i don't love it but it's safe. >> that's a fox news alert. shef rchevron is okay. i don't their execution. eog i think is better. >> guys, i want to thank you both very much. plus this is an on going matter. i'm not going to answer those questions. i just said this is an on going matter and i'm not going to comment on an ongoing matter. i'm not going to talk about an ongoing investigation. >> one after another. u.s. attorney general eric holder will not comment and lois lerner won't testify. so now they're holding him in contempt of congress. some republicans say they need her testimony to get to the bottom of the irs targeting conservatives scandal so will giving her immunity get there faster? welcome to forbes on fox.

welcome in. sabrina, didn't granting immunity at least help break watergate? look at these people? these are folks that were given immunity and very much on their testimony the president was found to be doing all -- behind all the stuff of watergate and that lead to his re-signing. >> yes, we do have to give her conditional immunity because this is about a larger issue. breaking a larger case. while it pains me to do it because we know that lois learner was come police sit in some of these clearly illegal actions we know he's a mid level bureaucrat and these orders weren't coming from her most likely and we have to see if there's a link between the white house and the irs. >> so if it worked to break the jam in watergate, won't it work here? >> one of the key things with nixon was the tapes that he had that the supreme court ruled he had to give up. what's most likely to happen is

what bill layed out in the post in friday's newspaper where he said that the subcommittee which has found her in contempt, will then cut a deal, they'll cut a deal with lernor's attorney before congress comes back from its easter break and they'll have a meeting in private and she will give some testimony in private, not in the public like this and i think that is what they're going to settle on. >> okay. but, again, it's the witness in front of congress who is granted immunity. we saw bruce in watergate, that that is really what broke the jam. what broke the stone walling from the nixon administration. >> well, i don't even -- i don't really think this is much to compare as far as watergate. i do think mike has a point there. that because this -- i can't really see anywhere where this whole vote to contempt -- contempt vote has any practical effect whatsoever and the justice department, again this week said that they're taking their investigation very

seriously. so, you know, i mean i assume that we're going to get something out of that. >> well, and again, the contempt charge isn't an issue here. what we're talking about is immunity. by the way, the evidence seems to be mounting, even without the immunity. we have evidence -- remember bill o'reilly was interviewing the president and the president was willing to put this whole business on -- in the laps of that cincinnati office. let's just play that tape. >> you're saying no corruption. >> no. >> none? >> no. there were some bone headed decisions. >> but no mass corruption. >> not even mass corruption. not even corruption. >> bone headed decisions out of a local office. that's what the president said. but we already have the lois lerner e-mail that says keep the locals out of it. this is a d.c. operation. cincy should not have these cases. >> yeah, it stinks to high heaven but the problem is and where the watergate comparison breaks down is that nixon had an

independent prosecutor and his attorney general, the first one re-signed because he wouldn support nixon and that is not -- there's not a chance that this is going to happen. eric holder is going to cover president obama until the end of days and, you know, i don't know why lois lerner, what's going to compel her to take immunity? immunity for what? what stinks to high heaven and the possibly criminal but i don't see why she would do this. >> immunity because she like the president was putting it all in the lap of the cincinnati office when we have e-mails saying just the opposite and we now have more information that people like elijah cummings and carl evan were using their contact with the irs to go against political enemies of the president. that's supposed to be illegal, right? >> yeah, that's absolutely illegal. you cannot use the irs to bully your political opponents.

and he hit the nail on the head, we don't have an independent prosecutor just yet. it's amazing that we had an independent prosecutor look at the clinton white water loans when we don't have one here. are we going to have teleprompters pleading the 5th? you shouldn't have an irs official being allowed to take the 5th. give her immunity and would she have to testify at hundreds of hearings and answer every question? i'm worried that no prosecutor would take up this case if you give her immunity. >> i'm thinking that what you're saying is if you give her immunity, if she is called again as a witness, she will not be able to plead the 5th, correct? >> that's the idea here. it really does make my skin crawl, the idea that we have a public official that thinks that she is above the law and shouldn't have to be able to testify. but there's also the political component. we know why republicans are behind it but democrats should be behind finding out and getting behind this just as much because the entire democratic

program relies on growing government through higher taxes and if the irs is under scrutiny and the american people don't trust the irs to do the right thing then their whole program falls apart. there should be holding hands between democrats and republicans on this issue. >> well, if there was ever a reon to get rid of the irs, this is it. it shows how an administration, even though it's against the law, apparently it was being used as a political tool. >> i don't think there's any doubt about that. but i think they're after how high up this went. that's why they're going to cut a deal. i think lerner, there's enough fear on her side that she won't want contempt from the full congress and face jail time and they know at this time its going to be tough to tie this directly to president obama and they'll meet behind closed doors and come to an argument and get further news from her and evidence from her. that will be the compromise. >> bruce, you must be curious as to whether there was any

connection with the white house, aren't you? >> well, sure i am. but i mean, we have to take -- can't we take the justice department? they are the people that would bring any criminal inquiry here. there's no precedent for the house ways and means committee to look into this. >> yeah there is. >> the problem is as with the nixon administration, you have a justice department that seems to have been compromised in some of its investigations, particularly this one. >> yeah, i don't know about that. >> oh, come on. >> the attorney general -- >> he's already held in contempt in fast and furious. >> this is hardly a comparison to watergate. this is a ridiculous comparison. >> wait a minute. [ inaudible ] >> one at a time. go ahead. >> separate from the fall out from watergate, that era, the nixon era, saw the nixon administration using the irs to abuse political enemies. you did have the tax committees drilling down to find out about th abuses there. so it is there to do it.

the question is, what good will we get giving lois lerner immunity. will she not answer questions or be forced to under immunity. >> the fact that he has any on this is absurd. he is saying the investigations have to do about race. give me a break about eric holder already. enough about that. >> i'm wondering what the west coast feels about all this. >> yeah, you know, the problem is is that it's the crying wolf syndrome. i think this is a very legitimate case but the republicans have had so many -- they have done so many stunts like this and even i think, dave campho my i otherwise think is a great congressman has mishandled this and that stuff matters and it's too bad because there's a real scandal here. >> we should mention there's two committees. camps is one and isop another.

how do you think it will all boil down? >> well, i think what we're going to find is kimberly wrote in the journal this week is its not going to be a direct link. there's going to be a lot of different pieces but if there were a number of people insinuating this is the direction the irs would take. we need to know who they were and understand how the flow of money went. as much as i hate the idea of lois lerner getting off on this, there were other people involved in this. >> as time goes on we are getting more e-mails. and we're getting more evidence. coming up next, an outpouring of support for the ceo quitting after catching flak for promoting traditional marriage. can this mess teach us how to come together better in the office. >> i don't think that everybody didn't support same-sex marriage is somehow a

up. a short word that's a tall order. up your game. up the ante. and if you stumble, you get back up. up isn't easy, and we ought to know. we're in the business of up. everyday delta flies a quarter of million people while investing billions improving everything from booking to baggage claim. we're raising the bar on flying and tomorrow we will up it yet again. cozy or cool? "meow" or "woof"? exactly the way you want it ... until boom, it's bedtime! your mattress is a battleground of thwarted desire.

enter the all-new sleep number classic series. designed to let couples sleep together in individualized comfort. starting at just $699.99 for a queen mattress. he's the softy. his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock, at 60. and snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that. find your sleep number setting only at a sleep number store. know better sleep with sleep number.

eastern for a brand new hour of american's news headquaters. now back to "forbes on fox." you're watching the most powerful name in news, fox news. a huge debate erupting over mozilla ceo re-signing after it was revealed that six years ago he contributed to a group that opposed same-sex marriage. this is what one liberal columnist and gay activist said about it. >> you don't want to bring this political warfare into the work place. we have to be able to get along with people we sincerely passionately disagree with. >> so sebrina, how much and

specifically in what way should a person's private life and views outside the office effect his role inside the office? >> i agree with sullivan. i don't think it should effect it. ike seemed to have a lot to bring to the table from a business perspective. he was one of the authors of java script which drives the internet. he's been with the company for years when it was netscape. there's a lot he clearly had to offer and, look, i can't stand a lot of the things that are said about the wage gap but i still sign in to facebook every day. the leader of a company is just simply not going to fit a certain mold of every one of their followers. >> yeah, and bruce, we should mention of course that mr. ike was saying something which at the same time, the president was saying about gay marriage. >> yeah, that's true, david. i think one of the lessons is maybe he didn't know he was going to become a ceo. when you become a ceo you're a public figure so you're then subject to these type of things. so you become a public figure

and another thing is i don't understand -- this is just my personal view on this, why and how -- whether a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman effects his daily life and $1,000 seems like a bet to put down -- it looks like he's on the wrong side of history anyway with the way the courts are ruling. a lot of things happened since this time. >> this is not now -- maybe it could be but we're not going to make it a debate about gay marriage. it's a debate about freedom of speech and a powerful business man that is a supporter said this. i think it's more than unfortunate a private political action is no one's business and to make it a public issue is wrong. >> yeah. you know, that's interesting. and he makes an important point. it's someone's personal opinion. you're not going to change hearts and minds by bullying people into agreeing with your opinion. by the way, the antigay attacks have been abusive and just down

right awful and wrong. gay people have been villified but i would not want to work at a job, no one would want to work at a job where someone is being bullied into agreeing with someone else's personal opinion. >> the fact is, its best to work in an environment in which you can get along with people that you disagree with politically or religiously or whatever. >> of course but the guy that made this an issue is ike. the board didn't want him out. the employees didn't want him out. i don't even think he really wanted the job. if he did he would have showed some backbone. he had the support of the company and workers. he backed out. >> i'm not sure of that. there's some evidence to the contrary. that he was forced to re-sign. but what i want to focus on here again sabrina is the fact that should people be forced to confirm to politically correct standards because those standards very often change? >> right and it's the politically correct part that's

upsetting. even if everybody on this panel agrees that gay marriage is going to move forward in this panel, it's a feaux diversity. it can't come in certain shapes sizes and colors. he has an opinion and has the right to express his opinion and if they didn't want him as ceo they didn't have to choose him. >> who at the company said he didn't have that right? who at the company said he didn't have that right? >> let's not get into that detail because the fact is that there are people that are subjected to abuse within the office place for their believes and bruce, i'm just wondering where you drawhe line? >> well, i mean, it's a complicated case. certainly if he had to make this decision today, a lot of things have changed. maybe he didn't know he was going to be a ceo but i'm going to come back to the whole thing is if you're a ceo i know a lot of people in sales. they say when you're in sales don't bring up religion and don't bring up politics.

>> so should a ceo not be a republican or democrat, bruce. >> no, i'm not saying that at all. i'm just saying that, you know, there are certain positions where people don't want to talk about politics. >> but the fact is our society -- hold on sabrina, our society has become so political. >> that's unfortunate. >> say for example a tea party. say somebody gives money to the tea party. a perfectly legitimate tea party organization. nancy pelosi and others say it's the equivalent of the kkk. >> that's so wrong. for god's sakes we have to stop with the emotional overheated idiotic rhetoric coming out of our poll tigs. that's is wrong. and the thing is the danger is pressuring someone to get out of their job because you don't agree with them. the attacks are wrong but we have to watch it here. >> coming up, donald trump and senator rand paul pushing plans today to make america great again. don't miss them on a special edition coming up. but first, right here, call it out of this world, government

waits. waits. nasa is smart enough to [ grunting ]

i'm taking off, but, uh, don't worry. i'm gonna leave the tv on for you. and if anything happens, don't forget about the new xfinity my account app. you can troubleshoot technical issues here. if you make an appointment, you can check out the status here. you can pay the bill, too. but don't worry about that right now. okay. how do i look? ♪ thanks. [ male announcer ] troubleshoot, manage appointments, and bill pay from your phone. introducing the xfinity my account app. >> no, this isn't rocket science. it's madscience, ladies and gentlemen. nasa is blowing $3 million of your hard earned money to figure out how to lobby congress. i kid you not. so why do the brainiacs that put men on the moon need 3 million to figure out how congress

works? >> nasa doesn't capture the public's imagination as it once did. it's uncertain about it's future. this is a ridiculous request. why don't you pay harrison ford to be the head of nasa and bring glamour and glitz back in. >> i love it. that's a great idea. bruce, what do you think about this? >> i'm a little surprised by this because the obama administration has reduced spending on nasa and even reallocated money toward technology. a few years ago they said they were going to give up the idea of sending a man on the moon and outsource it to the private sector. so this is surprising. >> so even when you reduce the money that goes to nasa, this is where they decided to spend the money. >> you make a great point. clearly there's too many artificial intelligence in government if you think you need to teach a rocket scientist how to lobby. that's like teaching cows how to moo. >> mike, what do you think? i don't know. my take away from this is remember this incident the next

time any politician says they need a tax increase. >> a tax increase, or sabrina. every branch of politics from the president to john boehner said they're for cutting government. well, if this isn't waste, i don't know what is. >> right. and first of all, i wouldn't use harrison ford, i would use sandra bullock. the business of health care, the business of industry, and the business of education. now the business of lobbying. i peel like we're on the episode of a daily show. >> or sandra bullock spinning out into space. >> richard was for sandra playing that part. doesn't this show the only way is just to lower the size of government period. >> you have to, you know? and really, private space travel is going to be the thing. that's where all the action is going forward. >> but we have a consumer protection. we now have a federal consumer protection agency. where's the federal tax protection agency. >> that's a good thought but i'm

wondering about rich's point. what about just getting rid of nasa and let the private sector do it. >> i think space exploration was important. i think when reagan was president we yielded a lot of great technology for that. but this is something out of a tony soprano episode. it's taking money and forcing somebody to pay money to get it back. i wouldn't go this way. >> and forgive us tony soprano because you're much better than they were ever. coming up a rough week for stocks to say the

we're back and our informers have stock ready to spring back to life. >> their satellite and communications equipment is selling like hot cakes. >> yeah, do you like it? >> yeah, analysts on wall street are saying some of these guys like this stock. it's been on quite a bull run. they're suggesting possibly buying it on the dip. >> why do you like it? >> big liquid natural gas player. >> that is the future, right? >> yeah, good company and they're one of the first in terms of getting government approval but they better start turning a profit soon because they have a mountain of debt. >> a lot of people are worried about this stock market. are you? it crashed this week. >> count me as one of the warriors. it's going to be a bumpy ride

because i think corporate profit growth is slowing. >> coming back. >> i'm not sure the entire market will be taken down with it. >> heed the wisdom of these fol. that's it for forbes on fox. keep it right here. the number one business block continues with cashing in. donald, rand, and sarah, they're all here fired up and ready to bring america back from the blink of liberal progressive failure. if you love your country and your freedom, pull up a chair and put down that remote. we're talking, life, liberty, and the pursuit of conservative values. i'm eric bolling. we begin today with a headliner of this week's freedom summit. the one, the only, the donald. >> all right mr. trump, the freedom summit. we're having a little freedom summit of our own. to get america back on track, what do we need? what does donald trump t