets would be a real unusual basis forre saying thers a criminal intent. as opposed to a personal embarrassment or political intent -- paul: there was nothing in the end that i could see that was obstructive. there were no pardons that were offered, there were no -- mueller's probe went ahead full steam. the fbi counterintelligence investigation, not obstructed. so you have to say where's the crime other than, you know, is
12:07 pm
it a crime to rage like king lear in the white house against mueller? >> right, that's a great point. this is what makes it into kind of a nightmarish law school-ish exam question. laugh it becomes academic because there was no underlying crime. the report was very clear on that. yes, youou can still obstruct an investigation into something that's not a crime or turns out to not be criminal, but it becomes much less palatable, much less likely you'd ever get 12 people to agree beyond a reasonable doubt. so there was no successful obstruction, and there was no underlying crime, that becomes very hypertechnical. i think it fits into the category of, you know, perhaps the law permits much which wisdom done dems as folly, you know -- condemns as folly. maybe there shouldn't have been some of these tweets, but they're not the type of stuff that leads to criminal prosecution. paul: thanks for being with us, appreciate it. when w we come back, robert mueller puts the ball in congress' court, so can nancy pelosi resist the growing calls
12:08 pm
from democrats to begin an impeachment inquiry? >> with respect to impeachment question at this point, all options are on the table and nothing should be ruled out. ♪ ♪ no matter when you retire, ensure you still have income every month of your retirement, guaranteed. see how lincoln can help. going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro... ...patients get their day back... be with... ... family... ...or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study... ...neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17%... 1%...
12:09 pm
...a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver... ...neulasta the day after chemo... ...and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome... ...have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing... ... or allergic reactions to your doctor right away in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes... ...fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect... is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor... ...about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
12:10 pm
omar, check this out. uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog. [ rhythmic tapping ] hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there.
12:11 pm
♪ ♪ >> the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to form theally accuse a sitting -- to formally accuse a sitting pregnant of wrongdoing. >> -- president of wrongdoing. paul: robert mueller suggesting that the constitution leaves it up to lawmakers to pursue charges of wrongdoing against a president but has house speaker nancy pelosi seems to be maintaining her wait and see approach. >> nothing is off the table, but we do want to make such a compelling case, such an ironclad casee that even the republican senate -- which at
12:12 pm
the time seems to be not an objective jury -- will be convinced of the path that the we have to take as a country. paul: let's bring in "wall street journal" columnists bill mcgurn and hohmann jenkins. let's talk about mueller. what do you think he was trying to accomplish? >> well, i think he wanted to put his report, say what he did and kind of defend himself. finish i think, unfortunately, the worst part of that statement was when he said if we could have exonerated him, we would. for a prosecutor stand thing before a department of justice logo tose talk as though a prosecutor's job is to exonerate, which totally upends the presumption of innocence which ought to apply even to donald trump by people who don't like him, i think that was just outrageous. and it's the same thing that james comey did with hillary clinton, you know? we won't prosecute, there's not
12:13 pm
enough to prosecute, but he did all these awful -- she did all these awful things. i think in the future they're going to have n to narrow what e special counsel -- i don't like the special counsel, i'd rather they get rid of it, but narrow what the special counsel does, what kind of report he or she issues and try to avoid some of this. paul: my view is by didn't of what he said and did not say -- dint, he gave some encouragement to democrats who want to impeach. do you agree with that? >> yes, simply by the fact that el refused to exculpate donald trump op obstruction. he went there to say i'm not going to tell you anything i haven't already told you, it sounded like he was begging not to be called to testify. paul: then he should not have made a statement at all. >> exactly. no matter what he said, it would have been political, and somebody would have to call him up is and say why didn't you say, and, why didn't you say y, why can't you come to a decision about obstruction?
12:14 pm
that was your task, after all. paul: as i look at the evidence he laid out, the analysis he offered on obstruction, i don't see a case for obstruction myself. it looks to me like nothing was obstructed. he went on his merry way, every witness he wanted he could call, every warrant he wanted to issue he could issue. what was the obstruction? >> well, that's the thing, you get someone in court in front of a jury, and you find out how far they'll go. that's what impeachment is, it's a jury of congress. things like dangling pardons in front of paul paul manafort, tht could be considered obstruction. the president has a bully flpulpit. nethe problem is there was no crime -- paul: underneath, underlying. >> no underlying crime. there was no collusion. paul: but he didn't pardon manafort. >> no, he didn't. and i think the most thing to recognize, a president was being false hi accused of treason with our arch enemy, a country that
12:15 pm
has nuclear weapons aimed at us, and he had a right to defend himself. and and it wasn't just a legal fight, it was a political fight. made it seem, bill, like he didn't -- the only reason he didn't find obstruction off justice, if you read between the lines, is, well, they have this rule at the justice department that says you can't indict a sitting president. >> then why take the job? [laughter] i mean, then you're saying i shouldn't take the job. what he could doha is, look, the government -- the attorney general would iner the end make call. if he had recommended charges, the attorney general would make that call, and that's what he should have let done. if he thought there was proof, there was criminal activity, he could have said we found evidence of criminal activity and then let the attorney general explan that you can't bring d explain that you can't bring charges against a sitting president. i think he's trying to have it both ways. we couldn'tn' find the president was guilty, but we couldn't find he was not not guilty, is so, congress,, you -- i mean, as
12:16 pm
mr. barr said in an interview the other day, you know, the executive department, the department of justice, the prosecutor, is not the investigative arm for congress. congress has it own methods, primarily impeachment. i just think this is a trample over constitutional lines. paul: and, speaking of congress, now it's nancy pelosi's job, she's still resisting, but the pressure's building. can she -- last time you were here you said, you know, we'd see, butdi is she going to hold out? >> she's doing a good job of it so far. the pressure on her is enormous, and she's been very cool about it. she went on jimmy kimmel to talk about this. a bunch ofre's people in the democratic primary twho think impeachment is the only way they're going to get to top of the polls, and i think there's other people like bernie sanders and joe biden who think that impeachment would be a disaster for their presidential hopes. paul: and there's about 40 members of congress, 40 house democrats, who won in trump states. >> right. they don't want this vote.
12:17 pm
>> i think though, unfortunately, mrs. pelosi doesn't want impeachment because she recognizes it would put those peoplees at risk. however, she has control over a lot of the committee chairmen. i think she has a lot of them locked up. but she's egging it on when she talks about the president is involved in a cover-up, he's plunged us into a constitutional crisis, that his attorney general came and committed a crime before congress. she's feeding the people and the movement that she claims not to. i think -- paul: she's saying, basically, he committed impeachable offenses, but we don't want to impeach because republicans in the senate -- >> right. and she's kind of putting herself in the position damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. becausef if she says all this, people would rightly say, well, why don't you impeach? paul: thank you, gentlemen. when we come back, kamala harris rolls out a proposal for some 80 million workers. >> i am going to announce the
12:18 pm
first-ever national priority on closing that pay gap. ♪
12:19 pm
run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress
12:20 pm
hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again?
12:21 pm
you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass. ♪ ♪ >> in america today women with, for the same work, for the equal work on average make 80 cents on the dollar, black women make 61 cents on the dollar, latinas make a 53 cents on the dollar, and this has got to end. paul: that was california senator and 2020 democratic hopeful kamala harris teeing up her plan to eliminate the so-called gender pay gap, citing the dubious statistic that we'll talk about that women make just
12:22 pm
80 cents on a dollar compared to men. harris' proposal would require that every u.s. business with 100 workers or more to obtain an equal pay certification by somehow proving they are not paying women less than men for haequal work. let's bring in "wall street journal" editorial board members allysia finley and kate batchler to dell. kyle, you've written about this for us. take on that 80% figure, is that legitimate? >> well, it's a figure that's raw media. if r you gather up all the women working full time in the united states and all the men, and you pick the person out of the middle of each, that's 80 cents on the dollar. but what that leaves out is choices, occupations, people who are working more overtime, less overtime. so there's been some studies who are trying to compare actually apples to apples. there's a harvard study on boston transit employees that said women earn 89 cents on the dollar for men, but the entirety
12:23 pm
of the gap was made up of people taking paid time -- sorry, unpaid time off and overtime. men worked a lot more overtime. what's interesting about that is when camilla was rolling out, you heard that are clip at the top, she said 80 cents on the dollar, equal pay for equal work, either she doesn't know what that statistic actually means, or she's trying to be deceptive. >> what kyle's saying is about life choices. women leave the work force to have families and so on, they take less overtime. but that's really the explanation, not widespread discrimination. which, by the way, is illegal. >> right, it is illegal to discriminate based on sex. but i think there's one other thing we should o think about he which is that wages are not the only way that employees -- employers compensate employees. we know that women tend to prefer, as they have children like you said, more flexible arrangements, more autonomy if over their work, and these are
12:24 pm
trade-offs that they often make and want to make in terms -- instead of higher salaries. now, i don't think we want to get into this situation where managers have to be exactly equal on dollars and cents because that might force women to make trade-offs they don't want to make. but, you know, in the modern economy this is not something we can measure easily because we don't all produce widgets for a living, and an employee's value is very hard to measure. so to me, giving managers no flexibility to offer you a raise doesn't sound like a recipe for higher salaries, it sounds like slower wage growth for everybody. of. >> i thinknk t what's really scy is we've already seen the trump administration and theba obama administration try to do this by fiat. they've gone after oracle, palin tear and do a kind of paint by numbers analysis, basically
12:25 pm
manipulating data. you can manipulate data however -- it's very easy to do. paul: do you really belief that google was systematically discriminating against -- >> well, it turns out -- paul: the most politically correct company on the planet. [laughter] >> i know, it's really ridiculous to think. but you have all these plaintiff attorneys who are i suing google, and you've got government bureaucrats basically claudeing with the plaintiff attorneys -- colluding with the plaintiff attorneys. paul: okay, so it sounds like what she's proposing is a certification, that the companies would have to prove that they are, in fact, not discriminating as opposed to somebody havingmi to prove gym nation. >> right. is so her -- discrimination. so her plan would apply to companies with 100 workers or more, about 130,000 of those companies across the united states. it covers about 80 million employees in the private sector. the trouble in my mind is there's going to be enormous
12:26 pm
unintended consequences of trying to put, you know, federal bureaucrats in between you and your boss in those performance reviews, in those salary negotiations, and she's not really taken account of that. and by the way, some of the reaction to her proposal, i think, agrees with that. so the l.a. times had an editorial saying we're glad someone's talking about this issue, but maybe this is not the smartest way to go about this. paul: the l.a. times probably doesn't want some bureaucrat tick tating what they have to pay their -- dictating what they have to pay their editorial writers. i guess the eoc would administer this. >> the eoc. and they've got a history of liberal charges against companies. and these are basically bureaucrats, mid-level bureaucrats. we said, they go through a database, maybe they'd subpoena documents in. they would say, hey, we have this information here, it looks like you're discriminating. prove to us that you're not. paul: do you think this is going to help her?
12:27 pm
>> i think it might help her a little bit with women, but i think it will fadeon into the background pretty fast as other proposals come out. it seem like one every two days from the elizabeth warren, so i think it'll get lost quickly. paul: frustrated by the crisis at the border, president trump says he'll impose tariffs on all imported h goods from mexico wht the move means for the u.s. economy and the future of the usmca trade agreement, next. >> we are going to do something very dramatic on the border. because people are coming into our country. the democrats will not give us laws, they will not change laws. . fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost.
12:28 pm
unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? can the past help you write the future? can you feel calm in the eye of a storm? can you do more with less? can you raise the bar while reducing your footprint? for our 100 years we've been answering the questions of today to meet the energy needs of tomorrow. southern company
12:29 pm
car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less
12:30 pm
major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time
12:31 pm
can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go. administrate would from mexico beginning june 10, and would gradually cleef that tariff until flow of undocumented immigrants across border is stopped saying in statement quote mexico cannot allow hundreds of thousand dollars to pore over land into our country, violating sovereign territory of the united states, if mexico d paul: if mexico does not take decisiveot measures, it will coe at a significant price. kyle. so kate this is a new tactic by president usually issuing
12:32 pm
tariff in response to trade problems this is immigration part time what do you make of it? >> well paul i think really lace to rest theory that tariffs about goernting better trades deals if going to use tariffs to follow that immigration problem. the president is invoking a law here emergency powers law that he does have broad power that congress ceded over time since 30s but not unlimited fight a new frontierer what we've seen in trade wars. >> i guess fundamental question is -- is mexico to blame? for the problem at the border on a. >> even president acknowledges mexico isn't to blame congress needs to fix this by laws mexico has been cooperating helping with the trump administration, by keeping asylum climbants, that they can work staibd in mexico what
12:33 pm
incentive for mexico to cooperate if the president is going to slap tariffs and punish them. >>is incentive would be if you don't, do whatever he wants, we are going to there are 370 -- 371 billion dollars i think what mexico sold to united states, last year. you put 25% tariff on that, that is -- >> u.s. companies -- right. >> u.s. consumers. >> right. >> also doing damage to u.s. economy as well as mexico's economy, this is i suicide in my opinion. >> other thing if you are mexico you just signed a u.s. -- usmca agreement to redo nafta, you just negotiated steel and aluminum tariffs after much hard negotiations suddenly slapped with this unilateral basis for something, that you -- that you are not causing those central americans to come to the united states. >> you have to any domestic
12:34 pm
political forces mexico president has a public thing has to answer to doesn't want to be shown backing down or weak, i mean with luck can come to agreement tariffs never take effect but to put economic damage in perspective, so tax itself tariff would be 15 billion dollars to start with, if tariff rat chested up to 25%, 58 billion dollars on everything from avocados to pickup trucks, and according to one analysis about two-thirds of the imports from mexico are intermediary goods parts, so if you are working at auto shop or you know, a -- air-conditioning manufacturing facility hae indiaa bringing stuff from mexico assembling so going to hurt jobs those companies may not even it may not stem illegal immigration the mexico economy accurate first quarter 37% economy is imports, exports excuse me a lot to u.s. if tariffs threw
12:35 pm
mexico into recessions what would that do to illegal immigration. >> i wouldn't help i think the u.s. economy also could be affected by this never mind the -- the tariff impact kate but fact that you have uncertainty business investment, and those decisions. >> that is the biggest risk paul uncertainty we don't know exactly when all this will end. but i have some hope because of the response you have seen from congress you had chuck grassley say right away this goes directly against what congress allows, and some there is suggestion that perhaps congress will fight it there are efforts have been ten asi-- tepid, so far not passing bills by corker or portman like i said a new stage, the hope that is congress can push back. >> you i mean they may pass something would try to restrain president even if ultimately he can veto it hard to get two-thirds to override i guess that is what trump is banking on?
12:36 pm
>> that is what he is banking on, i think democrats have decided if we refuse to deal with president for long enough he will start to do things that are self-destructive, i think that is -- is being vindicated i don't know democrats have a lot of incentive to go along with stopping this trade damage. >> my view you can blame mexico basically distracts from the legitimate point president has congress has to change asylum laws giving intensive for people to come over the border a caseloadser look at trump administration ban huawei, make our network safer? how big a role in growing trade tens between united states and china. >> i could imagine huawei being possibly included in some form of or some part of a trade deal. 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?
12:37 pm
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. 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. thanks for the ride-along, captain! i've never been in one of these before, even though geico has been- ohhh. ooh ohh here we go, here we go. you got cut off there, what were you saying? oooo. oh no no. maybe that geico has been proudly serving the military for over 75 years? is that what you wanted to say? mhmmm. i have to say, you seemed a lot chattier on tv. geico. proudly serving the military for over 75 years. you ok back there, buddy?
12:38 pm
be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver,
12:39 pm
and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
12:40 pm
instrument of the chinese government they are deeply connected are companies cooperate with united states government that is they economy with our laws? but no president directs an american private company that is very different in china. >> if that is the case, that the chinese communist party wanted to get information, from technology, that was in the possession of huawei almost certainly the case huawei would provide that to them. >> that was secretary of state mike pompeo this week with fox's maria bartiromo outlining u.s. concerns were with chinese tech giant huawei interest of administration effectively banned american companies from doing business with huawei earlier this month, when the commerce department placed huawei on a list of foreign firms deemed a threat to national security, the administration, is also pressuring allies to remove huawei telecom equipment from their 5g networks beijing threatened friday to retaliate with its blacklist of foreign
12:41 pm
companies we are back with "the wall street journal" business world columnist. so you have been critical of the trump administration policy on huawei. why? >> it really began with obama administration, policy keeping huawei out of u.s. telecom networks i understand their concern i have the same concerns but we're not succeeding in protecting networks we should have let huawei come in forced to it compete even terms with companies are on the world networks from components around the wold only way to keep networks secure monitor very closely have lots of i different people's equipment so if something wrong with somebody's commitment you can channel traffic over someone else's part of the network. >> about what pompeo secretary of state if chinese government decided to call on huawei said need to monitor so and so you are in network they would do so -- >> that is a danger. >> would they do so would chinese go of the do that i
12:42 pm
think now they would if you for his huawei out of the western markets, and no longer has a stake in getting along making billions and billions of dollars in the u.s. and europe and japan less reason not to lend he says to that kind of activity. >> what if so they get a couple of things first we ban huawei from participating u.s. networks now the administration i also banning u.s. companies from supplying huawei with crucial components, for example, qualcomm sells 10 billion dollars mod emphasized to huawei. that could really hurt that company this is an escalation and now we have china escalating in kind. you are saying that is a mistake. >> i don't know if a mistake being where do we end up if a trade negotiations huawei is a great hostage to take maybe a big deal the end of the road i don't think this is where we are going now i think we are in a new cold war with china where protecting our tech advantage trying to sabotage
12:43 pm
theirs vice versa big part like with soviet union i think this is a lose lose for both sides knew don't see this ending in a negotiations, that gets a deal? right now? >> there would be very unlikely the one thing only person can deliver that is trump he is -- >> xi as well. >> exactly but our side there is a lot of institutional interests in guth huawei what these policies would do, trump is the one person can stop all this if he wands if he saw a deal. >> how much damage would a real out-and-out cold war tech cold war with china do? >> you know -- our economy -- both economies are very big about domestically it would we huge advantage top europeans get their act together japanese south koreans all business would go to them fu.s and china were at loggerheads not sharing tangibling giant boone for industrialized
12:44 pm
countries. >> i guess, you know there are those -- michael pillsbury others you probably read his book on china basically argue that we are in fact in a cold war with china, we just haven't realized it, china has been in it for a long time stealing our technology, they are stealing our trade secrets. what we need is to actually fight back and this is the first president who is actually trying to do so -- >> there is a lot of troo you go to to go that there are lots of things we cognitive done all along the fact is what trump is trying to do is decouple two economies if that is what he is trying to dos rises china sflef to biography interhe against the powerful china had legitimately pen retreats when edward snowden stuff came out we are penetrating getting into huawei servers if we have a big economic surveyor dependency it limits what we're willing to do. >> if you cut off china from american markets products
12:45 pm
american technology any interdependency the incentives inside china will be greater to basically, create their own fortress china or to work with europe and other countries, o he -- >> the best outcome worst is that china's economy unravels they have serious snainlt brings worse people to power. >> would hurt our economy as well. >> destiny the world -- >> thechy haven't had a recession since you do cho ping instituted reform. >> not 10% growths growth is recession so many poor people coming intour about an economy need work for those people. >> sounds like you are saying that financial markets, should -- have batten down hatches it could be rough ride next year or two. >> dow down 1,000 points in month of may just because this have i think a market is sanguine about how bad this could go. >> they discounted a deal i
12:46 pm
think anticipated a deal everything i am hearing on both sides now, i have to say means suggests won't be many, many months if there is a deal at all. >> short seller once told me secret to trade was realizing people don't recognize how bad things really can get i think that is where we are on this. >> all right. thank you very much still ahead the supreme court side staepz major ruling on abortion, one of the most closely watched cases of the term what tuesday's decision says about the roberts court and willingness to you might take something for your heart... or joints. 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.
12:47 pm
sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's the final days to save $1000 on the new queen sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, only $1,799. ends sunday.
12:48 pm
there's also a lot to know. the most important thing? medicare doesn't pay for everything.'re on the hook for the rest. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less. and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, and learn more. like, medicare supplement plan, give you the freedom to go with any doctor who accepts medicare patients. it's nice to have a choice. and your coverage goes with you, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits.
12:49 pm
not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide today. paul: the supreme court side staepd major abortion ruling this week reaching parent xhom in one of the closely watched cases of the term court handed down a split decision on 2016 indiana law as i understand by
12:50 pm
mike pence requiring abortion providers to -- justices condemn in place the ban on abortion based race sex disability would have given supreme court first chance to consider, the constitutionality of a state law ricks abortion since kavanaugh placed kennedy on the bench we are back bill mcgunner alicia finley kyle peterson what do you make of the split decision on abortion. >> first of all, they are no hurry to take up this issue. so on the first issue, they basically without even hearing oral without considering oral arguments overturned the decision that said they misapplied, considered undue burden standard under casey versus planned parenthood
12:51 pm
manufacturer weren't arguing that second part. >> this is the big part gender -- >> right, they said we're not going to hear this no reason this is considered by one circuit we usually don't consider cases in less than circuit doesn't allow to perchlorate in appellate court. >> justice clarence thomas 20 page opinion saying with long history of saying the states have interest in this kind of a law this one they wouldn't hear because of the history of eugenics, sooner rather than later the court has to hear this. >> i think he is right brought up, he went to the whole history quite compelling different eugenic movement. >> played into abortion. >> how -- said in many ways also noted justice ginsburg once in defending roe said part of the reason was there was concern about population
12:52 pm
growth in particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. >> that wasn't necessarily her view she was quoting. >> i don't think quoting just saying this is the concern. right? >> but justice ginsburg didn't like that she came back, at thomas in this decision. >> and the question is is it coming back. the disappointing thing about this those of us that are skeptical of roe, this was thought the law that you could uphold without entirely overthrowing roe this was thought the incremeantalist path justice roberts maybe kavanaugh would favor the other one heartbeat measures alabama go more directly at roe alabama would basically rule out all abortions. >> right. >> what do you make of justice ginsburg's reply to clarence
12:53 pm
thomas issuing another warning roe v. wade would be in jeopardy. >> one most interesting thing about it language shows how on the court the left and the right, are just as polarized as americans are throughout his concurrent upon justice thomas talks about mother and child, and just ginsburg explicitly pushes walk says a woman who terminates a pregnancy is not a mother some stark language is most interesting, but i think this will be back, indiana case is essentially that this is an issue not contemplated by roe v. wade, not weather to have a child but whichchild to have so if a mother gets prenatal testing shows, she is pregnant with a girl and wanted aboy or that fetus may have gen blindness something like that does intent matter does that allow her to terminate the pregnancy? just thomas' suggestion needs to perchlorate more can be
12:54 pm
read if another state other than indiana does not have a law like this they may revisit to create much laws to bring it back to the supreme court. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the only justice on record, for saying roe v. wade should be overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on
12:55 pm
abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and when we come back hits and misses of the let's be honest. it's kind of unfair that safe drivers have to pay as much for insurance... as not safe drivers! ah! that was a stunt driver. that's why esurance has this drivesense® app. the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm actually a safe driver. i'm just pretending to be a not safe driver. cool. bye dennis quaid! when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.
12:58 pm
♪ ♪ paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kate, start us off. >> paul, my hit this week is to nevada's democratic governor who vetoed a bill that would have allowed nevada to join the national vote project which basically aims to nullify the electoral college. now, the genius to have electoral college is that it forces presidential candidates to campaign in places like vegas and' know, and it would have surrendered nevada's role in choosing the next president, so i'm glad some state democrats are starting to realize it's a great system forng choosing a president and, hopefully, more
12:59 pm
do. >> this is a miss to u.n. which has written a report claiming that digital personal assistants like siri and alexa are basically sexist, and they are tools of the patriarchy. and enforcing gender norms. for instance, if you -- some guys tell alexa, oh, you're hot, thed advice will say, oh, i would blush if i could. here i thought that they were just trying to be helpful. paul: this is because the voice sounds female. >> female, and therefore, reinforces that they were supposedly submissive and are just trying to be helpful. paul: your tax dollars at work. kyle? >> i'll give a hit to national weather service, lots of tornadoes and destruction but relatively few fatalities and that's in large parted to do with better forecasting and warnings. you can find a chart online of tornado fatalities, and it's a steady downward decline. everybody loves to complain when the weather's wrong, but those
1:00 pm
guys deserve a o lot of credit. paul: that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and especially thanks to all of you for watching. ngi'm paul gigot, hope to see yu right here next week. ♪ ♪ arthel: well, the 2020 spotlight turning to iowa tonight in about three hours from now. new york democratic kirsten gillibrand will take the stage for a fox news town hall in dubuque. this comes as gillibrand struggles to stand out from the nearly two dozen other candidates. hello and welcome come to a brand new hour inside "america's news headquarters," i'm arthel neville. eric: hello, everyone, i'm eric shawn. senator gillibrand was able to meet the threshold to qualify for the debate later this month, but she's still lagging behind in