market likes that, and that may explain some of the gain that we've seen thus far on wall street. other than that, it's been a rather placid hearing for jeff sessions as the next attorney general of the united states. and with that, i'll hand it over to neil. sir, it's yours. neil: all right, stuart, thank you very, very much. again, that pretty much describes what's going on on capitol hill, placid, even though jeff sessions has been interrupted four final by protesters -- four times by protesters. fact of the matter is he is getting through this, at least at this juncture, with barely a glove laid on him. of course, that could change tomorrow when senator cory booker, the new jersey senator -- many argue maybe a future presidential prospect -- challenges him directly as a witness against jeff sessions. that is unusual if not close to unprecedented. we haven't gone back into the 1800s to see if there's been a case like that, but at least over the last 100 years or so, we haven't seen anything like that.

for the time being, jeff sessions has been holding his own, saying that he would recuse himself from any clinton e-mail investigation, that same-sex marriage -- even though he was against it -- is now settled law, move on. he did not say the same about roe v. wade which is the law of the land, but he found it and still finds it unconstitutional. he went on to say a priority for him would be religious liberty. and that that would set the tone for his attorney generalship and that he would not be simply or merely a rubber stamp for president-elect trump once he is president. former u.s. attorney john ash croft here to weigh in on this. that was a very controversial approval process in your day, you barely beat the filibuster minimum of 41 is. you got approved by 58-42 in a very divided, raucous senate that was making you sort of the point person for every ailment in society. i don't know whether senator

sessions is being fingered for the same, but how do you think it's going thus far? >> well, it's going very well. really some of the questions have really allowed senator sessions to reinforce the main virtue in becoming attorney general, and that is that he's devoted to the rule of law. when they seem to improperly conflate or confuse his positions in the senate, some of which would be in agreement with what law was passed and disagreement, they mistake the issue. he is a person devoted to having the law enforced, and that's a fundamental thing -- neil: was that your position when you were going through the confirmation process? >> it was not only my position, it was my policy in the justice department. people -- we don't need people in the attorney general's office who would somehow subordinate the rule of law to their own personal preferences. and unfortunately, that's happened more recently than we would like for it to have

happened where people said, well, i don't agree with that law, we won't enforce it. we think that the law would be better off in another configuration, so we'll adjust the law. no, the law should be made by the united states congress, signed by the president, and once it's the law, it needs to it was my responsibility to do that with laws i both agreed with and i disagreed with. i took that responsibility seriously. i am convinced these hearings are allowing jeff sessions to reveal that that would be his approach, which is the appropriate approach. so when they asked the tough questions now, i feel like it is like old paul harvey radio script, drive-by political assassination types, he gives the answer, the rest of the story. the rest of the story is not only clarification but the rest of the story indicate he is a rule of lawated to the which safeguards liberties for

all americans. neil: i'm not sure if they looked at your confirmation hearings. they were raucous. you ended up with all that hullabaloo getting democrats votes to get with the 50 republicans in the senate. this is expected to go along party lines, i'm not sure, that means jeff sessions would squeak by. secretary of state position, mr. tillerson's case, already couple of republicans raising doubts about him but how do you think this goes? >> first of all i expect jeff sessions to be confirmed. most of the votes have already been decided in personal meetings and the like. a good about it of these hearings is theater. neil: yeah. >> there will be some theater of people seeking to become people best regarded by the democrat party as eligible to become leaders in a party that is now

adrift. so posturing. neil: would it go along party lines? backing which is unusual at the time. i don't know. i told people count heads and numbers say it will probably be with all said and done a 52-48 vote that close, given makeup of the senate. what do you think? >> i would think that would be unlikely. neil: okay. >> i think there are eight or 10 senators who are up for election next year, who are on the democrat side, who were in jurisdictions that trump carried by double digits. you would think that their ability just to advertise themselves as total partisans and people who would disregard the virtue of this proposed nominee in order just to sort of sink themselves up with a party that -- neil: joe manchin of west virginia comes to mind. some more moderate and vulnerable democrats. that is a very good point. i guess what i would ask you

though, the job itself, this is theç kickoff one, we'll get homeland security position a little later today. of course five are up for confirmation hearings tomorrow. this one gets a lot of attention because the attorney general is a very powerful post. even though you respect the law, you're supposed to uphold the law, whether you point out sir, whether you agree with it or not, some zealous attorneys general can go beyond that and interpret the law. that was the rap against eric holder. many said the same of you post 9/11. how do you define the job? >> well the job is the job of safety guarding american liberties by limiting the governmental authority to that which is expressed in the law and constitution. i think when people conflate the idea of power with the idea of authority, the constitution tells you what the authority is. it is supposed to limit the exercise of power.

i think more recently we saw a president who rather intoxicated with his power disregarded the constitution and the role of the legislative branch and literally by fiat or by executive order was creating things that rightfully belonged in the process of law creation and the legislature. i think the clear value of jeff sessions is that he is devoted to the restoration of the rule of law, limiting the exercise of power, and in conformity with the authority provided in the statutes and the constitution. and yes, there are people who have abused their power by exceeding the authority of the constitution. jeff sessions is a person who's life has been devoted to observing, respecting both the law and constitution. i think his hearings are going to make this abundantly clear. i expect him to be confirmed.

and i expect him to be an excellent attorney general because of his devotion to the rule of law which has not been respected in recent days. neil: senator, general, impressive resume'. you both. let me get your take on the theater aspect you mentioned. i agree with you, but it looks to me like professional wrest link. everyone has the positions and go back to the respective corners after the hearing. i wonder in your case if you don't want to compromise friendships where they say look, i have to really, you know go after you, john, but i still love you but i have a pot a lot of people who are expecting me to rip you a new one. you hug afterwards. i think it is professional wrestling. what say you? >> well, obviously there is an element of that. i don't mean toç say that there totally insincere people, very sincere opposition, but there were people who said to me, i'll be with you, but you know, and

they weren't and later on came to me, we saw you were going to win i could take a pass on this. my people wanted to be against you. neil: that strikes me as wormy. >> let me say, this is not, this is politics. neil: yeah, you're right. >> there are people who are seeking to establish themselves as the banner bearers for the democrat party which doesn't know exactly where it's going next few years. neil: you think that could be senator cory booker tomorrow? he will be testifying against senator sessions? >> you know, i find that to be a very, very aggressive tactic. neil: yeah. >> it is also a risky tactic. when you put yourself on the interrogation side of the table, it is one thing, but when you make yourself available to be interrogated, if you're a witness before a senate committee, there are members of the senate, if they choose to, who can ask you questions.

i think a person who is going to go to that side of the desk and start throwing rocks better be sure he doesn't live in a glass house. neil: well-put. senator, general, thank you for your service for this country, at a very scary time as well. good seeing you. happy new year. >> yeah. my best to you, thanks a lot. neil: all right, in the meantime we're getting word from speaker paul ryan's office, that he too now is joining the president-elect in this idea if you're going to replace or repeal obamacare, you should replace it at the same time. that was a position advanced by senator rand paul here just a couple of days ago. but that is a point now that seems to be widely echoed among republicans. if that is true. this effort to repeal obamacare immediately would be shelved, until they have replacement in hand in place so it would be immediate. republican senator john thune joins us right now. senator, thank you for your patience with all this going on. how do you feel about that, sir?

>> well, look, the first step we have to repeal the old and got to replace it with the alternative. replacing it can happen on the day that we repeal it. i expect there will be certain elements of replacement piece of legislation that would be enconcluded in the bill that repeals it. it can be done through rifle shot pieces of legislation. it can be done through administrative action. there are, there will be another opportunity, another budget resolution and hopefully reconciliation bill later this year other pieces of it could be replaced. the fact of the matter is, we've got to repeal itç first, everybody knows that. we've gotreplace it. the replacement timing is something being discussed right now but ultimately we'll come to a place where we have consensus on that. neil: i know you're busy doing a lot of other things today. we're getting word as this hearing is going on, senator, when asked about going after hillary clinton, senator jeff sessions, while saying that he would recuse himself from any

clinton email investigation on his own, he would, he would be open or favor a special prosecutor for any investigation of the former secretary of state. how do you feel about that? >> you know, that is going to be ultimately a decision that, when confirmed, he will be charged with making. i have great confidence in jeff sessions that he will do the right thing. i think as you heard him testify this morning, what you get this is somebody who has an absolute commitment and respect for the rule of law. he will be a great law enforcement leader for this country. neil: will he act unilaterally as role as attorney general when the president-elect, by end of next week, the president, says i'm not in favor of taking any prosecutorial action against her? >> my guess would be, whatever he does would be in consultation with the president of the united states. again, i don't know. i didn't hear what he said in response to questions at the

hearing today but i think it is an issue that i have a high level of confidence that jeff sessions when confirmed will do the right thing about. neil: i guess there is sort of like a comradery of gentlemanly, womenly club feeling of you and your 99 colleagues, most exclusive club on the planet, so it did raise eyebrows, that senator cory booker of new jersey will testify against jeff sessions. what do you think of that? >> look, i don't know exactly what his reasons are. every senator gets to, they have their prerogatives, they can decide what they want to do and how they want to voight. i do think having served here for some amount of time here with jeff sessions and understanding the respect he is held in among our colleagues of the senate, i would be surprised if any of that goes very far in terms of the tone of it, but i would hope at the end of the day, there will be democrat and

republicans who come together to vote to confirm jeff sessions. this is a person who has an incredible resume' when it comes to law enforcement both in the state of alabama and in the night and now four terms in the united states senate. he is somebody here respected on capitol hill. when it companies to the law enforcement community across this country, held in very high respect and regard. i would hope democrats would joinç with republicans after he gets through this confirmation process on a final vote that would enable him to serve this country, continue to serve this country as our chief law enforcement officer. we know he will do it with great integrity and great respect for the rule of law. neil: ping-ponging very quickly on this whole move on obamacare, if, if the leadership, speaker ryan in the house, and, and suddenly you get senator mitch mcconnell saying, wait a minute, let's have repeal and replace at the same time, that would seem to be a hearing wishes of donald trump who also

was critical of going after or peeling back the ethics committee that was an early goal of republicans. do you think you guys are off to a stumbling start? >> i don't think so. i don't think there is anything, neil, that has been said so far that is inconsistent what the position we've held all along. first off, repeal the bad law. it is broken. 80% of the american people say it has to be repealed or replaced or significantly changed. that is a given. we've been having this conversation if hillary clinton was president today. it has got to be fixed. starts with repealing it. replacement process we'll come together around strategy but it could clearly be, and it will be in csultation with the new president and his team, wi o colleagues in the house of representatives but it could be a multipronged approach. you could do parts of replacement with this repeal process today. you could do it as i said, rifle shot bills specifically address specific component parts of

replacement alternative. you could do it. a lot of things done through administrative action by the next secretary of health and human services. there will be a another reconciliation bill later this year which we could incorporate some of the elements of the replacement. the point simply we're unified, unified it needs to be repealed and replaced with something that is patient-centered, personalized, more affordable to every american. neil: senator john thune, thank you again. happy new year to you. >> appreciate it. neil, same to you. neil: senator john thune the fine state of south dakota. we've been going in and out of the hearings here. senator mike lee of utah, one of the folks supposedly on a short trump list to replace antonin scalia. that is anyone's guess how that would sort out. he is questioning the attorney general pick on a host of issues, not the least of which would i be immigration, which is an issue coming up. back to this health care issue, whether an attorney general

could unravel it, deal with republican senate or republican house might not. to former obama economic advisoç austan goolsbee. will be at the president's big speech in chicago, just in case it gets a little unruly and loud there, he is taking a portable tv set watching fbn live coverage of said event as well. thank you, my friend. thank you for coming. >> great to see you. i have to get my fbn coverage. neil: there you go. there you go. let me ask you a little bit what seems to be a pivot at the very least among republicans to potentially junk repeal and move so repeal and replace at same time. they're not getting -- rand paul was on the show, that would be the ideal idea. what do you think? >> yeah, great. that would be the ideal idea. only they don't have a replacement. so, the more they keep saying

not do this until they have replacement, that backs me to question number one, what are their ideas? during the campaign they asked donald trump specifically, they said, people criticize you for not being specific. what would you replace obamacare with? and his answer was, something fabulous. i take that -- neil: what they were alluding to -- >> replace with something fabulous. neil: there were half a dozen different plans on the table, most which take free market approaches to this. anyone's guess how that would be effective but do you think that there is room for democrats to work with republicans on fixes? i believe the president himself has said there are a lot of things that should be ironed out, should be fixed, that should be worked out. >> if there are fixes, sure. neil: can two parties work together on this? >> as a matter of theory, yes. democrats would definitely be open to reasonable fixes. i think you know that, what the

republicans are proposing there is not proposing quote, unquote fixes to be reasonable fixes. they're proposing fixes because they can not vote, get enough votes to actually repeal it. so they're trying to find ways to repeal it without actually repealing it. i -- neil: i don't need to you assign their motives here, it does make a lot of sense, maybe rand paul is saying, to come up with replacement, to avoid any disruption for 20 or so million to have insurance. question whether it will be more affordable and better insurance. >> without kicking people off. if they propose something like that, i can't speak for the senators but i'm a democrat who would be for that, if they had reasonable fixes. neil: moving across state lines, for allowing to ease up on malpractice lawsuits and like, something republicans were pitchingç when you guys were crafting this back in 2010, are you open to that? do you think democrats are open

to that? >> well i don't -- take crossing the state lines, you know, insurers in alabama would start insuring people in new york city. there are a bunch of major questions that arises, such as, the people in new york city going to have to go to doctors in network that are in alabama? are the rules in new york city going to apply? of what's required in insurance, if the insurers from out-of-state? if you sort it out, those things, i absolutely believe that more competition among insurance companies could be good. if you found a way to do that, that didn't just trash the system, i think a lot of people would be open to it. neil: are you surprised as an economist of note and great respect that this thing ended up being -- >> here it comes, as expensive as it has become and premium jolt was what you expected? i always hear from people, it would have been a lot worse without the law without knowing that. >> well, i guess i would say two

things about that the first is, we know that for the 50 years running up to before obamacare came in, the inflation rate was well higher on health care than it has been since obamacare passed. so we can not say for certain what it would have been but we have a 50-year track record that inflation was three times the cpi, and that the health care inflation rate has been the lowest in modern memory. neil: so when people are looking at eye-popping premiums and rest is that just an anomaly or insuring them it would have been a lot worse with out it? >> be careful. are you talking about in the exchanges or the overall -- neil: people's think about it, austan. people's clear exposure to health care is at first through the premium they get for their insurance coverage. >> yes and majority of people on the exchanges, the a majority people on exchanges are getting their health care for less than $50 a month. that is exactly my point.

neil: but we're doing it via subsidies for smaller and smaller pool of people? we're all paying for that. >> there are many differentst os that have the most people are working basically just fine. neil: but if the same exchanges were such a great idea we would have all 50 states thriving with these wonderful exchanges and we're not. >> not all thriving. like i said, there are several where they, there has been a problem of insurers dropping out. as you know, there are somewhere there is not enough competition. neil: yeah. >> to go back to the point of wanting more. neil: okay. the speech tonight, what do you expect to hear from the president in his farewellç announcement? >> well, as you know, not a lot of these speeches are remembered for much more than the few days around when they give them. neil: eisenhower's was, right, when he warned about the military complex.

>> and george washington. other than those two. neil: i covered washington's. his was very good. outside of the powdered wig thing. >> if the past is a guide, you will see the president kind of opening the next chapter. he gets to write the first draft, first suggestion here is what i would like history to consider my legacy. i bet you hear a fair amount how we were teetering on the edge of a depression and we are no longer on a depression. go through various accomplishments and probably outline a little bit, vision for the future and why it differs from donald trump's. neil: you were a key part of that, young man. agree or disagree, there is no arguing that. austan goolsbee. >> if i'm a young man they're dog years. neil: tell me about it. i'm just being kind because it is new year. >> i know you are. neil: austan goolsbee, former economic advisor to president barack obama who's swan song

tonight. as we've been chatting, dow getting closer to 20,000. i'm not going to say anything. the more we focus on it doesn't happen. but we're 4points away! 47 points away! hey gary, what are you doing? oh hey john, i'm connecting our brains so we can share our amazing trading knowledge. that's a great idea, but why don't you just go to thinkorswim's chat rooms where you can share strategies, ideas, even actual trades with market professionals and thousands of other traders? . . tap into the knowledge of other traders on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade.

neil: these on firmmation hearings continue on capitol hill for jeff sessions of the he is the only cabinet appointee slate for two days of hearings. some could end up two days, multiple days but jeff sessions has honor of two days slated. donald trump's pick as next attorney general of the united states. but the fireworks could come tomorrow. we're expected to hear from new jersey senator cory booker, often mentioned as a handful of potential 20 presidential prospects. he will assume a role we have

not seen a senator play last 100 years testifying against jeff sessions. that he is not fit for this job and has facts to support it so says senator booker's office. that is one step up from asking hostile questions and critical questions testifying against his appointment period. that comes tomorrow. outside of four or five protest heating up by demonstrators, sessions is holding his own. we'll keep an eye on it for you. meantime, keeping an eye on some interesting developments behind the scenes regarding not only health care which we told you about, where republicans might be dialing that back and waiting to have a repeal effort and a replacement effort at the same time. when that can be done is anyone's guess. we already heard from kentucky senator rand paul who was saying on this very show he could come up with a plan like now. word he has a plan ready to go now. question is whether there would be enough republican support for that.

what changed things the word that president-elect liked rand paul's idea. repeal and replace at same time to avoid any debate or bad press. this big hearing on capitol hill where reince priebus, chief of staff for the incoming administration. former cbo director douglas holtz-eakin on all of that, and now talk, i guess, doug, they are looking at tax cuts but in a less, i don't know, this is my opinion, bold way. in other words, not that off the charts. not ronald reaganesque big but not that big. am i interpreting that correctly? >> i think that is how it is shaking out. we've heard in recent weeks both chairman brady of the ways and means committee and speaker paul ryan talk about budget neutral tax reform. that is a far cry from the major tax cut. we know where the president-elect was on the campaign. you can only guess they will land somewhere in between. neil: running cbo in those days

when you had to crunch the numbers, all of that, you talk about dynamic accounting, republicans do, talking about tax cuts treated differently than spending and supply-siders pushing tax cuts have been saying, yeah you could have short-term ding in the deficit to make things worse but longer term you get a lot more revenue and appreciate the dynamic accounting and score it thusly. do they score it thusly? >> yes they will. the joint committee on taxation will score any tax bill. consistent with the house and senate rules, they will do dynamic scoring of those. what that means if the tax reform will generate better growth, that is a top imperative generating hirer -- higher wages higher profits that is the plan all time all along and we'll see that. neil: i don't know how you score

tax cuts and get a baseline from that. how do they do this, you're closer to this than i am, mitch mcconnell when he talked about the tax cuts being revenue neutral, particularly tax cuts on the wealthy, that they not get, maybe to steve mnuchin's point, incoming likely treasury secretary, that the rich don't get a tax cut. they get simpler taxes, easier to fill out taxes but they don't

standard of living for of the average american. this is way for president-elect to fulfill his pledge to take care of those who put him in office. neil: real quickly, do you think republicans with big goals stumbling out the gate? i'm talking ethics thing that went flat and health care thing that might be delayed because they want to get a repeal and replacement immediately? and this whole tax cut debate? >> i don't, i don't think so. and on the health care, there is new polling out today by my sister organization, american action network, that says 70% of americans support the strategy on capitol hill. neil: all right. >> major changes to the affordable care act and sensible transition to the new system that doesn't look like a stumble to me. neil: they're talking different agendas here.

we'll watch it. doug, thank you very, very much. >> sure. neil: issues seems to be get rid of obamacare, they still are hell bent on that. the division, if you want to call it that, is over whether to get a replacement in there right away. the growing consensus seems to be right away. that is what is the debate. more after this. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away.

ask your doctor about cialis.

neil: welcome back, everybody. we're following multiple events for you. i want to get you caught up here on coast to coast.

jeff sessions, donald trump's pick for attorney general, is surviving at least at this juncture. day one of confirmation talks. he hasn't indicated in just the last half hour, although he would recuse himself from the clinton email investigation if one were ever to come to pass, he does favor special prosecutor for, for that whole mishmash. so, again, he is just trying to make sure people are clear on that. while he would personally recuse himself, he is open to a special prosecutor, something that presumably his boss, donald trump, has sort of poo-pooed. at least he did right after the election itself. the clintons, donald trump saying here, has suffered enough. senator sessions, same-sex marriage is settled law. we have to go on with it. he said the same about roe v. wade, he did argue there that is unconstitutional. he denounced a number of time the kkk at the hearing, even though protesters interrupting this event today denounced him for racist remarks he said were

taken out of context and are not fair or right with him. he also said his chief job as attorney general should come to pass, protect religious liberties, that would be priority for him. or he nor would be a rubberstamp for president of the united states. the fireworks could come together when senator cory booker will for first time be a sitting senator testifying against a sitting senator. no, i have not got an answer, whether sessions a member of this judiciary committee can vote for himself. which would be kind of tip it one way or the other. we'll see. as that hearing continues, we've got the dow in and out after 50-point gap where we are or 20,000. we're keeping an eye on it for you. we don't want you to obsess or get a panic. closer we get, we'll keep bringing it to your attention. meantime, "the daily caller" news foundation editor on all of these crosscurrents today.

so far, katie, looks like sessions is handling critics okay. goes back to things and policies became law he would opposed then, would honor as attorney general of the law of the land. including those items that he opposed? >> of course all these allegation, somehow these racist allegations that have bled their way into this hearing, he has been so poisedded. he answered all these questions. he articulated over and over again he will stand up for whatever is law as attorney general. these allegations that have been doing me came from a mentally ill man who never was corroborated, made false claims, and now you have people like cory booker using this against him, testifying against sessions, on false allegations on something that has no merit. again this horrible idea of using identity politics to attack a man who has done a lot of good, a lot of years in the senate doing good for civil

rights movements. booker, himself, praised session in the past for the civil rights work he has done. neil: he has prosecute ad kkk klansmen case. >> right. neil: and later on attorney general oversaw his execution in alabama. be that as it may, those comment some 30 plus years old linker. having said that i'm curious, is on related issue, senator sessions does believe that voter identification laws are not a restriction on voting and would honor the current law and enforce it. i always wonder about attorneys general, not how they interpret the law but aggressively fight for the law. a lot of critics of eric holder fought for provisions but didn't honor that when looking after our nation's police. only after those they targeted. this comes up now in the case of

laws that jeff sessions might not really flip over, but that he would presumably enforce. they tried to hundred pim down, this and other issues, comes back i would honor the law. it is the law. what do you make of that? >> the most important thing you have to trust this person. he is sitting there and he is saying he will uphold the law. he said it so many times. what are you going to do turn around say, you're lying, i don't believe you? i think he is correct. all he has to do say, i will uphold the laws that the senate, that congress, that are signed by donald trump, i will uphold laws signed by obama. he will do his job as attorney general. you have to be able to believe him. you have to have a trust in the system that he has been vetted thoroughly enough that he will do his job well. neil: i always get the feeling, and maybe you do as well, katie, that he would be more in the mold of a john ashcroft, who was my guest earlier this hour, very controversial choice, very conservative choice.

>> right. neil: ended up getting approved 58-42 averting whole filibuster nonsense at the time. but it was dicey. >> right. neil: it was ashcroft who after 9/11, you know, was going after a lot of privacy advocates say their privacy and intruding on americans freedom and protections for privacy. so things happen. and i'm wondering whether sessions is in that mold, and would take an aggressive posture on these security issues, that has some of the democrats on the panel, particularly, asking him a lot of questions? >> right. so i can't speak to what he will or won't do. i have to have faith what he is saying and what he is saying, that he will use the law, he will follow the law as it has been written, as congress has intended. i don't want to sit there and think, hey, he is lying, i don't trust him.

i think he is going to do that. i think he will apply the law as it is to be applied. neil: you're right, katie, you never know. things come up and change. we would never envision activism of the eric holder or activism on the right of john ashcroft and things can and do change. >> right. neil: and are warranted by the times. >> i would like to remain hopeful that he is going to do an excellent job. i think he will do a excellent job. setting him up with racist rhetoric and allegations not true i don't understand the point of that. what good does that do nominating a attorney general that we hope would do a good job? neil: if i were held accountable for stuff i said decades ago, first of all i think i was in drunken stupor. secondly, i don't even remember. the record is what should matter. katie, thanks very much. >> thanks for having me. neil: still looking at dow, and still looking at hearing going on and on and still looking

whether jeff sessions can absorb punishing attacks on the left, those that try to define him as a racist, he prosecute ad case which he went after cue clucks klansmen that murdered -- a blak man in alabama. what do i know. i read a prompter for a living.

neil: we're on these hearings. focusing on trump tower. that is robert f. kennedy, jr., at the big trump tower. big environmentalist. very big climatologist, was very chagrined by donald trump's position that climate change was a sham perpetrated by the chinese. that was something that the president-elect said actually repeatedly during the campaign. he since dialed those comment back. met with the likes of al gore and a host of others. now robert f. kennedy, jr., two

of the biggest environmentalist public officials, both names on that issue. again on his way up to see the president-elect. as those meetings continue and who is going up and down, connell mcshane at the trump tower with very latest. hey, connell. reporter: neil, i had one thought on robert f kennedy, jr., appearance at trump tower, a noted vaccine skeptic. we've noted by transition official, vaccines will be topic of the discussion. doesn't mean other things might not come up as well. other high-profile name has been here, fairness relatively light day. focus of the transsession team appears to be most part in washington with confirmation hearings from washington today, mark burnett arrived here. famed reality show producer. it has been three hours. doesn't mean he didn't sneak out with somebody. the inaugural committee only

announced three performers, radio city rockettes, mormon tabernacle choir, jackie evancho from america's top talent. i was reiterated i that mr. burnett has no roll planning inauguration or with the inaugural committee. he was here today. if you're a sports fan, commission steer of major league baseball, rob manfredi, accompanied with randy levine, president of the new york yankees and mr. manfred on way out. >> what a great basketball fan he is and we're glad we had an opportunity to get together before his inauguration. reporter: take that for what it is worth. the mt. elect spoken many titleses over the year as mr. manfred what a great baseball fan. he played if high school. the two of them met today. this rfk, jr., meeting will go on. we're told the topic is vaccines.

focus is in d.c. tomorrow, neil as you know returns here, much anticipated news conference in new york. we have 11:00 a.m. eastern start from midtown tomorrow. neil: middle of all those other confirmation hearings. connell, thank you very much. slated tomorrow to connell's point, we have rex tillerson for secretary of state, treasury, tom price at hhs, mike pompeo at cia the, elaine chao, transportation, that could be pushed back, james mattis as defense. part after blitzkrieg of confirmation hearings. can we go back, getting a little contentious with al franken leading the charge. >> among the cases that you listed that you personally handled three voting right cases and desegregation case. last week i should note, three attorneys who work at doj, who actually brought three of the four cases, wrote an op-ed piece

in which they say quote, we can state categorically that sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them. now you originally said you personally handled three of these cases but these lawyers say that you had no substantive involvement. chairman grassley, i would ask that that op-ed, from last tuesday's "washington post" be entered into the record. >> without objection, it will be entered. >> are they distorting your record here? >> yes. in fact one of the writers there, mr. hebert, spent a good about it of time in my office. he said i supported him in all the cases he brought. that i was more supportive than any other u.s. attorney. that i provided office space.

i signed the complaint that he brought. as you know, may know, senator franken, when a lawyer signs a complaint, he is required to affirm that he believes in that complaint, and supports that complaint, and supports that legal action, which i did. we sued -- >> that is your personal involvement was that your name was on it? >> well, look, you can dispute the impact or the import of the questionnaire. another attorney, paul hancock who brought cases in our districts said, well attorney general claims credit for the cases in the department of justice. he saw nothing wrong with my claiming that this was a case that i had handled. so you can disagree with that but, those are cases -- >> i want to get through this, i want to get through this. >> on the docket sheet my name is listed number one as attorney for the case.

>> i'm not a lawyer. i'm one of the few members of this committee who didn't go to law school, and usually i get by just fine, but seems to me that a lawyer, if a lawyer just his name added to a document, or a filing there, that lawyer would be misrepresenting his record if he said he was personally handled these cases. two of the lawyers who wrote the op-ed have also submitted testimony for today's hearing. mr. jerry hebert and mr. joe rich. mr. hebert says quote, litigated, he quote, litigated personally two of the four cases you listed. said i can state with absolute certainty that mr. sessions did not participate personally in either. mr. rich worked on one of the four case you listed. he said, quote, i never met him at that time nor any other time.

he had no input to the case. these represent three of the four cases that you claimed that were among the top 10 cases that you personally handled. now, in your 1986 questionnaire, you, used phrases quote, i prepared the and tried thease as sole counsel. i was the lead prosecutor on this case assisted by so-and-so. why didn't you use the same level of detail in your 2016 questionnaire? >> looking at this questionnaire, we decided that was appropriate response since it was a major historic cases in my office. let me just reply, senator franken, in this fashion. mr. hebert, when, in 1986, when he testified at my hearing,

said, quote, we have had difficulty with several u.s. attorneys in cases we have wanted to bring. we have not experienced that difficulty in the cases i have handled with mr. sessions. in fact, quite the contrary, close quote. he goes on to say i have had occasion numerous times to ask for his assistance and guidance. i have been able to go to him and he has had an open door policy. and i have taken advantage of that, and found him cooperative. that is an accurate statement. i don't know mr. rich. perhaps he handled a case i never worked with. he goes on to say look, no, you raised this question. >> one of the cases that you listed was a case that mr. rich handled. so if you don't know him, it is hard for me to believe that you personally handled it. >> when i, found that, these cases, i had been supportive of them. >> filed.

>> mr. hebert says quote, and yet i have needed mr. session's help in those cases and he has provided that help every step of the way. in fact, i would say that my experience with mr. sessions has led me to believe i have received more cooperation from him, more active involvement from him because i have called upon him, quote. quote, i have worked side-by-side with him on some cases in the sense that i have had to go to him for some vice. >> some cases. not necessarily ones that you listed. look -- 30 years ago and my memory was of this nature and my memory was my support for those cases. >> your memory. okay. look, i am not, i'm one of the few members of this committee who is not a lawyer. chairman, ranking are, but when i hear, i filed a case, you

know, i, i don't know some of the parlance. might have a special meaning in legal parlance, but to me as a layman, it sounds to me like, filed means, i led the case. or i supervised the case. doesn't mean that my name was on it. and, it seems to me, look, i will close, mr. chairman, setting aside any political or idealogical differences that you or i may have, doj is facing real challenges, whether it is protecting civil right, or defending national security, and our country needs an attorney general who doesn't misrepresent or inflate their level of involvement on any given issue. >> i hear you. >> so i consider the serious stuff.

as you know that you would if you were in my position. >> you're correct, senator franken, we need to be correct what we say. when we this issue was raised, i did a supplemental that i provided guidance to civil rights attorneys and open door policy with them and cooperated with them on these cases. i signed them. i supported cases. and i attempted to be as effective as i could be helping them be successful in these historic cases. i did feel that they were thecal in scope and deserved to be listed on the form. if i'm in error i apologize to you. i don't think i was. >>el you couldn't find 20 or 30 desegregation cases that you stated you had participated in. and you, don't sound like you personally handled cases that you said you personally handled.

>> this was on radio interview without any records. that was my memory at the time. >> i think you answered the questions. senator flake, now it is 12:59. at 2:09. we'll adjourn for lunch. i will be back here at 2:39. i hope everybody can be back here by 2:45. whatever. you know what i mean. go ahead. >> you saying we're adjourned or i'm going? >> you go ahead. >> nice being the last one -- neil: we'll continue to monitor this. that was dust-up with al franken as he mentioned once or twice. he was going after jeff sessions for inflating his role in efforts on behalf of racial

integration and more particularly the voting rights act, that of course jeff sessions explained in the past, he doesn't believe these voter identification laws are an important restriction on voting but he would enforce the current law anyway. but the gist of what the senator from illinois was getting into you overstate your role herend the fact that you are representing or trying to do the right thing for minorities. i'm just catching to the chase here. that he thinks that basically the comments that jeff eggs -- sessions some odd 30 years ago, kind of jive not friendly with minorities today. that is at least a leap. he was trying to deliver some body blows here and raise doubts whether jeff sessions as attorney general of the united states would represent all including minorities. judge andrew napolitano has been slicing and dicing through all of this. what do you think? >> you know, when the main

justice, which is the terminology for the lawyers in the justice department in the main building in washington, d.c., want to bring a case, they go to the u.s. attorney in the area where they want to bring the case, and they say we need your help. we need your team. we've got a team from washington, they're going to come in and work with you. so will you help us with the case. we're not admitted in the state of alabama, you are. we need youç to sign the pleadings, and you've got to mentally sign off on them and tell us you agree with them. so apparently, there were three of these cases in which main justice came to then-u.s. attorney jeff sessions saying we want to bring these cases, will you help us out. he helped out, his team cooperated, and he signed all the pleadings, every piece of paper that went before the court or that went to an adversary bore jeff sessions' signature. that means, theoretically, he read every piece of paper and agreed with the arguments that were made. senator franken is arguing this was just a ministerial function

of signing his name, that he wasn't really involved in the case. it would be hard for me to believe that a united states attorney representing the justice department would willy-nilly sign documents without reading them and without agreeing with them or at least satisfying himself that these are worthy of presentation to the court. neil: what was frann getting at by saying these other lawyers who wrote this editor or y'all, he said -- editorial, he shade don't remember your active role. >> he was questioning senator sessions' integrity by suggesting -- i'll use senator franken's word -- inflated, that is exaggerated his role in these cases. now, there is a federal rule that penalizes lawyers if they sign documents that they haven't read, and it turns out there was something in there that was incorrect, inappropriate or not the law. it is hard for me to believe that jeff sessions signed documents that he didn't read.

was it his job to interrogate the witnesses, to work with the fbi agents? no. it was his job to make sure the documents that were signed by him over his name were proper and accurately represented the position of the government. that's what he did. this is a very, very minor, in-the-weeds issue for the government -- neil: yeah. >> excuse me, for the public. what the democratic senators are trying to do is to give pause to republicans who are up for re-election next year in 2018 before they vote to confirm senator sessions. in my opinion, they have given those republican senators no pause whatsoever. senator sessions has answered every question, he's done so with charm and with calm. he is not the extremist or the racist that the democrats and some of the characters yelling in the back of those -- neil: but all of those

characters are commenting, the five times interruptions that i witnessed that he's a racist or he's a klansman. even though he prosecuted a case in which heç went after a klansman, and, in fact, oversaw, called for his execution. none of that seems to matter. >> no, i don't think any of that matters. in fact, i think that stuff makes jeff sessions -- it's so extreme, it's so absurd. it ordinarily makes jeff sessions or whoever the tart of it is appear -- target of it is appear more sympathetic, not less sympathetic. and in terms of the actual questions, senator leahy, a serious lawyer, i thought was going to be aggressive. he was not. senator durbin, a serious lawyer, senator feinstein, a serious lawyer. when i say a serious lawyer, i mean lawyers who actually practiced law in their careers. none of them laid a glove on him. none of them gave any wavering republicans or any republicans up for re-election next year

pause before they vote to confirm. now, something may happen this afternoon, something may happen tomorrow. there will be some fireworks tomorrow when our home state senator does the unthinkable, testifies under oath against another sitting senator. i don't know what -- neil: what is different with that, judge, when a senator takes that role versus just asking a lot of critical questions like we just saw the illinois senator? >> because for senator booker to do what he's doingomorrow, he must go under oath. he cannot mke any misrepresentations. he cannot exaggerate without running, potentially running afoul of the laws that prohibit misleading congress. he can say what he wants on the floor of the senate -- neil: you suspect he has something that's not been brought to light here? >> i don't know. he's a very intelligent guy. we both know him. you've interviewed him, i've known him since before he was the mayor of newark. if he's just going to express an opinion, jeff sessions is

unworthy of being u.s. attorney general, i don't know that's going to wash. if he has something new and he wants to make it dramatic, perhaps that's -- neil: how do you think it's going thus far for sessions? >> very, very well. the senators i thought would be aggressive -- senators feinstein, leahy and durbin -- were not. in fact, they all end smiling. -- ended smiling. remember, jeff sessions is a member of this committee. neil: that's right. >> he gets to vote as a member of this committee -- neil: i was going to ask you about that. can he vote for himself? >> it's a bit disputed, but i believe they're going to let him vote. neil: and then it goes to the full senate. >> right. neil: obviously, even controversial choices in the past, john ashcroft managed to pick up, you know, eight or ten democratic votes. >> i would think that jeff sessions will pick up some as well. this is going quite well. neil: okay. >> one of the reasons it's going well isç his experience in law enforcement is so extraordinary, it's probably more so, probably

deeper than almost any recent, modern attorney general nominee. neil: wow. that's praise there. there you go. all right. judge, thank you very much. be i want to bring senator rob portman into this from the great state of ho. good to have you, and thank you for your patience. how do you think it's going for jeff sessions right now? >> it sounds like it's going well. i do think there's a certain courtesy extended senators, although i guess the testimony from cory booker dose the other way on that one -- goes the other way on that one. he's got a good record in terms of his willingness to represent the government. he worked for the department of justice for 15 years. he prosecuted a number of cases including desegregation cases. he has people back home supporting him who are in the african-american be community including pastors, so i think when all the information comes out, it will help jeff. neil: one of the issues i know near and dear to you, senator, is this issue the role the attorney general can play in

policing online sex trafficking and that sort of thing. i know that's an important issue to you and claire mccaskill, the democratic senator of missouri, who's also championing this cause. i don't know if you had a chance to listen directly to senator sessions on this, but the gist was -- and forgive me if i'm not getting it exactly right -- that any and all matters that hurt the human condition, i will aggressively pursue. what did you make of that? >> yeah. well, i know that he, in his heart, has the concern about the trafficking that goes on, and you're right, online is where it's happening today. we just had a hearing where we talked about the fact that so much of the sex trafficking has moved from the street corner to the iphone and, therefore, these online sites are exploding the number of minors particularly who are being exploited who have been trafficked online. and i know jeff cares about that. look, we had an amazing hearing today. we were able to reveal that

backpage.com which is probably 80% of commercial sex traffickers on that one site, that they actually had concealed criminal evidence deliberately to avoid having ads not run that were about minors. and so, in other words, you have parents whose, you know, kids are being run on backpage.com, and they know that these are kids, and in some cases refuse to take the ads down. so really just amazing testimony that we had, and our report shows clearly that pack -- backpage.com has been trying to conceal criminality. we need to change the laws more broadly as it'll my grate to other -- migrate to otherç site, i'm afraid. neil: you've got to be very careful in pursuing crime, that a lot of the free-thinking types say privacy and information, be careful how aggressively you go even after this sort of stuff, because you could slip into

other areas, and the government is watching anything and everything. what do you say? >> yeah, absolutely. we were very careful in our investigation to insure that we were not violating first amendment rights or, for that matter, you know, law by asserting these allegations of criminality. there is a law that says that you can post whatever people send you, and, you know, the online community feels strongly about that. but they weren't just posting ads, they were taking ads that were sent to them, taking out the words that clearly indicated that it was about in all these cases a young girl, under age, cheating those terms and taking the money and posting the ad anyway. that's illegal. and we think we're i a position now to help prosecutions all around the country -- neil: by taking the words out or at least initially beyond suspicion because algorithms or whatever you use to pick up on that sort of stuff wouldn't get picked up, right? >> words like teenage, you know, cheer leader, young, lolita, referring to the novel about a

12-year-old girl. neil: right. >> i mean,s this is, you know, clearly just outrageous behavior. neil: gotcha. >> we are, we're going to keep on top of this, because we want to be able to stop what is, unfortunately, a growing epidemic in this country because of the online efficiency of it which is trafficking of our kids. neil: understood. >> i know that jeff sessions will be helpful in that regard, and i think on a bipartisan basis -- neil: he certainly did telegraph that, that he would. they're breaking for lunch right now, but they're not done. he's going to resume in about an hour or so. while i've got you here, senator, he says he believes in zero tolerance, a border security policy that arizona had was very effective. as, you know, the justice department initiated a lot of rules, regulations that he argues undermine that. that that should be re-examined, and that ignited some concern among democrats on the panel that he would play fast and loose with the rules that he favors. what do you think he's saying on

that and whether he would sort of turn our immigration laws upside down? he has argued in the past, no, i would just enforce the ones we have n the books already. >> yeah. and ts the point that he's made in the past. look, i don't necessarily agree with jeff sessions on everything on immigration policy, but i do agree we ought to enforce the laws, and i think that's been one of the failings of particularly these kids coming up, for instance, from central america. we've had those numbers increase as we have not enforced the law, and i think that's important. i also think we need aç broader policy, as you and i have talked about before, to deal with the people here illegally now rooted in our communities paying their taxes and working. but we've got to enforce the law, and that includes, you know, what goes on along the border but also what goes on in the interior of the country. and the justice department will have a role to play there. so does, you know, the department of homeland security and in enforcing that law. i think that's been one of the failings of this administration, not to enforce the law fairly and evenly and, therefore, to

send the wrong message. neil: all right, senator, thanks for your patients. very good having you, sir. happy you year. >> you too. neil: the hearing is in break mode. peter barnes on some of the big news that came off, and, peter, i know we judge these things sometimes like prize fights or professional wrestling, but i think the line they haven't laid a glove on him yet might hold here. what do you think? >> reporter: yeah, i agree with you. you know, he's, obviously, knows how these confirmation hearings work, and he has pretty much answered all the questions, some of them just directly with yeses and noes including some questions that the democrats grilled him on be on gun control, civil rights and immigration, including his vote against a resolution from them that said religion should not be considered in screening applicants for immigration at president-elect trump called for a ban on muslim immigrants in 2015. mr. trump later changed that to a call for extreme vetting.

sessions defended his vote. >> many people do have religious views that are inimical to the public safety of the united states. i did not want to have a resolution that suggested that that could not be a factor in the vetting process before someone is admitted. but i have no belief and do not support the idea that muslims as a religious group should be deny add mission to the united states. be -- admission to the united states. >> reporter: now, democratic senator cory booker of new jersey, an african-american, will testify against sessions tomorrow according to the senate historian it's the first time that a sitting senator is testifying against a fellow senator nominated for a cabinet position. in a statement, booker said, quote: i do not take lightly the decision to testify against a senate colleague, but the immense powers of the attorney general combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience. the attorney general is responsible for insuring the fair administration of justice,

and based on his record, i lack confidence that senator sessions can honor this duty. but booker critics note that booker praised sessions just a year ago when they worked together to honor civil rights activists saying that he was blessed and himself honored to have partnered with sessions on neil? neil: incredible. peter barnes, thank you very much. all right, so obviously a lot still unsettled here, but this was the only cabinet appointment that would require two days. now, that does not mean that other appointments will similarly get dragged over additional days. state, that's a good likelihood right there. the others have not been beyond one day. again, they do spill over oftentimeses into two days. this one was pre-slated that way, but senator jeff sessions is getting along just fine. again, this issue that he's a racist or not based on comments over 30 years ago, that has come up again and again and again. so far he has fielded it

effectively. whether it moves the needle beyond democrats who will largely vote against him and republicans who will largely vote for him is anyone's guess. this much is clear: jeff sessions is looking like the next attorney general of the united states. we'll have more after this. your insurance company

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

neil: all right. jeff sessions hanging in there, at a break right now in his confirmation hearing for attorney general. we'll keep you abreast of that, also maybe some dialing back on the part of republicans now on health care and taxes. first on health care, growing talk that maybe speaker ryan will go ahead and push what rand paul had been urging and what the president-elect, donald trump, has been usualing a repeal of obamacare -- urging a repeal of obamacare, yeah, they all hate it. but instantly replacing it at the same time so they don't have

to deal with critics saying you're leaving 20 million americans stranded if you just junk the thing. and then talk about dialing back the tax cut that was supposed to be reagan-esque huge but might not be so huge with the likes of mitch mcconnell in the senate saying it should be revenue-neutral, and that was interpreted by many conservatives disappointing because that would not be revenue-neutral, at least if you count it by standard accounting. reaction to this with former massachusetts senator scott brown. scott, good to see you. are republicans stumbling on some of these issues here? i mean, obviously, growing pains for a party that now has the complete be run of the table is to be expected, but these appear to be sort of piths. pivots. >> well, they're huge issues, neil. obviously, obamacareç has 18 nw taxes, takes three-quarters of a trillion dollars from our seniors' medicare, so it's obviously big. it obviously needs to make sure that we don't lose people in transition. and i agree with rand.

i like rand, i agree with him, i agree with the speaker and with the president. because the house, if i'm not mistaken, about 60 times they voted to repeal it. well, you've got to have something in place, and i think they should wait until representative price gets appointed and approved so they can actually work on not only the regulatory side through the administrative changes, but also the legislative side. and be they should do it all in one fell swoop because, as you know, politics gets messy -- neil: absolutely. >> and, you know, it'll get bogged down, and by the time you know it, there's three or four years down the road. no, i think they should just step back a little, get a plan together and put it right forward. neil: yeah. now, who am i to judge these things, i agree with you on that. i even said the pr crisis alone dealing with millions potentially wondering where they're going to get their coverage, you want to replace it immediately, and that was the pitch that rand paul made, guys like you have made and, obviousl the preside-elect has argued. but this isn't the first time that donald trump has had to

sort of come in and maybe call an audible with regard to the ethics thing that he said was important to him but maybe not a first priority to the new congress and and now potentially on this health care sort of pivot, still repeal be it, but repeal and replace it at the same time, so that should push it back. and then as i told you in the beginning here, the talk about this tax cut and it might not -- and that simply is my interpretation, scott, i could be very wrong -- that it might not be that big after all, and i'm wondering if republicans aren't in a little bit of disarray here. >> no, i don't think so. you've got mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, two leaders with two different plan, you have the president, and what's going to happen is they are all going to get in a room and hammer it out. that's the big difference, neil, between what has not happened in the last eight years because president obama never met with congress, democrat or republican -- neil: what if it's not a big tax cut, scott? >> yeah, i think it will be. neil: when i heard steve mnuchin

talk late last year about the possibility that for the upper income it would be with revenue-neutral, in other words, we'll have simpler or taxes, not necessarily less taxes, what did you make of that? >> well, i think it's appropriate to simplify the tax code and, you know, i think it's also appropriate to look at every deduction or so-called loophole as the democrats talk about it and actually update the tax code to make sure it's easier to understand and also easier to maximize our tax revenues coming this to the federal government. -- in to the federal government. but when you're looking at the different proposals, i think you're going to get a veryç bo, especially as you know his advisers on, you know, you've had them on your know many times who are behind the scenes advising him. i think it's going to be bold. i think you're going to repatriate all that offshore money, i think you're going to lower corporate tax rates between 15-20%, and then i think you're going to go right after individual rates, lowering and simplifying that tax code so people think that they have a piece of the pie, that they're

playing on a level playing field, and we can actually stimulate the economy and get government out of our lives. neil: are you going to get this veteran affairs job? >> well, as of last friday, i'm certainly still in the mix. i'm waiting, but he's obviously dealing with jeff who i spoke with this morning and wished him well -- neil: jeff sessions. >> listen, neil, i'll be honest with you, of course i'd love to do it, but he's the boss, and it's up to him. and i'm waiting, and i'm in the mix, and if i get it, i'm ready to go balls to the wall. if not, i'm ready to help whoever's there to make sure people don't die. [laughter] neil: do you ever -- did you get word when you saw what happened to the likes of rudy giuliani and newt gingrich and you go to chris christie, people who gave their heart and soul for this candidate in his race, and they all got passed up for jobs. and the same could happen to you. that's a big thank you, right? >> you know what, neil? i said it on your show. my only mission was to make sure that we got a republican president, a republican house and a republican senate -- neil: all right.

>> i worked my tail off for those senators and the presidet, and i love my job at fox, i love helping other caidates -- neil: all right. >> so it's, really, it's not that big of a deal, okay? neil: okay. well, you just seem to be arguing a lot. scott, i'm only kidding. very good having you. more after this. >> thank you.

♪ ♪ neil: by the way, the jeff to whom scott brown was referring as potential competition for the veterans affairs job that he wants, to run the v.a., is no less than house veterans affairs committee chairman jeff mill, republican of florida. he appears to be the early front to-runner, but scott brown is in that mix as well. former coast guard commander ed allen is also in the mix, but some have said he has potentially taken himself out of that running. i have not heard that. but, again, that is one of the few positions that has not yet

been decided to run the v.a., and scott brown, of course, feels with his commitment to the coast guard and what have you that he is more than ready to take on that challenge. meanwhile, we're talking about the jeff sessions confirmation hearings. tomorrow they begin in earnest with five other positions including rex tillerson, the exxonmobil former ceo who is up for secretary of state. his tie thes to russia, to vladimir putin, to iran, to iraq, to business dealings there all likely to come up in what is slated to be a one-day hearing, but these things are easily spill into multiple days. let's get the read on that with john hofmeister. john, a lot of people are saying if you think they're going to be tough on sessions, you should see what they're going to do to tillerson. what do you think? >> well, i think that reflects a misunderstanding of what a ceo of a major oil company does. because there is absolutely no foreign engagement, in my judgment and in my experience, that doesn't involve working

through the u.s. department of state as the bellwether of your own government. so if you go to russia, if you go to iraq, if you're part of an operation in africa, you will have briefed and you will have taken advice from the united states department of state because that helps you, and the department of state operates much like a chamber of chorus on behalf of american -- commerce on behalf of american companies in foreign countries. so there is a working together relationship that takes place between oil companies and foreign governments and the united states government which everybody knows about. but many people -- everybody knows about in the industry, i should say. neil: right. >> many people in the public don't know that. neil that'll well, it becomes an issue, i guess, when it involves a republican. no one batted an eyelash when john f. kennedy picked robert mcnamara, maybe they should

have or vietnam wouldn't have happened. who knows. i want to ask you about this particular case with mr. tillerson, the role exxon played through its subsidiary in business dealings with iran. now, i know it's relative chump change in the scheme of thing, a $55 million enterprise in a contract with iran for a company that made tens of billions of dollars in any given quarter. but it is going to come up, and whether he was flagrantly violating u.s. policy in sanctions against iran. we don't know. but should it come up? >> well, i can tell you in my own experience my former company had relationships with iran, but as an american, i could have nothing to do with any decision associated with anything having to do with iran. and there are ways within companies where you can operate under foreign subsidiaries without violating any law or contradicting any intent on the part of the u.s. government where americans are completely out of the decision making

process. because it would be a violation of the law for an american -- neil: is it a violation of the law at all -- i understand you're delineating here it's a multi-national from exxonmobil, furthermore, this is a small part of that business, but it is still violating, we are told -- and, again, this could all be disproven tomorrow -- u.s. sanctions against iran at the time. now -- >> well. neil: -- how does he then get out of that one? >> i think you have to look solidly at the facts of the case. now, i don't have those facts in front of me, so i'm speaking beyond my depth perhaps to say anything. neil: that's where i live. >> but the reality is you have foreign subsidiaries operating within the laws of those subsidiary companies and countries where americans are not part of the decision making process. neil: all right. >> there are some fine lines of distinction, and that's what we

need to understand and find out about. neil: john, thank you very much. and i should distinguish here as well, folks, that exxon is a humongous company, so this is more or less change that would be under a couch cushion. i don't want to trivialize it, but you can bet it's going to come up tomorrow. more after this. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette

and her new mobile wedding business. at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and ta-da, paid twice as fast! see how at quickbooks-dot-com.

>> what are your expectations for the economy as a result of his proposed tax policy and rollback of regulations? >> so i like the fact that the

focus has been on growth, and you see it in the talk about the tax policy, you know, regulatory policy. i think growth is going to be very good for all americans, not just for companies. so i like that fact. i think you've seen some of that optimism reflected in the stock prices, etc., and hopefully they'll be able to deliver some of that. neil: all right. well, he hopes. we'll see. jamie dimon be, jpmorgan chase, talk that he had been entertaining a job in the trump administration, just the same, in all the points he was seeing in the stock market that continues back and forth today with another gain as we make that quest for 20,000. i am going to be like elmer fudd with this, i'm not going to say anything that happens. >> you're never going to say dow 20,000 again? neil: we're hunting 20,000. [laughter] charlie gasparino is here. he has breaking news on jared kushner who is going to be the

power broker of power brokers, one son-in-law of donald trump -- >> right. senior adviser to trump, as you know -- neil: unpaid. >> excuse me? neil: unpaid. >> he should be unpaid. he is donald trump's so many, married to ivanka. here's the interesting thing, and if you looking at his -- if you're looking at his impact on finance right off the bat, look at the time warner/at&t deal or actually at&t buying time warner which includes cnn for what sources are telling fox business that kushner is said to be opposed to this deal. so he's joining a growing list -- neil: why? why is he opposed? >> well, i think just like everybody else, they believe -- at least this is their stated position. time warner, as you know, owns cnn which wasn't very nice to donald trump during the presidential campaign. neil: they were awful. [laughter] >> very unfair, and false and no one watches them, i guess. didn't he say that too? anyway, some people do actually watch them. but he joins a growing list of

advisers that are against this deal from steve bannon to reince priebus -- neil: would they have any say on whether this goes through or not? >> well, donald would. he's going to appoint someone to head the fcc, jeff sessions is going to run the justice department -- neil: so they can make it difficult. >> well, the deal has to pass fcc and antitrust approval, and the notion that donald structural during the campaign -- he hasn't mentioned this since the election, but he kept saying too much concentration of power. at&t with all the pipes, it can distribute content, cnn with the ability to get that content out there with a certain viewpoint is, according to his advisers including now his son-in-law, way too much concentration of power. neil: are they going to allow kushner to have this role? because didn't we get rid of this nepotism stuff, the bobby kennedy and john kennedy after he was attorney general? now it extended, apparently, to in-laws and those very tight

whether they're paid or not. >> i don't think this is -- neil: this isn't -- >> this is not a cabinet position. i don't believe he needs senate approval for this position, you know? neil: right. they've already moved to washington, right? they're not too far from the obamas. >> no. and he's going to have an impact -- listen, who has donald trump's ear? we know steve bannon, reince priebus, we know scaramucci actually has his ear. neil: what is scaramucci doing? does he still ignore you now or what? >> no, we've made up. neil: oh, good. i was worried. >> anthony gave me that kiss like michael gave to -- neil: come on out, we're going for a boat ride. >> what does that mean? when he kisses you really hard? anyway, shares of time warner on our report right now are falling. neil: they were falling yesterday. >> on our report yesterday, but they took another dip here. at&t is the acquirer company, so generally the shares should go up. neil: they've had others kick their tires, right?

>> somebody is going to try to buy including -- neil: our boss. >> you said it, not me. you're more senior, you can talk about us. i don't know if they want it anymore -- neil: seem a little defensive. i just raised it, and all of a sudden -- >> well, i don't, you know, i don't want to talk about -- neil: how do you think these jeff session hearings are going? i have a theory on this, and you can correct me because you usually do but very politely, that if any of them go bad, it's going to hurt the market. and i think that they're not, certainly, just starting. he seems to be doing fine. but if tillerson's gets dicey, then all of a sudden this market runup could run into some headwinds. >> well, i think it could in this sense, if the legislative agenda of less regulations and taxes -- neil: slowed. >> -- is slowed, that congress is sitting there waiting to do tough that they can't do -- neil: now especially when they're talking about the health care thing, they might wait to have a repeal and replace at the same time. >> yeah, and that's a problem. listen, i would say everybody --

again, you know, we did very intense coverage of dow almost 20,000 last friday. it was a big market day. neil: right. >> i would just say be really careful here. i mean, you have to see what type of policy comes out of the trump administration, who's handling that policy and how it conflicts with growth. is it going to go full on free trade or full on trade war with china? full on taxes? watch. this is a big story. this is a huge economic story -- neil: huge. thank you, my friend. charlie gasparino. there's, like, charlie, and then there's everybody else. it's true. all right. in the meantime, i want to bring you up to speed on what's going on on capitol hill. they're getting ready to resume the confirmation hearings for jeff sessions, and later on today we're going to get general john kelly, he's up for homeland security, that would include tsa. he's a no-nonsense guy. you notice they say that stuff?

versus what, a nonsense guy? [laughter] well, we've taken one guy to the cabinet who's nonsense. of course he's no-nonsense. all right. a lot more coming up after this.

♪ ♪ >> many people do have religious views that are inimical to the public safety of the united states. i did not want to have a resolution that suggested that that could not be a factor in the vetting process before someone is admitted. but i have no belief and do not support the idea that muslims as a religious group should be deny add mission to the united states -- admission to the united states. neil: all right. what is that about thread, needles something like that? obviously, the choice for attorney general by donald trump trying to separate himself a little bit but not too much from donald trump. not targeting muslims, but just those whose religions could come up to be a problematic issue.

as attorney general of the united states, he will not be targeting muslims, but in a nod to his boss, he will look at such issues that could come up which is kind of having your cake and eating it too. which is a stupid expression, because if you have the cake, you might as well eat it. but i digress. secretary, did he effectively divide that and deal with that in a way that would satisfy those on that committee? >> i think he really didn't divide it much, and i think the committee's going to be satisfied with it nevertheless. i mean, look, neil, we have to -- you have to really look at what we're talking about here. the primary demographic for terrorists these days is muslim males between the ages of 16-50. now, you're not going to include in that group lutheran grandmas from minnesota who are 75 years old. so if you -- neil: unless they have, unless they have violent intentions. >> well, okay. i mean, there may be one. you know, and i'm not related to

any of them, so okay. but the point really comes down to you have to look at certain people, or you're not doing the job. you're not doing the vetting -- neil: and i felt that was the pin he was dancing on, because he couldn't say that outright, but that it would be among the things that he would look at as attorney general, and i don't know if -- obviously, the people who weren't intending to vote for him are not going to vote for him, and this will just seal the deal on that. but i don't think it's a shock, what he said. but it didn't get much traction. >> yh. i don't think it's going to get much traction. i think the issue is what it is. i think that even the democrats have to realize that you have to look at the people who are likely to be terrorists in order to filter out those who are not going to be. so if you deny that fact and the democrats really have gone to that point sometimes, if they deny that fact, they're just discrediting themselves. it's just that simple. you have to look at surgeon people, and you have -- at certain people, and you have to look at certain religions, and if you don't, you're simply not

doing the vetting job. neil: what did you make about what he had to say about a zero tolerance boarder security policy -- border security policy in arizona that he said was doing its job, very effective. the justice department effectively screwed things up with rules that undermined what it was supposed to do effectively to keep out bad guys and people who shouldn't be here period? many have interpreted that policy as racist and targeting ethnic groups. so i thought they made a few leaps there that wouldn't fair or right, but the justice department did go after arizona border patrol agents and the like and sheriffs, joe arpaio comes to mind and others. he seems to be indicating under the new sheriffs in town at justice and, obviously, the president, that will change. in what way? >> well, i think what they're going to do is simply implement border controls that look for people who are coming in illegally. and, you know, regardless of their race, creed, color or wherever they're from.

i mean, if they're coming here from somalia or they're coming from, you know, bordering mexican states, coming here from ecuador, we have to look at everybody comes in here illegally, and we have to get those who are coming here to do harm quickest and most effectively. you know, we have the testimony of general kelly who's going to be up here pretty shortly to his own confirmation hearing for d. of homeland security. -- department of homeland security. he testified, i think in 2015, to the senate armed services committee to the effect that we have a porous border that is dangerous to national security because people like hezbollah are coming through it. so, you know, we have to face facts, and the democrats and the justice department under president obama has not been willing to face the facts. neil: i know you're in the area of defense and that's your expertise, but you're also well-read on everything, so i'm not wasting my time asking this question. we're getting word that donald trump wants republicans to repeal the affordable care act immediately and replace it shortly thereafter.

this is coming from a variety of sources, "the new york times" the latest. but it comes at a time when republicans are getting kind of itchy about repealing it but not having anything in its place. rand paul, for example, on this show said that was the best route to go and that he supposedly had the president-elect's support. apparently, that's not the case. to me, it looks, secretary, like the republicans are kind of stumbling out the gate in their newfound position of having the complete run of the table; that is, the house, the senate and soon the white house. what do you think? >> well, i think you're right. i think they're a little bit stumbling and quite scared of the responsibility. this is where campaigns collide with governing. you have to actually put things in place, you actually have to do stuff at this point. i think the republicans would be very wise, they've got plans ready. i mean, i dealt with these when i was editor of human events ten years ago. when then-congressman tom price, still congressman tom price, soon to be secretary of hhs, he

had a great plan when obamacare was being enacted that was an alternative to it that would be ready right now. i guess if you go to tom price, you can repeal it one day, repeal it in the morning, repeal obamacare in the morning and put tom price's bill in in the amp, and there's no -- in the afternoon, and there's no slack. neil: easier said than done. jed babbin, a good read on all things washington. speaking of washington, back at it for these confirmation hearings and just a few other guys to go after this one. oh, my goodness. >> and i am concerned -- it'll get better. i'm at the edward jones office, like sue suggested. thanks for doing this, dad. so i thought it might be time to talk about a financial strategy. you mean pay him back? knowing your future is about more than just you. so let's start talking about your long-term goals. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.

this is judy. judy is 63 years old. her mortgage payment is $728 a month. that's almost 9 thousand dollars a year. now judy doesn't think that she'll be able to retire until her mortgage is fully paid off.

this is mike. mike is also 63 years old. his mortgage payment was $728 a month. mike thought he would have to work for another 12 years until his mortgage was paid off... and then mike heard about a reverse mortgage and how that might help him. he called one reverse mortgage to get the details. mike retired immediately after getting his one reverse mortgage loan. maybe you too can benefit from a reverse mortgage. call one reverse mortgage now and find out if you qualify. they'll send you an information kit that includes all the details and the stories of mike and others. a reverse mortgage... is a mortgage with no required monthly payments. it was created for homeowners 62 or older so they can continue to afford and own the home they love. many one reverse mortgage clients find they can retire sooner, do more the things they love,

or simply put more money in the bank. a reverse mortgage could change your retirement, and your life. i examined my finances and i said, there is no reason why i shouldn't retire today. 10, 12 years earlier than i had anticipated. in the first year, mike's cash flow savings totaled $8,736. after 5 years, it will be over $40,000. it really is worth a call to find out if a reverse mortgage can help you too. call one reverse mortgage now and ask for your free information kit. ♪ ♪ >> i'm adam shapiro live at the white house where president obama is preparing for his last trip aboard air force one. he will be flying to chicago later today and then this

evening he will be delivering his farewell address not only to the people of chicago, but to the entire nation. people stood in line saturday in chicago to obtain the hundreds of tickets which were handed out free, and now those tickets to what is expected to be an historic address are selling online anywhere from $500 to $5,000 according to "the chicago tribune." now, we do have a little bit of a preview about what the president's going to discuss. he will be addressing the entire nation, just not a segment, but the entire nation. there have been four different drafts of the speech already submitted to the president. and he's also using chicago as a backdrop since it's where he started his career, it's where he launched his political career or and where he is going to be ending his political career. more "cavuto" now. neil: thank you very much. back to washington right now where the hearing has resumed with jeff sessions, donald trump's pick to be the next attorney general of the united states.

he has so far sur is viefed a lot of heat -- survived a lot of heated questioning, but what's coming up is what role, if any, he will play in revamping our immigration laws. sessions has repeatedly said let's honor the rules on the books. he has been critical in the past of the justice department that he says has ignored those rules in favor of shielding illegal immigrants from being sent back home. the obama administration has sent a record number of illegal immigrants back home, but again, not nearly the number that a lot of border state sheriffs and the rest have said should be the case. so this battle would go back and forth and back and forth. all right. meanwhile, we've got rfk jr., robert f. kennedy jr. back from his meeting with donald trump at the trump tower. let's listen in. >> he asked me to chair a commission on -- [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> it's kind of ironic, while you were up there, some executives from a mining company

were up there. how concerned are you that he will not pursue fossil fuels as he has said he would and may try to roll back some of obama's policies on clean energy? which has been something that you've been very interested in -- >> i was vocal about my support for clean energy, and president trump told me that he's a very strong supporter of solar energy. you know, i'm going to be focusing on this issue for the white house. >> finally, if i can ask you, how do you think your father, uncle teddy, president kennedy himself would think about what is to be a president trump? what do you think their thinking would be? >> i think that president trump can be any kind of president that he wants to be. he's probably coming to office less encumbered by ideology or

obligation than anybody that has been through this process, who's won the presidency at least since andrew jackson. you know, i think we'll see what happens. >> did you request the meeting, or did his people call you? >> he called. >> and what is it that you're looking for in terms of policy on the backs of -- [inaudible] >> make sure that we have, that we have scientific integrity in the vaccine process for efficacy and safety of vaccines. president-elect trump has some doubts about the current vaccine policy, and he has questions about it.. [inaudible] neil: all right. robert f. kennedy jr., he's a big critic of vaccines and whether they're oversubscribed to americans, and that is a view that is shared by the president-elect. climate change did not come up. he is big on climate change and critical in the past of -- but

as connell mcshane reminded us, that was not the subject of which they're both in agreement that if the president-elect and robert f. kennedy jr., there is good reason for skepticism there. all right, trish regan, take it. trish: thank you very much, neil cavuto. breaking today, donald trump's pick for attorney general jeff sessions targeted by the left on capitol hill. protesters aiming to derail the confirmation hearings over and over and over again. watch. [inaudible] . trish: okay, event