>> do you know now? . stuart: yes, i do. i've learned my lesson. 15 seconds to go and neil cavuto is going to take it over. thanks very much, everybody, for joining us. he's laughing. what are you laughing at neil? neil: it sounds like the cocoon club. [laughter] give me a c. stuart: listen, son. it's 12:00 noon, and it's yours. >> thank you, my friend. well, we are waiting for word out of the white house that apparently it is looking more and more that alexander acosta is going to be the president's pick for labor secretary, as you know. andy puzder cke restaurant was slated for that job and then all the controversy started swirling. he took himself out of the running. if that is true, and it's alexander acosta, former assistant attorney general, very big national labor relations board. he was a proponent of real wages in the hispanic business

community among one of the most celebrated in this country. in fact, he generally makes top hispanic business of the year several times by a variety of publications. this would fill what critics have said had been a gaping sort of hole in this administration's cabinet. no hispanics. whether you're into that thing and balancing it out or he will take other questions as well. you know how that goes. it can be very, very short and sweet here. we'll see what happens. we have federalist reporter joining us. connell mcshane as well. connell, what do we know thus far? obviously as soon as the puzder thing started imploding, they were looking at backup plans and along came acosta. what do we know? what do we make of this? >> the initial reaction, neil, this is cabinet putting it together did not have any

hispanic members at the cabinet level. this gentleman, alexander acosta if that is the pick would be someone would fit into the wall. he was appointed assistant attorney general in the bush administration, 13, 14 years ago he was at the time the first hispanic to serve as an attorney general. that was one of the things included in his biography. that will be the initialç reaction. and questions and answers many of us are not familiar with mr. acosta, reading through a biography, recent writings and the like, don't know a ton about him. you start to ask questions about policy. is he similar to andy puzder who is against $15 minimum wage, that type of things? i don't think they know that. i don't as of yet. that will be initial focus other than you have a hispanic in the trump cabinet. neil: more than personal nature of andy puzder. a lot turned out not to be true.

his wife brought up issues abuse decades ago. later recanted. said that is not the case. i really think in the case of puzder it was his views on not hiking the minimum wage to the degree many unions wanted. and the fact that he was keen on machinery to replace human beings as cost effective way to challenge that. that just sort of piled up the problems for him. obviously any pick that donald trump has is going to echo some of the broad themes that mr. puzder had, to cool it on aggressive increases in the minimum wage and look at realities of the workforce where they're being priced out by machines and competition everywhere, right? it is very interesting to watch how much of a chokehold unions have on progress when it comes to issues like minimum wage and machines replacing humans. i myself used to work in a small manufacturing company and was routinely would be replaced by

robots, right? this is economic reality that will happen. the more unions try to fight that and hurt themselves in dealing with a sense of reality. i have to say as hispanic woman honestly i'm offended how much attention is being drawn to the diversity or lack thereof in trumps picks and among the cabinet members. he should be choosing the most qualified individuals regardless of their skin color or gender. i think the fact the left draws so much attention to that is really kind of offensive to people like me. neil: that is very impressive. good for you. connell, one of the things that also come up, how aggressive would this administration be with its labor secretary because that's point person there, not only to deal with unions who so far have been very, very complimentary of the president, particularly the way he succeeded in getting a number of big manufacturers to hire more here? >> yes. neil: the uaw president is out

on the wires that ford's decision to scrap its mexicoç plant reflects trump factor. obviously an acknowledgement had it not been for president trump railing against that, even as president-elect, none of this would come to pass. maybe this is the president's way of saying, i need a kinder, gentler face of labor to reach out? >> it gives us, the media covering this, to take a pause and be so knee-jerk reactions what a republican president will do vis-a-vis organized labor or the other way around. we're so used to looking at these things republicans in the congress and white house will be going out there to attack unions and attacking at the same time what they would deem to be protectionist policies. maybe the shoe is on the other foot to some degree. the complaint around wall street that surround this president, when he is talking about things

protectionist that is not good for markets, that type of thing. you're 100% right he seems to at least make friends, if that is the term in the organized labor community you wouldn't expect from a republican president. a lot has to do with jobs coming back, definitely. neil: i look at markets, a little soft today, they have soared after the election, after a bit of aç stumble after the inauguration, it has been off to the races since. i wonder how much is reflection of hope that could get out of hand? even speaker ryan was outlining the legislative calendar, there is process to this, a process that could take time? i'm wondering how or if the markets are getting a little too giddy. they have to recognize reality we're only four weeks into this presidency. expect the surprises and expect bumps? >> yeah, you're exactly right. i think it is pretty the stock market reacts like

hormonal teenage girl and we can never really predict what happens next. as someone who was a hormonal teenage girl. i know how old that was. neil: or hormonal teenage boys. we knee what you mean. >> the fact it has been so consistent and just a big change with the announcement that there is going to be a different kind of leadership in town, does indicate that there is something real behind that, right? i alluded to earlier i used to work in a small manufacturing company that my dad ran and now owns. you know, i think his reaction to all thisç has, listen we haven't had an ally in the white us, i don't know, 40, 50 years, right? here is who is someone says i value those that create tangible goods and create jobs that are real and aren't rooted in head space and head knowledge, right?

just the fact there is an ally in office not actively plotting to destroy business and the economy v. you yaw stifling regulations i think does reflect itself in the market and in the economy that we're seeing today. so while i don't know how permanent that's going to be and how permanent the uptick is going to be i definitely think there is something real and something tangible behind it. neil: i will end with you, connell on this. i think there has been a pivot on the part of the president, i think he is almost relieved that puzder -- i don't mean to disparage andy puzder, given surprise and type of support and prays he is getting from likes of teamsters and james hoffa, that he is making inroads with them. >> okay. neil: his commitment to get the keystone pipeline going again. they praised that deal, and i feel this is my opinion, i could be very, very wrong, i doubt it, he is going to use this sort of chance to make another labor[ %

pick, as a sign he might not be aggressively going after minimum wage increases, maybe not the $15 level. he might go slow on that. jeez, i got something percolating with labor gets to my populist roots and gets to everyone? >> working here long enough with you neil, i'm preconditioned to agree with you anyway. you may be right for a number of reasons. one of them even if he does do that and goes you through with a different type of labor secretary, time will tell what type of labor secretary mr. acosta is, maybe he can do that have a stock market and economy performs well regardless of the situation. it could be to what bre is talking about a bet on largely on fewer regulations and banking industry that helped those stocks. five days of record close of hasn't happened in 25 years and some ridiculous stat that the stock market has added

$5 trillion in u.s. dollars. it has been a remarkable run, doesn't mean we won't sell off, maybe we could have both. neil: do you think that connell made up that $5 trillion number? >> don't answer that. take the fifth. neil: bre, thank you very much. connell, always good seeing you, buddy. we're minutes awayç from gettig the pick formally announced, alexander acosta the labor secretary will be the choice. very little we know on his labor views, free market wages, that is something that pops into my memory. that is the extent of my knowledge here. he is former assistant attorney general. served on the national labor relations board. considered prominently and postively so in the hispanic business community. the view in the white house now. we're moments away from hearing that. the president is taking this as a press conference opportunity as well. so you can bet some questions, just might come up on some of these issues regarding retired general flynn and his sudden

departure. who knew what and when? we have former national security advisor to vice president dick cheney john hannah, who says the leaks regarding that are very alarming to put it mildly. i guess the rage we're seeing on the left maybe doesn't surprise me, john, because back at the time they weren't interested or many democrats weren't interested about, you know, who was leaking what, just leaks. so, i guess you know, things change and this is a republican administration but how far do you think this is going to go? >> well, we'll have to see, neil but, iç think it does need to e looked into. these are clearly people that have been entrusted with a huge amount of power in the u.s. government. neil: who is doing it, john? one thing to think that the russians are behind it. that is offensive enough but it is another to think worker bees or bureaucrats within the agencies that report to these

political heads all the way up to the president of the united states are doing this stuff. >> listen, my theory if you look at all the stories the last week that have been so damaging to general flynn and with regard to the administration and russian connection, all of it, neil, is sourced to current and former u.s. officials. i think that last part is really important. i think this is really just a handful of very disgruntled obama loyalists who held very senior positions until very recently who had access to all of this information, including general flynn's fon calls with the russian ambassador as well as some probably regular briefings from the fbi on their counterintelligence investigation into the russian interference in our elections who have decided that its their national duty to get this out into the press. they're so traumatized by the fact that donald j. trump is now our president, they thinkç

they're performing some kind of a great service to the country by violating this trust that they had to protect this information. neil: you know, then explain to me, you're a smart guy, maybe you know how this process works, we got that phone call the president had with australian prime minister that went south fast. normally those are private affairs. i'm told that would have leaked out through the state department or someone at the state department leaked that. that is current administration event. what did you make of that? >> yeah, i mean the fact is we just don't know. there are clearly people that arrange those phone calls in administrative positions have in their duty, whether the white house situation or the state department to make transcripts of those talks. let's face it, there are also people on the other side of these telephone lines, whether it is in australia or some other country, maybe they're unhappy with the call. they get in touch with their counterparts at the state

department. they let them know what happened on the call. then we're kind of off to the races. if that person is obama holdover who is unhappy the state department has been circumvented by the white house with the phone calls, they don't like the content of theç phone calls thy decide to go to their favorite reporter and let it out. neil: if you're paranoid you have a right to look over your shoulder to see a lot of people behind you and i'm wondering wof this feeds a notion, because we've seen it happen enough and enough rumors come out and a lot of those agencies felt, intelligence agencies felt with donald trump criticizing them as a candidate, maybe this is pay back time? whether some are former workers or even current workers, because that's disturbing too. that is the stuff of let's say when you talk about not sharing intelligence or bringing it to the commander-in-chief, that gets into the, you know weird

coup is possible type of thing. i don't want to overstate that. that is the kind of stuff that happens in countries supposedly not nearly as stable as ours? >> yeah, no, i think that really does need to be a concern, neil, but my entire experience with these things, there are thousands of people that go to work, that are real professionals every day in these agencies across the u.s. government that do their job. there are a handful of people, some with political agendas and career political appointments who can abuse this. that convince themselvesç this presidency is so antithetical to what they believe, it is such a danger to the country that they have to go out to violate the trust of ours. they have to break the law somehow to salvage the rule of law. that is when we really begin into get into some trouble. neil: i'm sorry, john. only time i saw something similar to that maybe during the

nixon years and cia. do you think we're in for that? regardless of peoples opinions of donald trump, whether you're republican or democrat, the agency is supposed to be bigger of the politics of the person heading the administration they report to, right? >> that's right. but remember we're in the very early days of this administration. it is just getting its sea legs. it is on a steep learning curve. it has to avoid giving these people excuses to engage in this kind of activity. attacking the intelligence agencies is probably not the smartest thing to do. misleading the vice president of the night about your telephone conversations with the russian ambassador is probably not the best thing to do because, there are some people who will take this excuse to pursue their political agendas but i think it would be a real shame if people start to believe that this is a systemicç problem throughout te thousands and thousands of

career professionals who, people the in the u.s. government and go to work every day, thinking how do they best serve the president and the constitution and country that they're sworn to defend. neil: but it does read like a robert ludlum novel develop. >> i give you that. neil: neil: good to see you again. >> you too, neil. neil: speaking of we're looking at white house where the president is expected to make it normal that alexander acosta is the next labor secretary of the united states. if so he would be first prominent hispanic, first hispanic period. we had a guest on that shouldn't matter to anyone but here in washington it does. we're told that president will take questions on other matters, but fit is like the netanyahu press conference he is out of there. he might not even say good-bye. that is what takes these things so riveting. more after this.

with every early morning... every late night... and moment away... with every click...call...punch... and paycheck... you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn. tell them to protect medicare. . .

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

neil: what was the reception you got from speaker ryan on that? >> you know, i got the perception that many people think that they have decided without the rest of us, and my point was conservatives are not on board. my message to the speaker was, i think he is going to need to talk to the conservatives. my message to the senate republicans, they need to not ignore senate conservatives. it is a very narrow margin. i don't want to get to the last minute where something is shipped over from the house that has obamacare light, they're saying that is all you get. you can't amend it, vote for it or you're a renegade. i'm just not voting for partial repeal. neil: whether that means speaker paul ryan what he announced today is going to that be obamacare light anyone's guess. the speaker, about 45 minutes

ago, indicating, they will, republicans introduce legislation he says repeal and replace obamacare after the president's day recess. early next week. does that mean you get two for one, repeal and replacement at the same time? rand paul says he has a piece of legislation ready to go. let's ask house freedom caucus member ted yolo. very good to have you. senator paul, i know he addressed your group saying this is the way to go about it. don't accept just obamacare light out of the house? >> no i agree with that and every republican that is in the house or the senate today, everyone of them ran to repeal or replace obamacare. this is mandate from the american people and this will happen. i have confidence. you know politics is ugly. we're going through the ugly stage of it right now but when we come out of this it will be gone. neil: i understand the repeal

part, but repeal and replace simultaneously? >> that is our goal. we met with tom price this morning. tom said our whole goal and the president is 100% behind it, go ahead and repeal and replace. it will take a moment of time and the thing that the american people need to know you will not lose coverage unless we keep going down the path we are, you saw humana pulled out and there will not be any insurers left. neil: you're referring to health and human services secretary tom price. >> great guy. neil: do you know if whether he is of the opinion to do what rand paul wants to do, presumably what you want to do, congressman, that is get a repeal and replace measure out there? >> yeah. in fact tom was the one, congressman price or secretary price, i got to get his new title straight. neil: you and me both. >> secretary price was saying their goal is do repeal and replace. that is what the president wants to do. that's what we'll do. we'll work through that. we'll get it done right.

i have confidence in the people that are up here, everybody is behind doing that. i think it is going to be a good thing. neil: clear the deck for the tax-cut package or what? >> yeah. well, yeah, and again this is just something that is common sense. over 70% of the republicans, democrats, independents want our tax code gone. kevin brady has done a great job working through this they have got it pretty much teed up. there are some parts that have to be worked out yet, but i think overall it will be a good thing and boon to the economy. think about what obamacare has done to the economy and our restrictive tax code along with rules and regulations. you have seen already regulations that are reeling back that were burdensome to the businesses, and startup companies. and so these are things we're going through. we're going through growth. anytime you go through growth and change people get upset and they're a little bit nervous but

in the end you will see it have a good product. neil: talking about kevin brady, the house ways and means chief, when he was with us last week, sir, one of the things he said it will be comprehensive and corporate taxes cut dramat as well as individual tax rates, addressed, cut dramatically. >> right. neil: how soon do you think those things would be in effect? that is a gut call on your part and other things at play, but what do you think? >> i think something will be presented first 100 days or 200 days. when it goes into effect depends on the rules and regulations. to get rid of that, bring the irs into the 21st century, to go from seven individual tax rates down to three, for the majority of people, probably 90% of the american people their tax return will be a postcard. this is something people fought for. we wanted and i commend kevin brady and whole ways and means committee coming together to doing this.

it brings the corporate tax rates down to 20% which will invite businesses back here. neil: we're waiting for the president. he is going to announce presumably, sir, alexander acosta as labor secretary pick, with the soap opera and saying that, if it is acosta, form businessman, former attorney general, former member of the national relations labor board. people asking would he be as aggressive as andy puzder was, holding off on big hourly wage increase, the kind of stuff that stuck in the craw of a lot of unions and the president might be relieved that puzder kind of imploded, this choice, if it is indeed mr. acosta will be less vigilant on that front to continue the advance that the president has made with unions who have been very complimentary of him? what do you think?

>> well i think that is a good sign. we'll have to see how it plays out where his policies are and i think it is good mr. puzder backed out with the controversy around him. he did the right thing. i commend him for doing that and you brought something up and i heard the person saying on previous segment about the hispanic. that shouldn't matter. let's all be americans and do this together and do what is best for the country. neil: do you think the president nevertheless was aware of that criticism, for whatever reason, and said, well -- >> do i think? you have to ask him. i'm sure they vetted him and knew where he stood. neil: i wanted to put you in a trap there, congressman. >> you're good at it. neil: great see you. >> have a great day. neil: we are waiting for the president of the united states. i'm told this is his first solo press conference as president, is that right, ralph? i guess the others have been all with foreign leaders. so we found this interesting to go back in time and time these things. as you know, we thought and we

safely and apparently accurately concluded, his press sessions even in joint press conferences, they're a fraction of the time, certainly of his predecessor and in general. with theresa may, he always indicating when he is done the thing is done. look at this. see what he did? put something in his pocket. theresa may, he is done, that is it. don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. then we have japanese prime minister abe. this is interesting because abe wanted to answer questions but not the president. >> thank you very much. neil: see that? with prime minister benjamin netanyahu yesterday. netanyahu didn't know the president was leaving the room. look at this? [laughter] i'm out taher -- uoutaa here.

he says he is done he says he is done. when you think average time of joint successes, 24, 25 minutes, barack obama's were excess of an hour, i'm not saying shorter is better than longer, or longer is better than shorter, different. a stop watch might be in order here. blake burman at the white house with more, what we can expect. i don't know how long it bows but i know it will be interesting. reporter: let you time it. maybe 24, 25 minutes, maybe we'll get a whole lot of him. with alexander acosta along his side which we expect mr. trump to announce at any moment. this was put together at the last minute. 11:00 this morning the president briefing reporters yeah, there will be a press conference at noon. we're an hour later in the east room waiting announcement on alexander acosta. he is the dean for florida

international university. a school some might not know. if you know around the south florida area it's a major university down there. a bit coincidence tall, that was where jeb bush launched his presidential campaign. he has been the dean there a little while. acosta. harvard-educated, harvard law. if you wonder why he might be the labor secretary we believe in a few moments, he at one point was a member of the national labor relations board. he was fairly prominent districts attorney in the south florida area. he has been through congressional hearings before and received congressional approval. if we know anything happened with andy puzder the last few weeks, that might be something the president and his team wants. not saying he is a slam-dunk or anything. this is something mr. acosta has been through before. this is going to be a press conference we're led to believe. hoping that there will be some questions we will be allowed to ask. as you know there are a whole

lot of topics to get into. not just the labor nominee but we also anticipate potential questions about russia, general flynn leaks, and the like. neil? neil: look forward to it, blake, thank you very much. lee carter with me right now. and, lee, you always entertained crackpot theories of mine, my latest, this is my opinion, i could be very wrong, doubt it, but yet again that the president is kind relieved andy puzder imploded. i don't mean to disparage andy puzder by i this the president is surprised favorable reaction getting from union bosses. teamsters james hoffa. we can work with this guy. we like what he has done on the keystone pipeline. we hear on the wires that the uaw president talking about the ford scrapping mexico plant quoting the trump factor. you guys like it and higher minimum wage. maybe with a guy like acosta, i could put a friendlier face on a

different type of labor and continue this unusual populist appeal, i say unusual for a republican president. what do you make of that? >> i absolutely agree with you. neil: really? now i'm smart. go ahead. >> but i really do think after seeing some of the opposition he has got with some of his other appointees it is refreshing moment for this not to work out but replacing with somebody who he is getting a lot of support. i think is a great move for him. i think he is looking forward to the press conference coming up but i'm sure he will not want some of questions coming up afterwards. i think this is great move forward for him. neil: all right, now he is going to take up other questions, lee, besides those about his labor pick. whole flynn situation, there will be hearings who knew what and when, and whether he knew anything. so i guess the question how long he goes on with that. typically in the joint press conferences only kind we've seen

since he was president, we've seen four of them, keeps it short and sweet, he doesn't prattle on very much, what do you think of that style, certainly versus his predecessors? >> what is certainly fascinating we spend the so much time last year-and-a-half criticizing donald trump's communication style but it is effective, it is efficient and short and to the point. it worked for him from the day he launched his campaign until today. and i don't expect it to change. he uses shorter words. he gets his point across. he communicates what he needs to. if you look at the "art of the deal," how he looked for communication, to him it is about getting his message out. not necessarily about a two-way dialogue. how to communicate with his key audience and avoid critics. this is something donald trump has done since the '80s. this works for him. he is in a new role as president of the united states and obviously want to see him reaching out to the opposition. for everyone person that loves donald trump and there is one

person that hates him. he will have to move the needle going forward. neil: what do you think of the needle where it is? 47 -- 48-47 approve disapprove. >> exactly. neil: those are challenging numbers by recent standards, by any standards. how does he have to deal with that, calibrate that? >> you know i think donald trump's style is to say this is what i'm trying to do. here is my goal. i will think big. he is moving forward with all the promises. doing exactly what he said he was going to do. donald trump as much as people say he is thin-skinned actually doesn't care about his critics as much as he cares about getting what he wants done done and he gets upset it is about obstruction, like immigration, like the ban, like the wall. i think what we'll see right now is donald trump not really trying to cater to the people that oppose him and trying to get things done.

change is hard. when a new executive comes into an organization, it takes a while for them to gain trust and popularity. right now the language around donald trump is so abhorrent for those that, for those who oppose him, not we don't like him, we hate him. not that he is a good person he is evil. people are comparing him to be hitler and fascist. it becomes impossible for him to move the needle. what he is doing i will be who i am. he said it during the campaign, i am who i am. maybe i could have used language differently but what you see, what you get. that style we continue to see as he tries to move his policies forward. neil: lee, you're a great presidential historian as well, and i'm curious, presidents with adversarial relationship with the press, called them on the carpet, richard nixon he famously told david frost, i gave them a sword with watergate and everything else gave them a

chance to pounce on me. apples and oranges i know, but the press seems to be lining up against him and going for that moment. so i know they call donald trump thin-skinned, they seem to be fairly thin-skinned themselves. >> exactly. neil: i wonder whether that could come back to bite his heinie? just like making a case for new labor secretary, getting his agenda through, the rest, the press will get out only bad news. i see it myself when he met with the intel ceo in the oval office. very few covered the fact he extracted concessions for intel ceo to build a big plant in the united states and hire thousands of workers. that got lost in the vetting thing. i wonder if by design the media won't give him a break period ? >> seems like it will. "new york times" runs a headline, that donald trump, president of the united states is pathological liar. neil: where do you go after that? >> i don't know how you get any

worse. it is what it is right now. we can look at history, say it is really hard when you have a have had very cheryl relationship with the press. we're in unprecedented time. donald trump controls his own message. he is able to tweet and reach his audience directly. he doesn't need the media in ways to communicate way any president before him has. in many ways he doesn't care. you cover me this way? i will call you ridiculous, call you to the floor. call you the fake media, and i'm going to tell you my own story. in many ways he is able to control his story in unprecedented way. i think it will be fascinating to watch. we haven't seen a president have a direct dialogue with the american people. neil: all right. lee, we have connell mcshane as well. we're waiting to hear from the president and his pick for labor secretary alexander acosta to replace andy puzder who stepped down amid controversies that came up.

connell, we always take for granted republicans will be in lockstep on these votes. we found out certainly in the case of mr. puzder, there were four republicans peeling off, even in the selection of mick null vain any the congressman, take over omb, there, john mccain opted out and voted against him because he felt congressman mulvaney, now the omb director-designate, would hurt the defense department spending. so, are we seeing a break in the ranks, especially from among republicans mr. president we endorse more investigations into this whole flynn matter and what russia knew and when it knew it and who is leaking what? how bad is this going to get? >> maybe because the new game in washington doing math on republican support, knowing they control both houses of congress. saw it in the betsy devos as well. when you take off two republicans all of sudden the

vice mt. has to cast a deciding vote. if anything we'll see more of that. even as we move into the news conference as it is being billed, the president earlier today said it would be a press conference. one thing to keep in mind as he gets to enter the east room of the white house, there is no guarranty until he asks if you have questions and take him. i was with one campaign event with candidate trump, he would hold a news conference and made a short statement and didn't take any questions at all. he had opportunities to take questions last couple days if he so chose on the russia situation, on the flynn situation and has not. we'll see if he does that today. some of that will be dictated who he calls on if he takes the questions. that will be very interesting. neil: the assumption if he doesn't call on established media person, they will not ask tough questions. we found out from the christian broadcasting network, yes they will. that is neither he or there. connell stay right there. brian wright, former cia

operations officer. you do not want to mess with brian, nor will i. >> very good to see you. neil: how does this happen where a lot of secrets get revealed? secret phone calls shouldn't have gotten out but do? president's conversation with the australian prime minister and talk about not sharing intelligence data with the commander-in-chief? i mean it's weird. what's going on. >> it is not just weird it is dangerous. from my experience, what i've seen in the past typically leaks come from congress. ever once in a while the administration, and very, very rarely folks in the intelligence community. from what i have seen from reading and intelligence reports, intelligence officers left the lasted a administration, senior levels, and individuals that have just come on board, probably remnants of the lasted a administration, are taking this information and they're sharing it. that is a violation of the oath even if they were formerly intelligence officers like me

and have left, you have a life-long agreement to keep that information secret. neil: but a lot of them feel, i'm told, this is one take for a guest on this show, they're patriots, they think this guy, referring to the p, he is dangerous and have obligation to say no, no. we have a constitution. he was duly elected president of the united states. that's the kind of stuff that third world countries do. >> don't buy this garbage line they're standing up as patriots. the way that you handle this as an intelligence officer former or current you go to the congress or let the department of justice do their job. your role as an intelligence officer is not to go to the scales of politics and -- neil: why are they doing it? >> i think probably a couple reasons. one, some of them have convinced themselves they're doing the right thing and they're wrong. i think president trump is right, irrespective, republican or democrat, you will be prosecuted for doing this. neil: did you ever note, you can't devote secrets but i will

try to embarass you on air. >> fair enough. >> do you think given your fine service in this country obviously you worked with people that didn't like the president or leadership or cia director at the time, whatever. they were not as helpful as they might have been if it were someone they did like? >> for the record i'm a democrat and i served under president bush. i certainly had disagreements with the man and his decisions. when i took my oath of office as an intelligence officer, i understood my boss was the president. i saluted the flag. my ultimate allegiance was to do as the he or she as they asked. my role is not to call up somebody in the press to say, listen, i don't like bush, i will tell you something dirt t about what is going on. if there is problem, go to capitol hill, the department of justice, the inspector general. there are ways to handle this. you don't go out to the press because in this case you doesn't like trump or obama or i could have done it with bush.

that's wrong. we start to slip -- neil: here is where i'm an expert and you're not. i read a lot of robert ludlum novels. >> we're done. neil: you see cases someone takes it upon themselves, if i do this, president or people will be emboldened to do something crazy and e that. they might see logic in defying their constitutional duty. i'm not saying i agree with that. >> right. neil: i'm saying as my robert ludlum expertise proves you can make a wacky case. i fear some worker bees at major bureaucracies -- >> edward snowden made that argument and look at damage. neil: you're relying on fact. >> god forbid. neil: right. >> let me make an important point. i don't think leaks are coming from low level or middle tear management.

this is coming from high up folks. neil: higher up current folks. >> i would say higher-up current folks. neil: how easy are they to find. >> depends on how smart or sloppily they were leaking information. some of this coming from people who wanted to be part of the clinton administration and are cranky making sure -- neil: do you think this is widespread? >> i don't think it is widespread because i think most people, most spies understand when they walk in those doors, don't walk in as democrat, republican, christian, muslim, gay, straight, you walk in as intelligence officer and go in to protect the country. neil: even when the guy you have to recognize because he is president of the united states said, tough things about intelligence agencies maybe by extension you and you take great offense to it? >> it is patriotic, particularly among colleagues, i don't think he is handling this right, over watercooler or otherwise, if

there is concern tell chain of command. further up, 7th floor, senior officers, they will reach out to the white house and have discrete conversations, listen this is starting to affect morale or we're starting to lose people because of this, spies out in the field, folks collecting information as well as agents and informants are getting a little nervous. it is having impact in the field. can we respectfully rein some of this in? can we talk to the president to encourage to act or behave differently? that is how you handle this, you handle discretely as a spy would or should. neil: i'm trying to get inside of their twisted heads. >> good luck. neil: what if they're saying no, no, we can't work with this guy because every day proves another point he will not be discrete, he will fly off the handle, he will redo israeli two-state policy in live news conference, we can't countenance this. >> spies are not policy creators. we are policy implement terse. that is our job. we're the tools of the

president. neil: even with a policy you don't agree with? >> if you have a problem with the president or those policies, you have two choices. you salute and you do it or resign. that's fair. if you have a problem with what you're being asked to do, you leave. and that is how responsible -- neil: very good point. shut up and go. do you think this is going to be a big problem? do you think that this is tempest in teapot or aberration? not a big deal? >> something he have dark and ominous about what is happening? this started before, in november and december, when whole dossier. neil: right. >> if you remember, recall what cia director brennan the then director, was saying when that leaked. this wasn't intelligence information. we make no judgment on it yet it leaked, right? people were putting out the fact uncooperated, unvetted information was being briefed to the president-elect, effectively the intelligence agency, law

enforcement agents were saying hey, mr. trump, we might think you might be a spy. we might think you might be committing treason. this doesn't make sense. the reason some is being done i think for political purposes and that is deeply, deeply programmatic. as you just pointed out there ought to be separation between our military folks, intelligence officers and politics. our job is not once again to go up to the scales of politics and push our finger on it because we can. because we see that happen in other countries that we try to put back together or better understand, we fight against that. why would we want to do this to our own country? neil: when you listened to all, dossier came out, first president obama at the time kicking 35 russian diplomats out of the country, whatever it was. >> yeah. neil: and vladmir putin didn't follow do what they usually do, tit-for-tat, we'll get 35 of

your guys, instantly, intelligence guys said there is something up for that. did you think that was unusual or did you think, look this guy is on his way out. president obama saying why respond tit-for-tat when i have a new president to deal with in a few weeks? >> i think it was very unusual. most of us were very, very surprised the russians didn't retaliate tit-for-tat. neil: what did you read into that? >> one of two things. one, putin is very smart and he understood he had a new administration coming in and basically needed to be the better man. he played that very well in terms of pr perspective. the other possibility, i think this probably may be more the case than not, had a conversation with him, mr. flynn or others hold your powder, things will change. you can do what you want, give us space, breathing room to make some changes. neil: now there are indications that those kind of conversations might have taken place. >> right. neil: we just don't know when

but certainly earlier than the administration, certainly than general flynn acknowledged. >> right. neil: how bad do you think that gets? how protracted of a crisis could this be for the administration when even a couple republican senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, you know, hearings are in order? >> i think it is appropriate and fair to get to the bottom of what exactly happened in terms of that relationship before that election in november as well as the weeks since. that is a fair -- neil: former cia guy, when you hear a president-elect or president, people are reading all sorts of nefarious intentions, i will start with a favorable view of vladmir putin. i think i can work with him. he would not be the first incoming president saying he could get something going with the russian president. >> bush did it. obama did it. neil: absolutely but what did you read into that? >> each president gets to decide their foreign policy even if i don't agree with it, as

american, republican, in my case a democrat, the president was voted by the american people to give his vision, his mission a shot. and as an intelligence guy, i may not agree with it, but you know what? let's give it a shot. things we're doing with the russians, it is just not working. so maybe we can reset. we tried it once before, didn't work. maybe we have a different outcome with this president. so it's fair that he gets a shot to change our course and our interest jacktry. he is elected. our president. neil: remarkable young man, bryan thank you very much. >> i don't feel young. neil: i could help you with this international stuff. you need he a little coaching. >> your book knowledge is impressive. neil: i could see him rolling his eyes. >> no. i love it. neil: you were terrific. another terrific guy, charlie gasparino, who you never want to see in the cia by the way. >> and i'm not young either. neil: exactly, right?

but you know this labor pick as replacement for andy puzder i entertain a theory because a relief replacement because the president is happily surprised inroads he is making with unions. what do you think of that? >> i think so. puzder was attacked by the left and right. not the far right but the base right, trump right did not like his position on immigration. was for more immigration. thought it was good for economy. left didn't like comments he made about robotics. made offhanded comments that robots are better than humans because they don't complain about their salaries. i'm paraphrasing. neil: i think that did him in. i don't think personal stuff. machinery, good-bye, over. >> left around right got him out. it will be interesting. the president has a very interesting economic agenda which could be in peril. listen, the markets are very excited about tax cuts and all

this and regulation cuts, yet the details have yet to emerge. by the way it all hinges apparently on this crazy border tax. if you don't get that done, a lot of people say the border tax will not get through congress -- neil: i don't think it is happening. >> guess what he will have to ratchet back the infrastructure plan or corporate tax plan. if he ratchets back the corporate tax cut. this market, stock market overvalued, neil. i tell you, investors, our viewers pay tension to the stuff. neil: you say less likelihood we get tax cuts or magnitude. >> the magnitude. neil: then wall street would be disappointed by that if you buy that logic? >> right. because what they're pricing in with dow 20,000, almost 21,000, is a 15% corporate tax rate is lot lower marginal rates for individuals. if you have to somehow ratchet that back because you have other priorities like infrastructure plan, guess what? this market has to sell off to accommodate that type of fiscal policy and that is simple math.

you maybe donald trump says to hell with the wall, to hell with the infrastructure plan, we focus on taxes that would be good. he isn't so far saying it. this is something that the average viewer, our viewer has to pay attention. it will come out of his or her pocket, depending how he approaches this. this market, if you're investing in it right now, if he doesn't do the full monte on corporate taxes has to sell off a bit to reflect what earnings will be like with a corporate tax rate above 15%. neil: looks like they're getting ready here or very, very close. this is the first solo press conference with president trump. he had four others with leaders of foreign countries. charlie, one. things we're getting sense this president is still keeping to that agenda. he will not be slowed down or disrupted by what he calls fake news media that's focused on only the negative. how will that go? play this out. what do you think?

>> if there is negotiation it will go on with congress. i just don't think paul ryan without some revenues, is going to agree to massive $500 billion infrastructure spending and a corporate tax rate that goes down from 35 to 15%. there will be, there will be a sort of a less infrastructure. if you don't get corporate, don't get border tax, don't get revenues, less of a corporate tax rate. that is just, that is where it will get interesting for the markets. what i always tell people is, wait and see. this is a president that surprises. he may come around and say we want the tax cuts and we'll pay for later, we'll do infrastructure later, market will love that if that is where this comes out. you have to wait and see. this is real important stuff. the devil is clearly in these details. the border tax doesn't look like it is going through. so guess what? his plan is somewhat up in the air, magnitude of the tax cuts and size of infrastructure spending. watch this.

this is big for your wallet. this washington is so important, we will bring you that, every day, this is where your money is on the line if you don't watch fox business. it is key, because what is happening with this lecturn and the guy that will stand behind that lecturn will affect how much money you have in the bank or in the stock market and where that goes. looks like they're getting ready. neil: they are. >> mike pence there, right? neil: reince priebus, chief of staff. >> steve bannon. neil: they're getting there. they want to stay on message. .

mentioning the nominee for the secretary of the department of labor will be mr. alex acosta. he has a law degree from harvard law school, great student. former clerk for justice samuel alito, and he has had a tremendous career, he's a member and has been a member of the national member relations board and been through senate confirmation three times. confirmed. did very, very well. so alex, i've wished him the best. we just spoke, and he's -- i think he'll be a tremendous secretary of labor. and also, as you probably heard a little while ago, mick

mulvaney former congressman has just been approved, weeks late, i have to say, that weeks, weeks late. office of management and budget, and he will be, i think, a fantastic addition. paul singer just left. he was very much involved with the anti-trump or as they say never trump, and paul just left and he's given us his total support and it's all about unification. we're unifying the party and hopefully be able to unify the country, and it's very important to me. i've been talking about that for a long time, but it's very, very important to me. so i want to thank paul singer for being here and coming up to the office. he was very strong opponent, and now he's a very strong ally, and i appreciate that. i think i'll say a few words and we'll take some questions,

and i had this time, we've been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible. just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening and we've done some very good work. we're very proud of that, and then right after that, you prepare yourself with questions unless you have no questions. that's always a possibility. i'm here today to update the american people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration. we have made incredible progress. i don't think there's ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done. a new "rasmussen poll" in fact because the people get it, much of the media doesn't get it. they actually get it but don't write it, put it that way. our new "rasmussen poll" came

out and has approval rating at 55% and going up. the stock market has hit record numbers, as you know, and there has been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world which means something much different than it used to. it used to mean that's good, now it means that's good for jobs. very different. plants and factories are already starting to move back into the united states, and big league. ford, general motors, so many of them. i'm making this presentation directly to the american people with the media present which is an honor to have you. this morning, because many of our nation's reporters and folks will not tell you the truth, and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve, and i hope going forward we can be a little bit, a little bit different and maybe get along a little bit better if that's possible.

if not, that's okay, too. unfortunately the media in washington, d.c. along with new york and los angeles in particular speaks not for the people but for the special interests, and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system. the press has become so dishonest that if we don't talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the american people. tremendous disservice, we have to talk about it to find out what's going on. because the press is out of control. the level of dishonesty is out of control. i ran for president to represent the citizens of our country. i am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and communities well, i am talking and really talking on this very entrenched power structure and what we're doing is we're talking about the power structure.

we're talking about its entrenchment. as a result, the media is going through what they have to go through, to oftentimes distort, not all the time, and some of the media is honest and fantastic, but much of it is not. the distortion, and we'll talk about it, you'll be able to ask me questions about it, but we're not going to let it happen because i'm here again to take my message straight to the people. as you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy. to be honest, i inherited a mess. it's a mess. at home and abroad. a mess. jobs are pouring out of the country. you see what's going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to mexico and other places. low pay, low wages, mass instability overseas no matter

where you look. middle east, a disaster. north korea, we'll take care of it, folks, we're going to take care of it all. i want to let you know, i inherited a mess. beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges. on foreign affairs we've already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders, much of it you covered, to move forward towards stability, security and peace, in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many. we've had great conversations with the united kingdom and meetings. israel, mexico, japan, china and canada. really, really productive conversations. i would say far more productive than you would understand. we've even developed a new council with canada to promote women's business leaders and entrepreneurs. very important to me, very

important to my daughter ivanka. i have directed our defense community headed by our great general, now secretary mattis. he's over there now working very hard, to submit a plan for the defeat of isis, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world. used to be a small group, now it's in large sections of the world. they've spread like cancer. isis has spread like cancer. another mess i inherited. and we've imposed new sanctions on the nation of iran whose totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism. and we're not going to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it's not properly solved now. it's one of the worst

agreements i've seen drawn by anybody. i've ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the united states military, had great support from the senate, i've had great support from congress generally. we've pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military and i will tell you that is my -- i would be so happy if we never had to use it, but our country will never have had a military like the military we're about to build and rebuild. we have the greatest people on earth in our military, but they don't have the right equipment and their equipment is old. i used it. i talked about it at every stop. depleted. it's depleted. it won't be depleted for long, i think one of the reasons i'm standing here instead of other

people is that frankly i talked about, we have to have a strong military, have to have a strong law enforcement also. so we do not go abroad in the search of war. we really are searching for peace, but it's peace through strength. at home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on the scale not seen in many, many years. in each of the actions i'm keeping my promises to the american people. these are campaign promises. some people are so surprised we're having strong borders. that's what i've been talking about for a year and a half. strong borders. so surprised. oh, having strong borders? that's what i've been talking about to the express everybody else. one promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. they lied to the american people in order to get elected. some of the things i'm doing

probably aren't popular but necessary for security and other reasons, and then coming to washington and pursuing their own interests, which is more important to many politicians. i'm here following through in what i pledge to do. that's all i'm doing. i put it out before the american people, got 306 electoral college votes. i wasn't supposed to get 222, they said there's no way to get 222, 230 is impossible. 270, which you need, that was laughable. we got 306. because people came out and voted like they've never seen before. that's the way it goes. i guess it was the biggest electoral college win since ronald reagan. in other words, the media is trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made, and they're not happy about it, for

whatever reason. but a lot of people are happy about it. in fact, i'll be in melbourne, florida, 5:00 on saturday, and i heard, just heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there. i turn on the tv, open the newspapers, and i see stories of chaos. chaos. yet, it is the exact opposite. this administration is running like a fine tuned machine, despite the fact that i can't get my cabinet approved, and they're outstanding people. like senator dan coates who's there, one of the most respected people in the senate. he can't get approved. how do you not approve him? he's been a colleague. highly respected. brilliant guy, everybody knows it, we're waiting for approval. so we have a wonderful group of

people that's working very hard, that's being very much misrepresented about and we can't let that happen. so if the democrats, who have -- all you have to do is looking at where they are right now, the only thing they can do is delay because they screwed things up royally. believe me. let me list to you some of the things we've done in just a short period of time. just got here. i got here with no cabinet. again, each of these action says a promise i made to the american people, so we'll go over some of them, and have a lot happening next week and in the weeks coming. we've withdrawn from the job killing disaster known as trans-pacific partnership. we're going to make trade deals but have one on one deals, bilateral. one on one deals. we've directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing and called for

expedited approval of the permits needed for america and american infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. people take 10, 15, 20 years to get disapproved for a factory. go in for a permit, it's many, many years and at the end of the process, they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense and at the end of the process they get rejected. they may be rejected with me but it's going to be quick rejection. not going to take years, but mostly acceptance. we want plants built and we want factories built and we want the jobs. we don't want the jobs going to other countries. we've imposed a hiring freeze on nonessential federal workers. we've imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations. we've issued a game changing

new rule that says for each new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. makes sense. nobody's ever seen regulations like we have. you go to other countries and look at industries and say let me see the regulations. and they're a fraction, a tiny fraction of what we have. and i want regulations because i want safety, i want environmental, all environmental situations to be taken properly care of. it's very important to me. but you don't need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing. we've stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence. we've directed the creation of the task force for reducing violent crime in america, including the horrendous situation, take a look at chicago and others, taking

place right now in our inner cities. horrible. we've ordered the department of homeland security and justice to coordinate a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the united states with drugs. we're becoming a drug infested nation. drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars. and we're not going to let it happen any longer. we've undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe. and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border, met with general now secretary kelly yesterday, and we're starting that process, and the wall is going to be a great wall, and it's going to be a wall negotiated by me, the price is going to come down just like it has on everything else i've negotiated for the government.

and we're going to have a wall that works. we're not going to have a wall like they have now which is either nonexistent or a joke. we've ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refused to comply with federal law and harbor criminal aliens and harbored a law on the border for catch and release. no matter who you are, release. we begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. we are saving american lives every single day. court system has not made it easy for us. and are even creating a new office in homeland security, dedicated to the forgotten american victims of illegal immigrant violence, of which there are many. we've taken decisive action to keep radical islamic terrorists out of our country.

though parts are necessary and constitutional blocks by judges in my opinion incorrect and unsafe ruling, our administration is working night and day to keep you safe, including reporters safe. and is vigorously defending this lawful order. i will not back down from defending our country. i got elected on defense of our country, and i keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the result. they already are. i can tell you that. extreme vetting will be put in place and it already is in place in many places. we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number. i've heard 80%, i find that hard to believe. that's just a number i heard. they're overturned 80% of the time.

i think that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turm oil, but we are appealing that and we are going further. we're issuing a new executive action next week, that will comprehensively protect our country. so we'll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that. at the same time, we'll be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people, and that will be done sometime next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part. we've also taken steps to begin construction of the keystone pipeline and dakota access pipelines. thousands and thousands of jobs and put new buy american measures in place to require american steel for american pipelines. in other words, they build a pipeline in this country, and we use the powers of government to make that pipeline happen,

we want them to use american steel, and they're willing to do that, but nobody ever asked before i came along. even this order was drawn and they didn't say that. i'm reading the order saying why aren't we using american steel? they said that's a good idea. we put it in. to drain the swamp of corruption in washington, d.c., i've started by imposing a five-year lobbying ban on white house officials, and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government. we've begun preparing to repeal and replace obamacare. obamacare is a disaster, folks. it's a disaster. you can say, oh, obamacare. they fill up our rallies with people that you wonder how they get there, but they're not the republican people that are representatives they're representing. so we've begun repeal and

replace obamacare, and are deep in the midst of negotiations on a very historic tax reform to bring our jobs back, to bring our jobs back to the country, big league. it's already happening, but big league. i've worked to install a cabinet over the delays and obstruction of senate democrats. you've seen what they've done over the last long number of years. that will be one of the great cabinets ever assembled in american history. you look at rex tillerson is out there negotiating right now. general mattis i mentioned before. general kelly. we have great, great people. mick is with us now. we have great people. among the responsibilities will be ending the bleeding of jobs from our country and negotiating fair trade deals for our citizens.

now look, fair trade, not free. fair. if a country is taking advantage of us, not going to let that happen anymore. every country takes advantage of us, almost. i may be able to find a couple that don't, but for the most part, that would be a very tough job for me to do. jobs have already started to surge, since my election, ford announced it will abandon plans to build a factory in mexico and will invest $700 million in michigan creating many, many jobs. fiat chrysler announced it will invest $1 billion in ohio and michigan creating 2,000 american jobs. they were with me a week ago. general motors likewise committed to invest billions of dollars in its american manufacturing operation. keeping many jobs here that we're going to leave. and if i didn't get elected, believe me, they would have left, and these jobs and things i'm announcing never would have come here.

intel just announced it will move ahead with a new plant in arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with, and that will result in at least 10,000 american jobs. walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the united states just this year because of our, our various plans and initiatives. many, many more. many more. these are few that we're naming. other countries taking advantage of us for decades, decades and decades and decades, folks. and we're not going to let that happen anymore. not going to let it happen. and one more thing. i have kept my promise to the american people by nominating a justice of the united states supreme court, judge neil gorsuch, who is from my list of 20 and who will be a true defender of our laws and our constitution. highly respected. should get the votes from the

democrats, you may not see that, but he'll get there one way or the other, but he should get there the old-fashioned way and should get those votes. this last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizen of our country. again, i say it, there has never been a presidency that's done so much in such a short period of time. and we haven't even started the big work that starts early next week some very big things are going to be announced next week. so we're just getting started. we'll be giving a speech as i said in melbourne, florida, at 5:00 p.m. i hope to see you there. and with that, i just say, god bless america and let's take some questions. mara, go ahead, you were cut off violently at our last news conference.

>> reporter: did you fire mike flynn? >> mike flynn is a fine person, and i asked for his resignation. he respectfully gave it. he is a man who -- there was a certain amount information given to vice president pence who is with us today, and i was not happy with the way that information was given. he didn't have to do that because what he did wasn't wrong. what he did in terms of the information he saw, what was wrong was the way that other people, including yourself in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information, it was given illegally. that's the real problem, and you know, you can talk all want about russia which is all fake news fabricated deal to try and make up for the loss of the democrats and the press plays right into it. in fact, i saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this, that

they know nothing about it, they weren't in russia, never made a phone call to russia, they didn't receive a phone call. it's all fake news. all fake news. the nice thing is i see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal, mara, i think it's very important, the illegal giving out classified information. it was -- and let me just tell you, it was given out like so much. i'll give you an example. i called, as you know, mexico. it was a very confidential, classified call, but i called mexico, and in calling mexico, i figured, i spoke to the president of mexico, had a good caught. all of a sudden it's out for the world to see. it's supposed to be secret. supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case. same thing with australia. all of a sudden people are

finding out exactly what took place. the same thing happened with respect to general flynn. everybody saw this. and they're saying, the first thing i thought of when i heard about it is how does the press get information that's classified? how do they do it? you know why? it's an illegal process and the press should be ashamed of themselves, but more importantly the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. really ashamed. go ahead. reporter: [ inaudible ] because when you looked at the information, i said i don't think you did anything wrong, he was coming into office, looked at the information, he said, that's fine. that's what they're supposed to do. he didn't just call russia he called and spoke to both ways, i think there were 30 some odd countries. doing the job. he was just doing his job, but the thing is he didn't tell our vice president properly and

then he said he didn't remember, so either way it wasn't very satisfactory to me, and i have somebody they think will be outstanding for the position and that also helps, i think, in the making of my decision. but he didn't tell the vice president of the united states the facts, and then, he didn't remember. and that wasn't acceptable to me. yes? >> reporter: clarification here, during your campaign, did anyone from your team [inaudible] russian government or russian intelligence. [inaudible] >> the failing "new york times" wrote a big front page story yesterday, and it was very much discredited as you know. it's a joke. the people mentioned it on television, they never spoke to

russia. they were never a part. they were such a minor part. i hadn't spoken to them. the one person i don't think i've ever spoken to him, i don't think i've ever met him and he said, he was a very low-level member of a committee for a short period of time. i don't think i ever met him. it's possible i walked into a room and he was sitting there but i don't think i met him. i didn't talk to him ever, and he thought it was a joke. the other person said he never spoke to russia. never received a call. looked at phone records, et cetera, et cetera, and the other people said he represented various countries, that's what he does, i mean people know that, that's mr. manafort. who's by the way, a respected man, he's a respected man, but i think he represented the ukraine or ukraine government or something. everybody knew that. and he said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with russia, and he

said that very forcefully. i saw the statement said it forcefully. most of the papers don't print it because it's not good for the stories. the three people they talked about all totally deny it, and i it tell you speaking from myself, i own nothing in russia. i have no loans in russia. i don't have any deals in russia. president putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election. he then called me up extremely nicely to congratulate me on the inauguration, which was terrific, but so did many other leaders. almost all of the leaders from almost all of the countries. that's the extent. russia is fake news, this is fake news put out by the media. the real news is the fact that people properly from the obama administration because they're there, because we have the new people going in place right now, as you know, mike pompeo

is now taking control of the cia. james comey at the fbi. dan coats is waiting to be approved. he is a senator and a highly respected one and waiting to be approved and new people are going in. and just while you're at it, "wall street journal" did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing "new york times" story yesterday, and it talked about -- you saw front page, so director of national intelligence just put out acting a statement, any suggestion that the united states intelligence community, this was just given to us is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true. so they took this front page story out of "wall street journal" top and they just

wrote the story that it's not true. and i'll tell you something, i'll be honest because i sort of enjoy this back and forth and i guess i have all my life but never seen more dishonest people than the political media. i thought the financial media was much better, much more honest. i will say i never get phone calls from the media. how do they write a story like that in the "wall street journal" without asking me or write a story in the "new york times," put it on the front page. like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big massive story, and it was nasty and then they called and said we never said that. we like mr. trump. they called up my office. we like mr. trump, we never said that. and it was totally -- they totally misrepresented those very wonderful women. i have to tell you. totally misrepresented. i said give us a retraction. they never gave us a retraction and i went onto other things,

okay? go ahead. reporter: [inaudible]. >> i was just given the information, we have a big margin. reporter: [inaudible]. >> i was given that information. actually i've seen that information around. but it was a very substantial victory. do you agree with that? okay. thank you. good answer. yes. >>. >> reporter: can you tell us in

determining that lieutenant general flynn -- there's no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed? did you ask for transcripting of the telephone intercepts with russian officials, particularly the ambassador who he was communicating with. what evidence did you weigh to determine there was no wrongdoing? further than that, you said on a couple occasions you are going to aggressively pursuit source of these leaks. >> we are. >> reporter: can we ask what you're going to do? we heard about a review of the intelligence community headed by steven feinberg, you can tell us about that? >> speaking about that, we have dan coats, mike pompeo and james comey and they're in position so i hope we'll straighten that out without using anybody else. the gentleman you mentioned is a talented, successful man and offered his services and, you know, it's something we may take advantage of, but i don't think we'll need that at all because of the fact that, you know, i think we're going to be

able to straighten it out easily on its own. as far as the general is concerned. when i first heard about it, i said, huh, that doesn't sound wrong. my counsel came, don mcgahn, he told me and i asked him and he can speak very well for himself. he said he doesn't think anything is wrong. he really didn't think -- it was really what happened after that. i didn't either because i waited a period of time and i started to think about it, and i said to me, he was doing the job. the information was provided by who i don't know sally yates, and i was a little surprised because i said doesn't sound like he did anything wrong there, but he did something wrong with respect to the vice president and i thought that was not acceptable. as far as, as far as the actual making the call, in fact i've

watched various programs and i've read various articles where he was just doing his job. that was normal. first everybody got excited because they thought he did something wrong. after they thought about it, it turns out he was just doing his job, and i do. and by the way, with all of that said, i think he's a fine man. yes, john. >> reporter: and the leaks -- >> finish off. >> reporter: what will you do on the leaks, have you said twice today. >> yes, very, very serious. we just had jeff sessions approved in justice as an example. so, we are looking into that very seriously. it's a criminal act.

you know what i say? when i was called out on mexico, i was shocked. because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment, when i was called out on mexico, i was honestly, i was really, really surprised but i said, you know, it doesn't make sense. that won't happen. it wasn't that important of a call. i was fine, show it to the world he could show it to the world the president who is very fine man by the way. same thing with australia. i said that is terrible but it was leaked but it was that important. i said what happens when i'm dealing with the problem of north korea? what happens when i'm dealing with the problems in the middle east? are you folks going to be reporting all of that very, very confidential information, very important, very, you know, at highest level? are you going to be reporting about that too? so i don't want classified information getting out to the public. in a way that was almost a test. so i'm dealing with mexico.

i'm dealing with argentina. we were dealing on this case with mike flynn. all this information gets put into "the washington post," and gets put into "the new york times." and i'm saying what is going to happen when i'mdealing on the middle east? what is going to happen when i'm dealing with real, little really important subjects like north korea. that is why we have to stop it and it's a criminal penalty. john? reporter: want to clarify. can you say definitely nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the russians during the campaign? and on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks? >> well the leaks are real. you're the one that wrote about them and reported them. i mean the leaks are real. you know what they said. you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. the news is fake because so much of the news is fake. one thing that i felt was very important to do, i hope we can correct it.

nobody i have more respect, maybe a little bit, than reporters, good reporters. it is very important to me and especially in this position. it is very important. i don't mind bad stories. i can handle a bad story better than anybody. as long as it's true. over, course of time i will make mistakes. you will write badly, i'm okay with that, but, i'm not okay when it is fake. i mean i watched cnn. it is so much anger and hatred, and just the hatred. i don't watch it anymore because it is very good -- he is saying no. it is okay, jim. jim, you will have your chance. i watch others too. you're not only ones, so don't feel badly. i think it should be straight. i think it would be frankly more interesting. i know how everybody's ratings are right now, i think actually it would be, think itwell would be better. people, i mean you have a he lower approval rate than congress. i think that is right? i don't know, peter is that one right?

i think they have a lower -- i heard lower than congress. but, honestly, the public would appreciate it. i would appreciate it. again i don't mind bad stories when it is true. but we have an administration where the democrats are making it very difficult. i think we're setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. i mean numbers are crazy, when i'm looking some were approved immediately. i'm going forever. i still have a lot people we're waiting for. that is all they're doing and they're delaying. look at schumer and mess he has over there. they have nothing going. all they can do is delay. i think they would be better-served by approving an making sure that they're happy and everybody's good. and sometimes i mean, i know president obama lost three or four. and you lose them on the way. that's okay, that's fine. i think they would be much better served, john, if they

just went through the process quickly. this is pure delay tactics. and they say it, and everybody understands it. go ahead, jim. reporter: [inaudible]. >> i had nothing to do with it. i have nothing to do with it. i told you, i have no deals there. i have not anything. when wikileaks which i had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give, they're not giving classified information. they're giving stuff what was said in an office about hillary cheating on debates. which by the way nobody mentions. nobody mentions that hillary received the questions to the debates. can you imagine, seriously, can you imagine if i received the questions? it would be the electric chair, okay? he should be put in the electric chair. you would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, okay? maybe not you, john.

we'll do you next, jim. reporter: clarify. >> sure. reporter: did you direct mike flynn to discuss sanctions with the russian ambassador? >> no i didn't. no i didn't. reporter: [inaudible] >> no. i fired because what he said to mike pence, very simple. mike was doing his job. he was calling countries, and his counterparts. so it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it. i would have direct him if he wasn't doing it. i would have directed him because that is his job. it came out that way. and in all fairness i watched dr. charles krauthamer the other night say, he was doing his job, and i agreed with him. since then i watched many other people. no i didn't direct him but i would have directed him if he didn't do it. jim. >> for the record. we don't hate you. i don't hate you.

>> okay. ask jeff zucker how he got his job.er: follow up on some of the questions taken place so far here? >> not too many. we do have other people. your ratings are not good as some of the other people. >> pretty good actually. >> go ahead, jim. reporter: if i may ask, sir, wikileaks was revealing information about the hillary clinton campaign during the election cycle. you welcomed that -- >> i was okay with it. reporter: you said you loved wikileaks. at another campaign press conference, find other 30,000 emails. >> she was missing 33 and it was extended of the no, but i did say 30 it was higher than that. reporter: may ask you, sir, sounds as though you do not have much credibility here when it comes to leaking if that is something that you encouraged in the campaign. >> fair question. ready? reporter: may i ask you that.

>> do you mind? reporter: yes, sir. >> so in one case you're talking about highly classified information. in the other case you're talking about john podesta saying bad things about the boss. i will is a this, if john podesta said that about me, he was working for me i would have fired him so fast your head would have spun. he said terrible things. it wasn't classified information. one case you're talking about classified. regardless, if you look at rnc, we had very strong, at my suggestion, i give reince great credit for this, at my suggestion, because i know something about this world, i said i want a very strong defensive mechanism. i don't want to be hacked. and we did that. and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. the dnc did not do that. and if they did it, they could not have been hacked. but they were hacked and terrible things came in. and you know only thing i do think is unfair some of the things were, when i heard some

of those things, i picked up the papers the next morning, there will be front page. wasn't even in the papers. again, if i had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or head of newspapers. i would have been the headline in every newspaper. i mean think of it. they gave her the questions in the debate and she should have reported herself why didn't hillary clinton announce that i'm sorry, but i have been given the questions to a debate or a town hall and i feel that it is inappropriate and i want to turn in cnn for not doing a good job. >> if i may follow up on that, something jonathan karl was asking you b you said the leaks are real but the news is fake. i guess i don't understand. it seems there is disconnect there if the information coming from those leaks is room, then how can the stories be fake. >> reporting is fake.

the public, they read newspapers see television and watch, they don't know if it is true or false because they're not involved. i'm involved. i've been involved with this stuff all my life. but i'm involved. so i know when you're telling the truth or when you're not. i just see many, many untruthful things. i'll tell you what i else i see. i see tone, the word tone. the tone is such hatred. i'm really not a bad person by the way. but the tone is such, i do get good ratings i have to admit that. the tone is such hatred. i watched this morning a couple of the networks and i have to say, "fox & friends" in the morning, they're very honorable people. not because they're good, but because they hit me also when i do something wrong but they have the most honest morning show. that is all i can say. it is most honest but the tone, if you look, the hatred, i mean sometimes --

reporter: we don't hate you sir? >> you look at your show that goes on 10:00 in the evening. you just take a look at that show. that is constant hit. the panel is almost always exclusive anti-trump. the good news he doesn't have good ratings. but the panel is almost exclusive anti-trump and hatred and venom coming from his mouth. the hatred coming from other people on your network. now, i will say this. i watch it. i see it. i'm amazed by it. and i just think, you would be a lot better off, i honestly do. the public gets it. when i go to rallies, they turn around start screaming at cnn they want to throw their placards at cnn you know, i think you would do much better being different. but you just take a look. take a look at some of your shows in the morning and evening. if a guest comes out and says something positive about me it's brutal. they will take this news conference, i'm actually having

a very good time, okay. but they will take this news conference, don't forget that is way i won. i used to give you a news conference i made a speech, which was like every day okay? that is how i won. i won with news conference and probably speeches. i didn't win by people listening to you people, that's for sure. i'm having a good time. tomorrow they will say, donald trump rants and raves at the press. i'm not ranting and raving. i'm telling you you're dishonest people but i'm not ranting and raving. i love this. i'm having a good time doing it but tomorrow headlines are going to be donald trump rants and. i'm not ranting and raving. go ahead. reporter: one more follow-up? >> should let him have a little more? peter, let him have a little more. sit down. we'll get it. reporter: attack of fake news and attacking our network i want to ask you -- >> i'm changing it from fake news though. very fake news. [laughter] go ahead. >> real news, mr. president.

>> you're not related to our new -- >> i am not related, sir, no. i do like the sound of secretary acosta. >> i looked at that name, wait a minute, is there any relation there. alex acosta. reporter: i'm sure you checked it out. >> they said no, sir. check the family tree. reporter: aren't you concerned sir you are undermining people's faith in the first amendment, freedom of press in this country when you call stories you don't like fake news? why not just say it's a story i don't like? >> i do that. reporter: fake news undermining confidence in the news media, isn't that important? >> you're right about that except this. i know when i should get good and i should get bad. wow, that will be a great story and i will get killed. i know what is good and bad. i would be a good reporter and not as good as you. i know what is good and bad and change it make it really bad, something should be very

positive, sometimes something very positive will be okay, or make it negative i know i'm there. i know what was said. i know who is saying it. i'm there. very important to me. look i want to see an honest press. when i started off today by saying it is so important to the public to get an honest press. the public doesn't believe you people anymore. now maybe i had something to do with that i don't but they don't believe you. if you were straight and really told it like it is, as howard cosell used to say, right, of course he had some questions also, but, if you were straight, i would be your biggest booster. i would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me. but if you go, as an example, you're cnn, i mean story after story after story is bad, i won. i won. and other thing, chaos. zero chaos. we are running, this is a fine-tuned machine.

and reince happens to be doing a good job. half of his job is putting out lies by the press. this whole russia scam you guys are building so you don't talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks, i watched him yesterday, working so hard to try and get that story proper and i'm saying, here is my chief of staff, a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at the rnc. won the election, right? won the presidency. we got some senators. we got all over the country you take a look, he has done a great job. i said to myself, you know, i said, take a look at reince, he is working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires. i mean they're fake. they're not true. and isn't that a shame, because he rather would be working on health care. he would rather be working on tax reform, jim. i mean that. i would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right.

i sort of understand there is certain bias maybe by jeff or somebody, whatever reason but, and i understand that. but you've got to be at least a little bit fair. and that is why the public sees it. they see it is not fair. look at some of your shows, see the bias and hatred, and public is smart. they understand it. okay. go ahead. go ahead. reporter: [inaudible] for those who believe -- is there anything that you have learned over the last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that it isn't fake news? >> i think they don't believe it. i don't think the -- why "rasmussen poll" has me through the roof. i don't think they believe it. will, i guess one of the reasons i'm here today is to tell you, the whole russian thing, that is a ruse. that's a ruse. by the way, it would be great if we could get along with russia, just so you understand that. now tomorrow you will say

donald trump want to get along with russia, this is terrible. it is not terrible. it is good. we had hillary clinton trying to do a reset. we had hillary clinton give russia 20% of the uranium in our country. you know what uranium is right? thing for nuclear weapons and other things, like lots things are done with uranium including some bad things. nobody talks about that. i didn't do anything for russia. i've done nothing for russia. hillary clinton gave them 20% of uranium. hillary clinton did a reset, remember with the stupid plastic button made her look like bunch jerks. he looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button. hillary clinton, that was reset. remember, it said reset. now if i do that, oh, i'm a bad guy. if we get along with russia, that is a positive thing. we have very talented man, rex

tillerson, who is going to be meeting with them shortly. and i know them. politically probably not good for me. greatest thing i could do, shoot the ship 30 miles offshore out of the water. everyone would say that is great. that is not great. i would love to be able to get along with russia. you have had a lot of presidents that haven't taken that tack. look where we are now. look where we are now. if i can, now i love to negotiate things. i do it really well and all that stuff but, but it is possible i won't be able to get along with putin. maybe it is but i want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people, the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with russia. and probably putin said, you know, he is sitting behind his desk he is saying you know, i see what is going on in the united states. they follow it closely.

it is going to be impossible for president trump to ever get along with russia because of all the pressure he has got with this fake story, okay? and that's shame. because if we could get along with russia, and by the way, china, and japan and everyone, if we could get along a positive thing, not a negative thing. reporter: [inaudible]. reporter: mr. president -- >> tax reform will happen fairly quickly. we're doing obamacare. we're in final stages. we should submit the initial plan in march, recall march, i would say. we have to statutorily for reasons of budget we have to go first. frankly, the tax would be easier in my opinion but for statutory reasons and budgetary reasons we have to submit the health care sooner. so we'll be submitting health care sometime in early march, mid-march, and after that, we'll come up. we're doing really well on tax reform. yes? reporter: mr. president you talk

abouted russia. talk about serious issues last week as president of the united states. >> okay. reporter: mentioned spy vessel off the coast of the united states. >> not good. reporter: ballistic missile test. >> not good. not good. reporter: russian plane buzzed destroyer. excuse me, when did it happen? if happened you were putin right now, you would say, hey, we're back to the old games with the united states. there is no way trump can ever do can a deal with us because, you have to understand, if i was just brutal on russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, oh isn't that wonderful but i know you well enough. then you would say, he was tough he shouldn't have done that. reporter: finding out your orientation -- >> excuse me. all of the things you mentioned are very recent because probably assumes that he is not going to be able to make a deal with me because it is politically not popular for me to make a deal. so hillary clinton tries to reset. it failed. they all tried.

but i'm different than those people. go ahead. reporter: how are you interpreting those moves? what do you intend to do about them? >> way i said it. reporter: rex tillerson any advice counsel. >> i have. beautifully represented. so honored senate approved him. he will be fantastic. i think -- reporter: do you think putin is testing you sir? >> no i don't think so. i think putin assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically unpopular for politician saying to make a deal. i can't believe i'm saying a politician because i guess that is what i am. much easier to be tough on russia but we're not going to make a deal. i don't know we're going to make a deal. we might. we might not. would be much easier for me to be tougher i am on russia the better. but i want to do right thing for the american people and to be honest, secondarily, i want to do the right thing for the world if russia and the night actually bottom together and got along,

and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country and so are there. there is no upside. we're very powerful nuclear country. and so are they. i've been briefed and i can tell you one thing about a briefing, that we're allowed to say anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other. they're very powerful nuclear country so are we. if we have a good relationship with russia, believe me, that is good thing, not a bad thing. reporter: when you say they're not good -- >> who did i say not good? reporter: read off three things. but do they damage the relationship? >> no. reporter: ability to work with russia. >> they all happened recently. i understand what they're doing because they're doing the same thing. maybe i'm not going to be able to do a deal but at least i will have tried. if i don't, does anybody really think that hillary clinton would be tougher on russia than donald trump?

does anybody in this room really believe that, okay? she tried to make a deal. she had the reset. gave all the valuable uranium away. she did other things. they say i'm close to russia. hillary clinton gave away 20% of the uranium in the united states. she is close to russia. you know what i gave to russia? you know what i gave? nothing. reporter: can we conclude there will be no response to particular provocations. >> i will not tell you anything about what response i do. i don't talk about military response. i don't say i'm going into mosul in four months. we're going to attack mosul in four months. three months later we'll attack mosul. next week we'll attack mosul. mosul is very, very difficult. you know why? i don't talk about military and i don't talk about certain other things. you will be surprise to hear that. by the way my whole campaign i would say that i don't have to tell you. reporter: there will be response? >> yes, here is what we're going to do. i don't have to do that. reporter: in other words there will be a response?

>> wait a minute. i don't have to tell you what i'm going to do in north korea. and i don't have to tell you what i'm going to do with iran. you know why? because they shouldn't know, and eventually you guys are going to get tired of asking that he request. so when you ask me what i'm i going to do with a ship, russian ship as an example. i'm not going to tell you, but hopefully i will not have to do anything. but i'm not going to tell you. okay? [shouting] reporter: could i ask you, thank you very much, mr. president -- >> where are you from? reporter: bbc. >> here is another beauty. reporter: good line. impartial, free and fair. >> sure. just like cnn right? reporter: on the travel ban, we could banter back and forth, on the travel ban, would you accept that was a good example of the smooth running of government? >> yeah i do. of the let me tell but the travel ban. wait, wait. i know who you are, just wait.

let me tell but the travel ban. we had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban, but we had a bad court. got a bad decision. we had a court that has been overturned may be wrong, i think 80% of the time, a lot. we had a bad decision. we're going to keep going with we'll put in a new, a new executive order next week. sometime. but we had a bad decision. that is only thing that was wrong with the travel ban. you had delta with a massive problem with their computer system at airport. you had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice buses and put out at various locations. despite the only problem we had we had a bad court. we had a court that gave us what i consider to be, with great respect a very bad decision. very bad for the safety and security of our country. the rollout was perfect. now, what i wanted to do was do the exact same executive order but said one thing, i said this to my people, give them a one-month period of time.

but general kelly, now secretary kelly, said, if you do that, all these people will come in and in a month. the bad ones. you do agree there are bad people out there, right? not everybody like you. you have some bad people out there. so, kelly said, you can't do that. and he was right. as soon as he said it, wow, never thought of it. how about one week? he said no good. do immediately, if you do it i am mind they don't have time to come in. nobody ever reports that. but that is why we did it quickly. now if i would have done it a month everything would have been perfect. the problem we would have wasted a lot of time and maybe a lot of lives because a lot of bad people would have come into our country. now in the meantime we're vetting very, very strongly, very, very strongly. but we need help and we need help by getting that executive order passed. >> brief follow-up. if it is so urgent why not did you have -- >> go ahead. reporter: hoping get a yes or no

answer on one of questions involving russia. can you say whether you are aware anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with russia during the course of the election? >> i told you general flynn obviously dealing, so that is one person as he should have been. >> during the election? >> nobody that i know of. >> you're not aware of any contact during the course of the election. reporter: how many times i have to answer the question. >> can you answer. >> you have to get up ask a question. russia is a ruse. i have nothing to do with russia. haven't made a phone call to russia in years. don't speak to people from russia, not that i wouldn't, i just have nobody to speak to. i spoke to putin twice. he called me on the election. i told you this. and he called me on the inauguration. a few days ago. we had a very good talk. especially the second one, lasted for pretty long period of time. i'm sure you probably get it because it was classified. so i'm sure everybody in this room perhaps has it. but, we had a very, very good talk.

i have nothing to do with russia. to the best of my knowledge no person that i deal with does. now manafort totally denied it. people knew he was consultant over in that part of the world for a while but not for russia. i think he represented ukraine or people having to do with ukraine or people, whoever. but people knew that. everybody knew that. reporter: in his capacity as your campaign manager, was he in touch with russian officials during the election? paul manafort was replaced long before the election took place, he was only there for a short period of time. how much longer should we stay here, folks? huh? five more minutes, is that okay? five?

let's see, i want to find a friendly reporter. are you a friendly reporter? watch how friendly he is. wait, wait, watch how friendly he is. go ahead. go ahead. >> reporter: first of all, i haven't seen anybody in my community including yourself or anyone on your staff. [inaudible] what we are concerned about and haven't heard of is [inaudible]. >> he is going to ask a very