thank you for joining g us. have a great holiday weekend. ♪ sheinkopf, thank you all for being here. good night from new york. neil: it is time to tell our thoughts. welcome, i am neil cavuto. here's how bad the scandalous are getting. eric holder is investing himself. he is revealing how his justice department went about targeting ap and fox news reporters even ough we now know itwas eric holder himself okay targeting our collie, james rosen.

too much time has been wasted on stories that just don't add up with whistleblowers that are itching to talk. reportedly they are lining up. i asked a few questions.

if we are talking about the window,. makes sense to have people coming in, only interested n getting through what happens in conducting them with a full and fast and impartial investigation neil: we have talked to them on and off the record. it seems like ken starr went on a witchhunt, exploring things that went way beyond and we

political witchhunt. >> when you say giving me independent counsel, you have the ability to do your own investation. now you're giving up power the power and you have to sit back and wait for the result but i'm going to do my investigation. a special prosecutor is doing his or her in thing. the irs and the justice department. ny are getting equally torque.about health and human services paper public health care law which could

be multiple prosecutor needs. would you see that er happening? >> you would see that this starts with a club of documents. >> i could not even imagine mechanically. they fear that initially going after the irs, and what happened, it will naturally slip into the justice department. it distills over with and bending hit.

>> it would make sense to bring in one independent counsel to do one job at one time. if you really are not interested in the truth, but you are only interested in pointing fingers and saying, you are the right and the wrong, everyone decides inhe sandbox. you feel good about the process and know that it it's really about the truth and not aboutt3 politics. neil: you have multiple answers, but you do it so brilliantly.

neil: back to ben stein. who knew what and whn. let's talk about this again. i'm sure that you have been peppered by questions by so many. i will be the latest to chat about this with you. what do you think? >> it is like watergate, very much. we have a president that his is caught with his pants down, doing all kinds of bad things in this adminnstration. there is fox and a few internet sites,ither way,,it doesn't matter. it is not going to cost him is job, he's not going to have to resi. neil: do think that that will

stay? >> oh, absolutely. unless ty turn up investigion. they will lay down the laws for obama. neil: this is what happens in government. you take big leagues. he gets to gigantic. >> this is not that case. in this case, we knew that the cincinnati office was targeting political groups done a lot it

is known in dodd-frank in the white house. the irs is also tgeting antiabortion rights. and they re also pestering and harassing them and that is a big part of the ory. you are never going to see that in "the new york tis." never, never, never. neil: one thing i always wonder is after watergate. those who never again get to the abus, we are avengi on enems. >> okay. neil: i'm thing that happen again. >> of course it will hapn

again. of course it will happen. the government is made up of very ordinary people with all the ordinary emotions that human beings have. many of themotions are revenge. neil: barack obama doess't have to say or do anything. that in and of itself i an inevitability. you think you're doing the president's bidding without them telling you to. for all we know, they are very close and these are smart enough things to figure out. we don't know what he is telling

him. mr. eric holder is a hyper partisan guy. i am wondering as we had the secretary of the treasury, we shall see. neil: it is always good to have you, my friend. >> it is an honor, sir. neil: is the government giving a are bureaucrats finally out of control? even some top democrats are gearing up. maybe you should start learning about that. then how abercrombie and fitch is pushing for the same bottom.

neil: the scandals are stacking up like trains on an airport runway. we have david have lunch on this growing problem. as well as katie pavlich. td, what you think of this? >> are longtime you have big government proponents saying that the government works for the people. we are seeing with scandals in government ways that the government is expensive and most importantly, it means that b big government is you can't hold anyone accountable for bad decisions made in government. ere is no reason why we need bloated federal government programs.

>> now that we have this information we learned about, the amount of $50,000, i mean, this is part of big government. this is really about an administration that is not being transparent. a promise that they would be th most transparent administration in history. neil: let's say the administration didn't have any direct ties to the white house. buthis was some activity on the part ooverzealous agents, maybe beyond the office involved. but that it is here, the dimensions speak to how big the irs has gotten and now he irs is taking control of enforcing the health care law. it shows it has gotten out of control. and that is the underlying problem. >> well, i do not agree with the premise. we do not have a growing problem, but we have a growing problem. it is too big, it is too complicated. it becomes not a logical conversation about what we do

about it. the people agast government want to get rid of it. that is not a particularly good solution. >> before the irs agents take control of health care, let's get this under control. >> monly point is that this isn't new, there are not scandals pilin up. >> you have the justice department,. >> they are behaving badly, they

should spk to those in the firr. neil: katie, there isa multiple feeling going on here. >> yes, this is absolutely having to do wh big government and i want to push back that we want to get rid of government. the fact is they government does not work. we have seen this with the irs. we he seen this with obamacare. we have seen it with medicare, medicaid, every civil sector in the government. education. the fact is that big government is bad government. >> you are not describing government. >> you are not describing government, yes, i am. it is a new problem. >> okay, let's bring our next guest in.

we should slow down and get to the bottom of tis. there will be subpoena powers that will occur ifou report the facts. especially they don't report having us. you think that big government is the perfect example and it is to ble for everything. we have a grievous problem. most of it is local government.

>> am sick of democrats saying that it doesn't really matter. it doesn't matter. the irs is using all the power they have the fact is that the irs has a very powerful agenc in the federal government. and it was specifically targeting groups for political purposes. and now the administration is saying i have to tell you that

this is how we feel. but having said all that, i think he gets back to the basic notion it is not my contract. but i think that that is built into a lot of this. @% i think that the bigger government gets a bigger institution and they are riiht for this. it is a very big drop in the bucket. >> i thought that was a very effective video. neil: the one guy looked very much like this. >> it goes with a larger problem. this includes not living long

and t prospering. neil: okay, we will have you back in a little bit. would you pay twice as much to give this guy what he is demanding? your conscience or you're

neil: young young and restless anapparently hungry. very hungry. to hear mcdonald's tell us that millennial eat. those 19 years old to 34 years old really like to eat fast food. but they mix their cravings for social justice. if they tink tht you take advantage of your workers, they won't take advantage of your sport you're a wal-mart or a

restaurant. mcdonald's is trying to get ahead of us. what do you think that your generation would pay more for a burger and go to a place that doesn't pay its workers enough to get paid $8.20 an hour and they want $15. well, we had 7.5% unemployment right now. >> a lot ofthem make the cse

and are somehow taken advantage of in that it's not fair or right. you say that they can discern some differences? >> well, i think so. i think when you have is, that, that is what drives people to your store. if you leave these protests, minimum wage, whatever they are protesting aut, that is not social justice. me and us and consumers. a lot of folks will pay a little bit more, they think. a little it more to make sure

that workers are treated well. i think that most people are not in a livable age. these numbers are at an all-time low. young millnialist don't like unions either. the reason why did they realize that they may end up like the hostess bakery unit, which ended up leaving all of their members unemployed at. >> the dirty little secret if you've never eaten there, that right? [laughter] neil: i like the plague along. michelle, it is so great to see you. have a great weekend. well, we already know. is this china's way of going to war without ever thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz:

for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.

♪ neil: hacking our computers to get our deepest military screets, blattly stealing apple patents to capitalize on top technology secrets, and doing this while funding our floating debt, which is hardly a secret. connect them. is it china's way of winning a war without launching a single missile? we tought of china back ward. to the retired general who says we ave it wrorng. china's looking at chilling

version of warfare going forward. it is interesting, general, nay they have won so much withoo much as one physical altercation. >> yeah, you know, it goes to the great chinese military theorists sun su whose principle of war is to win by not fighting. the chinese have been discles of the art of war for 3,000 years. it's notnew, it's just done with computers rather than their traditional forms of espionage. look, the chinese want two things. number one, they wnt military secrets, and number two, they want intelleual property they can use to gai economic advantage and to gain weapons building advantag without having to invest in technology. as far as chinese are concerned, this makes perfectceps. they know they will not go to war in the united states over an island in the south chinaea, but in a way, at least to the

chinese mind set, they really already are at war with us. neil: they discovered as well that money talks. we, as a country in their debt, were always op defense. nevernipped the fact that guys like you they need us as much, if not more than we need them. we buy their junk as it is. we are always on defense. they know that. they have our number; right? >> what's interesting is i was in china a few yers ago, and one of the things they found interesting as the method reagan used to take down the soviet union, and the pla's senior leadership said we are so fascinated with the genius of the american people in their ability to defeat the soviet union deflecting spending and beating them at ther own game, military technology, and we think that's fascinating, and what you see, what, now, ten years on?

it's a physical manifestation of thoughts they had since the beginning of the 1990s, neil. neil: general, you're far more well adversed in military history than i'll be. usually, you come to blows. when there's a change in powe there's a military shall feel or altercation or war. i just cannot imagine this country going quietly into the night or then a new power emerging, and we just sort of wimply fall by the side, but could it be that w? >> well, you know, nuclear weapons changed everything. neil: true. >> it led the world into a new era where you defeat the united states one of two ways, terrorism, and you can use war the shadows, you can use economic warfare, soft warfare, defeat your opponents by forcing him to spend himself or stealing a secret and beating him at his own technological game, but both

of thes are done bloodlessly. when they gotnuclear weapons, big scale warfare is off the table, bu that does not mean our confrontation with china is any easier in the future, neil. neil: amazing, general, thank you. >> thank you, neil. neil: meanwhile, j-lo, please, say it ain't so. you are stunning, and you don't have to say a thing, but did you hear about the ceo of abercromb abercrombie andfitch? you will never shop at that store again. again.

neil: abercrombie be serious,

the guy whos stores are nope for chiz -- ic led models saying larger people shouldn't shop there, and shoppers of all sizes saying, you know where you can g? he overred a seiapologizes, revenue down, outlooks work. should he be bitz out on his ass? >> i understand he's trying to defend the brand, putting a size 12 brand in the mouth. it's one thing to target specific customers but another to exclude them. >> you know, really the mistake made was saying what she was thinkin and pay traps of the store are thinking he just put to words what a lot of folks think. you don't look like the models, then you don go in there. >> neil, yeah, but i mean, you provedit's posible to be obese and successful -- neil: i'm not obese, right now, i'm angry, young man, but

continue the train of thought. >> abf has a brnd. we want to look like the models in the magazines and whatnot, but they have to be not just cool, but approachable. most people are heavier than the 70-pound waist in the catalog and alienate customers, i think, is ire representable damming to the brand. neil: stating the obvious, i mean, supposed to be hip and cool and everybody aspired to that, but what they did is just hurt the bran by appearing like the elitist ?oots they are, and even among the core audience; right? >> well, i think so. you know, what's ironic to me, is, yes, we have a problem with chronic obesity in the country, adjusting insurance mortality tables to airline seats. there was a missed opportuni here. he could have said, let's take it and help ameica get healthy to do thistogether. i don't know how to put the spin on it, i'm not a pr expert, but

he din't get council on this. neil: he did not. >> showing up in the stock. neil: indeed. >> roadway tailers doing well, but his stock in the late 1990s. neil: you two a thin, and who is the idiot who came upwith "morbidly obese," anyway, issue two, a retail ceo who gets it and wants to get to the bottom of it. sear's new boss saystop blaming theeconomy for poor sales, but to look in the mirror, work your butts of, and turn the sales around. >> hat is taking speedometer -- responsibility forone's action. a lot of the political leaders, neil, the ceo of sears gets it, not just talking about taking responsibility, but putting money where his mouth is owning the majority share of the company's share. he's putting not just the reputation on the line, but the money as well. that's called taking responsibility. neil: moving the

needle yet for the store, but maybe that attitude will? >> well, i hope so. you know, i would have liked the statement better if he said the buck starts with me so let's lead by example, but, you know, th's neither here nor there. they hav problems with the real estate. i think the stock price reflects th. in this economy, i'm not sure -- i have lips today -- i don't know he'll get out of this. neil: do you think sears, the jcpenney problem, losing adentty, and workers, in general, many of them bitch and complain, but maybe that's the problem? people don't relate or understand maybe it' the tools, is i consumer products -- >> well, yeah. how do you take a company that's very old and has no identity, being everything to everybody for so long. it's not ma and pa kettle on the farm. this is the internet age everything available to

everybody 4/7. >> we were woried they would serve mr. ed on our plates. be more worry they seek rubs alcohol in the drinks. apparently, that was the case at some restaurantsinludi a tgif's that reported swapped out scotch with rubbing alcohol. you have to be plowed nt to notice that. what do you think o it >> >> well, i'm the most staunch defender of business, but what is this? watering down the wine, i mean, this isfraud. when companies, they do the brand, eil. i'm not going to sing that but the audience knows it, and it is fraud, and, youknow, it really t only hurts people in terms of the pocketbooks, but caus a great health risk as wel, they get one drink, but it's dish ter. terrible example and ruins reputation of all bsinessmen when folks engage in this. neil: celt, first of all, it's

not as if rubbing alcohol is similar to scotch. it's not like -- not quite; right? >> right! neil: how do you feel about this? this is really defeat on a criminal scale here. >> not just deceit, but fraud, criminal activity, negligence, medical liability, but this speaks to me, are things really so bad in small business america or even middle business america that they are willing to sell their ethics down the road and do this voluntarily? i mean, i have to question the management and ownership here. th fact they claim they didn't know it was going on when margins showed it, they account for every bottle and every ounce of alcohol in a restaurant like that. stunned this is just coming to light. neil: what happened is as soon as we get word, the horse meat thing, and the meatballs are horse meat, and i just thought they sold purpose --

furniture, but they have other problems tht crop up; right? >> it comes from the deceit. however much money bars think they saved in serving bad liquor instead of the good stuff, they more than pissed that away. that's n going to be replaced. lying is not just bad morally, but bad buiness. this is an example. neil: we have half price drinks with rubbing alcohol. you know. >> exactly. you'll be cleaner when you finish. neil: brilliant line. dpies, thank you very much. meanwhile, reuniting. hear about this? well, not these guys. theseguys. who wis? this is ameca.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur

neil: lost weight, and now gaining clout. with democrats, state of new jersey, 61% of whom like republican governor christie. with president obama viting him again on tuesday to sort of take a post-sandy chccup, watch what they say could push governor christie into big re-election territory ina blue state, and maybe all the way to the white house. you know, it's interesting, bob, rather tha distance himself from the president, the governor has consistently embraced the president. it might alienate conservatives within the pear, ut he dsn't seem to care. what's this all about? >> right. no, i think that's right. this is kind of a little of payback by the president because when the president was up for re-election, christie and obama worked close on sandy relief, and now christie is up, and he's a big favorite to win re-election, and now obama is coming bacup to see him. i do think ithelps christie

big-time in the short term, and in the long term, republicans have to expand the map. they are hungry for a win, nd, sure, this is going to upset the base. it upset the base last year: christie handles questions deafly, and he thinks about the presidency, maybe it's not 20 # 16, could be, maybe 202, it's on the mind. neil: he argued that, you know, focused on new jersey, the reas he didn't run for president, last go around, he was not ready for thaat, and its all about new jersey, new jersey. i'm thinking that if he gets reelected by anything approaching he margin, some of the polls indicate, that would the digest victory for any governor in new jersey in history, let alone a republican in a very, very blue state. he wouldalmost be impressing upon republicans who mig ot like him, lookkwhat i just did; right? >> yeah, that's right. that i can appeal to democrat

independents something that mitt romney and mccain struggling with against barack obama, and i think that the republican electors going through the evolution of figuring out where are we going, the bottom line is they want to win in 2016. they want to beat hillary clinton. who beats her in 2016? republicans think christie could beat her. kneel bob, you're the first to educate me on the primaries, the one that had romney because he ran to the right, ran back to the middle, alwaysin etween and that's going to be a difficult process for someone like christie. what do you think of that? c-span: . -- >> there is. there's going to be problems if he runs. the iowa caucus is difficult because a lot of the bases there, conservatives there, but i thin people vote more on personality than policies, and if christie can deal with his weaknesses, and i remember years

back, people said you like collective bargaini, and aggressively said, look, love it, i love to get into the union and beat them at the table. it ws a good argument to a supposed weakness, and christie's good at that. that's a skill that mitt romney really did not show a lot on the campaign trail. neil: he is personally appealing, might trump whatever political differences people have. he's hisown guy. we'll see how that goes. >> likability so important, neil. neil: i built a career on it, bob. you're right, have a good weend, thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. neil: what's the difference between lerner and a zombie? nothing, nothing at all, i am dead serious. ♪

neil: now you know, all the zombies, evey single one of the zombies, they are government workers. the undead forever sucking off the alive and not so well.

lerner stepped down, but with full pay at the irs. i guess she's doing so as investigating all her government shenanigans targeting conservative groups, but what does it take to terminate, to fire, to get rid of anyone in the government? fcc guys too busy watching porn to chase bad guys stealing millions, bureaucratsin government agencies made up talking points on benghazi to get to the bottom of what happened in benghazi, no one fired. see a patte here that's over the top? that's what we have on whether any of this is remotely fair. katie? >> well, i'm laughing at the true anogies about zombies and porn, but that's the governmt and the way it runs, and the fact is, this week with lener, we learned that you can't fie government employees, and not only is she at th top of the pay scale within the government, but she also is an attorney, has

a protection of a union behind her, and we both know, and everyone in the panel knows, that if she did this in the private sector, she would have been gne five days ago, and the government probably would have launched a probe to investigate her for discrimination in the private sector, but apparently that doesn't go on inside the government. neil: there is something called due process and i'll get nto it here, we got, you know, we d have a system in place to not, you know, throw someone out on the butt if they have not been implicated. having said that, though, there's many examples in the private sector where something happens under your watch, ignorance is aa poor defense, ad you're out, period. >> you're right, and, you know, the gvernment should be more like businesses. many states are right-to-work states meaning the employer and employee can leave the employment at any time, an we should see that in the government, neil, and, you know, the fact i happened under her watch, nothing happened to er,

refused to testify, it's very concerning. neil: adam, what do you think of this, though, that sometimes we do have to make an example, do we not? if no one is leaving and no one has been so much as reprimended, it begs to question you don't want to heave out someone, and that breeds its own ill-will, doesn't it? >> sure. when they do something wrong, they should be fired. if they break the law, they should be prosecuted. w agree. if we want to have a policy conversation and compare government and the corporate world which is extremely difficult and, no, we don't ant the government to run like a corporation in every instaps, but this comes down to an issue of level. i mean, people get fired in the government, or, you know, leave quickly under embarrassing situations. i think the general mcchrystal, general petraeus, think of various cabinet members over the years who stepped over the line and got fired.

the question is do we want to fire a senior level bureaucrat or wan oridicule a senior level stat department person who may or may not have don anything wrong just becau wee all upset about it, and i think the short answer is, no, and the same should be true, by the way -- neil: i disagree, adam. i think the short answer is yes. i'm not saying it's the top guy at any of the agencies, but more heads should roll under their respective watches that these things happens, and they might not be responsible, but when the best excuse is didn't know what the hell was going on, well, that warrants, i'm sorry, you're history. >> well, and the act is we've seen tat lerner signed off on not alowing these tea party groups applying for tax exempt status to get that. neil: to be fair, the letters with the signature doot mean she was targeting the groups, but it was denied p on the phon doesn't mean she didn't know about it, and the argument is out the window, the idea she knew these groups were applying

for the tax exemptstatus saying she didn't know, that creates an often times in the corporate world wehear the ceo or higher ups created a culture of whatever.r. inside the irs, they created a culture of intimidation and targeting of the groups. lerner did nothing to stop it. didn't show any remorse. neil: she should go? >> absolutely. neil: i don't want you as my boss. i want adam with my boss because i would get away with murder with adam. >> yes, you would. neil: i guess where we get at with this is thats is tougher in government, the example east not withstanding hat adam raised, but it is tougher in government to see these guys go than it is in the corporate world. now, there might be something to be said of that, due process, all of the aove, but i think it just makes those who thnk a scandal is brewing think more scandalously. >> well, two points here, neil. first, i think many of the amples adam mentioned, they were asked to resign and

resigned. don't think they were fired. point two is that the irs because of a law that passed in the late 190s is able to fire if they violate whatt of theupon they call the ten deadly sins, and the inspector general, the irs on the hill this week saying it could have happened here. they -- even when they have the authority to fire people, to oor knowled, they have not yet. >> uh-huh. >> soi think your first point is a really iteresting one getting to the difference between a political government official and a creer government official, ad it' a good thing for our country that we have a professional bureaucracy, and now, before you jump over me, they are not perfect. i mean, they are deeply flawed, as we all are, but you have a bureaucracy that is protected from political wims. the reaso why political people are not fired, the reason they resign, is that everybody understands that the president always has their resignation letter on is deek so to speak

saying, guess what, i'm accepting your resigtion, thank yoas very much. that's calledded being firedded. we want the political people to be fired quickly. neil: i'm beginning to extend on that. >> buick roar sighs are protected? il: when reagan threaned to fire the air traffic controllers at the time threatenig to strike, he said, wll, you can't do that, you're vital personnel. it says here you cannot go out on strike. they still threatened he threatened back saing, you do it, we'll fire you. they did. he fired them. there was warnings. mr. president, there's a ssibility there could be a lot of planes and passengers dying. he didn't care. none of that happened. they were fired, life went on. there was a conseqncefor an action that they knew there should be a consequence for it. >> that's how it should be. the culture in government, whether it's at a city level or in the washington, d.c. level is that you move up, and you screw up. as you screw up, you move up.

it dosn't matter what responsibilities you have as long as you plead ignorance saying it was not your fault and point to another guy. you will not be fired. in the instance of us protecting bureaucracies from the political ims, the irs case was completely political. the ente targeting of the groups was based on politics so to say they are protected somehow, -- >> no, no. >> the political whims, not true, and talk about firing employees, let's talk about the fact that hussein, the guy who shot up fort hood is still pulling a government paycheck. even though he killed americans on their bases. neil: adam? >> on the political topic, you're changing the subject. if they, you know, played politics and broke -- >> they did. neil: okay, you would fire them as wl. in this case, it was blatant, clear, unadulterated, fire. >> investigate it, find facts as soon as pock, and get rid of people. >> it's st a matter of when

among you guys, just how quickly you act. >> and at what level. we agree more than you think. neil: thank you, all. that'll do ♪ lou: hello, everybody, and than you for being with us. these people are swearing to tell the truth in fro of the house oversight committee, although not many americans are expected to believe them, and this woman, lerner, the woman a the center of the ira scandal did the unthinkable for a supposedly public servants. >> i have be advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answ questions related to the subject matter o this hearing. lou: lerner took the fth and refuse to answer questions afte plding her case for a series of denials and deflections abou the lawfulness of her actions.