sorry, but i've got a hard break coming up. david smick, as always, thank you very much indeed, sir. fifteen seconds to neil cavuto, my blood pressure has come down, not significantly, but i believe there's a little tweak on the downside, neil, what do you say? is. [laughter] neil: here's what i notice about you, and it's a quality i love among so many. when you hit a guest to smithereenses, you always say, nice to have you sir. if i'm a guest, i'm saying, there's no way in hell i'm coming -- [laughter] but i do, you did seem a little bit agitated. stuart: just a tad. neil: i'm usually that way when they run out of the prime rib. are you kidding me? [laughter] stuart: or the cannolis. neil: good stuff, my friend. all right, we're picking up where stuart left off here, a lot of concerns about whether this thing is falling apart. i'm talking about the health

care/tax cut deal because they're wedded again, and a lot of folks are worried. now, of course, donald trump has not wasted a nanosecond going after freedom caucus members who he says are blocking them. we've got one of those members joining us just moments from now. and then the st. louis fedhead, is he saying right now that they're more inclined to aggressively hike interest rates not just three times, maybe more than that? james bullard is here and only here. in the meantime, to nicole pe petallides and charlie gasparino growing friction on the right about this whole agenda that could on tintter hooks. what do you make? >> stuart had two really interesting guest there is, talking about how the health care bill is being held up, how there's one part of the health care bill, congressman massie talked about the medicaid reform, tax cuts, baseline of the budget paid for tax cuts predicated on and they can't

agree on that. so it looks like, if this is a bill, think it out for the markets, if this is a bill that is predicated on moderate republicans and democrats coming together, that means there will be less reforms&ç that means less savings. then that means there will be less tax cuts. then that means the markets are probably overvalued. neal: nicole, you had a front row seat at this whole drama. amazed at the last month and quarter. we're 2% at the highs since the beginning of the month, up five mers -- 5% from the quarter. >> it was first couple months so much optimism out just about everything trump coupled with earnings and better economy. so the earnings picture and the economy picture are still in play, right? you still have growth in earnings and economic picture

that seems to be improving. the trump picture is the area where, while they were way optimistic in the beginning of the year, now they just want to see how it plays out. there is hardly any worry you won't get anything done. to charlie's point, when tax cuts come, will they be less? so you know, he couldn't push the health care bill so easily. all his policies and his bend today, that is what everybody was banking on. but i will say this is there overall sense of optimism big picture. anybody by the end of the year we'll be higher, higher? buy the dips. they're afraid to short any sort of bounce. they're afraid quarterly fund will come in and invest. there may be a wait and see mode at the moment but i will say most people you speak to, still think by the end of this year things will be better and market will be higher coupled with earnings and economic going. neal: they could be right. i want to bring jeff saut.

into this argument. are you given this run-up it is justified and that even with the pullback, some 2% or so over the month from our highs, we're, we, we're still rich on paper? what do you think? >> well, i think from historical perspective that's a true statement but you have to consider that there are more high-growth, high-margin stocks in the s&p than ever. that justifies higher valuations. consider in 1985, in the s&p 500 companies, 15% had what is known as intangible assets and5 were tangible assets. now that number has completely flipped. you have 83 with intangible assets and only 17% intangible

assets. intangible assets by definition command higher valuations. i don't think stocks are all that rich. >> here is another technical factor, that is an interesting point, in 1998 we said on your show the other day there were 8,000 listed stocks. now there are 4,000 listed stocks. put this together. moderate growth, economic growth, between one and 2%, somewhere in there, okay earnings growth, there is a technical factor that props up the market. listen, markets are also herd mentality oriented. pgh neil: right. >> there may come a point where the herd says, hey, dow 21,000 this is insane given -- pgh neil: jeff what i'm curious about from your vantage point what you tell client. do you base your market forecasts on a tax cut coming? >> no, i do not. the s&p bottom up operating earnings estimate for this year is a little over $130. if you look at that, that is anywhere close, multiple on the

s&p using ben graham's formula would be 22 times. neil: i don't know if that is the case. >> 22 times earnings is historically high. neil: i'm just faking myself. not. >> faked me out too. neil: i did easily. nicole, when you hear all the bickering among republicans what they should do with health care and whether you tie that to the next move they make on tax cuts, let's say that they fail at this health careç front. wall street has to be prepared for all variables, right? if they fail at the health care, they fail the second time at it. to charlie's earlier point they don't get comprehensive tax reform they wanted. they might get corporate tax relief jack welch telling me yesterday would be a win, it

would be fine. the big, big wins don't materialize at least this year, won't there be disappointment reflected in that. >> you have to think yes, but is this shoot for the moon and you get some of the stars? we know trump is playing hardball, now, look, if you're not working with me i will go to the democrats. he will get many so of his policies through in some way, shape or form. he will still -- >> how will democrats give him to? neil: they have no reason through. >> he will get jobs through. better trade deals. >> let's be real clear here, if we're talking politics, the democratic part has zero incentive to give donald trump anything, any part of his agenda, except a massive infrastructure bill, which maybe net somewhat positive for the markets but usually that sort of leads to deficits. neil: that leaves one final he question for you, jeff. all things being equal, nothing dramatically changes in the equation here, we get, let's say, corporate tax relief.

don't get to individual rates this year which is the latest sort of buzz out there. i don't know if it is accurate. then what? >> that's right. neil: what happens to the markets? >> oh, i think stocks are going higher. i think it is become profoundly evident to pension funds, endowment funds the only way they can catch up to their mandated, or targeted returns is not with more fixed income. they have to buy equities. you saw the largest pension fund in the world over in norway recommend going from 60% long equities to 70%. you're seeing more and more pension endowment fund coming to the same conclusion. i think markets are higher. i think we have six or seven or eight years left in this secular bull market. neil: what do you think? six, seven, eight years. >> where is the pullback? where is the big pullback? >> i think he is right from the technical standpoint there is no other place to put your money. guess what? there are less stocks out there.

hence it goes up. i will say one thing doesn't mean there won't be a pullback. we've had financial crises in the past. neil: we have indeed. they haven't repealed them. guys, i want to thank you you all, very, very much. part of what is fueling a lot of this skittishness, the difference of the opinion, probably putting it politely between the white house and some within his own party, the president's party, particularly those freedom caucus members who he all but fingered for dissolution of all of this. for example, he went after a number of key members he said all but torpedoed progress on part of republicans. this is a house freedom caucus member. always good to have him. congressman, one of the things that president trump mentioned on this issue is that that the freedom caucus, kind of, that is you guys in general, let him down, let the party down. we'll be rifling through some of his more eloquent tweets but that he is ticked off. what do you think? >> yeah, no, i just want,

gasparino had it right on democrat cooperation going forward. i heard previous segment, ironically, hedge fund guys, laying market on our back. where are the wall street guys and hedge fund guys restructuring free market past two decades. nowhere to be fine. they hedge on next quarterly bet. we need to structure free markets. we're in middle of negotiating a federally run health care system. guys on wall street, they should know, everyone was federalizing mortgages and freddy and fannie. gold plate asset was real estate. never a ripple into the market until the federal government got involved. you got a housing crisis. financial crisis, still reeling from that. they haven't learned one lesson. neil: you're right railing against wall street guys. they are not red or blue. they're about green making money. they stand a better chance

making money if you and some of your fellow caucus members bend a little. they like to say coming to this health care rework that you repudiated, you had most of what you wanted. you get obamacare and those insurance exchanges removed of the most of the taxes associated with it removed. it was going to kill the individualç employer mandates. so there in lies the probably a biggest features you most railed against. >> yep. neil: they're saying, show a little ground here. you say what? >> we're showing a lot of ground. we voted, if we have a hard time getting yes, we voted 50 yeses over six years. there is no problem getting a yes. under this bill, polling at 17% with the american people, maybe not with hedge fund guys, it is polling at 17% with american people we represent. prices will still go up 15, 20% through 2020 pause of insurance regulations. they all know that. paul ryan can hit a switch in two minutes have us at yes. get rid of insurance

regulations. trump was negotiating with us. we were about there on that deal. if they want to see us move -- i get the issue. we want the trump agenda to go forward but you doesn't compromise with 1:00 fifth of the economy, right? we want free markets and -- neil: congressman, would you buy the president's argument, you had moist of what you wanted there? that it was better than the law that preceded it and that if they get on board, this is the president tweeting here, we would have both great health care, massive tax cuts and reform? that in other words, whatever they agree on health care, whatever you guys agree on health care would be followed up? you have a chance to fine tune something you made better than was the case before? what do you say to that? >> unfortunately it is true, this would be marginally better but when you have a century, historic opportunity with the house white house, we want so keep our promise to the american people to repeal obamacare. what president trump ran, we all ran and republicans unanimously

voted to repeal 50 times in a row over six years, this does not repeal obamacare. it provides the very structure of obamacare. neil: any of that sentiment changing, sir, now that you will have a second crack at it? you're closest than i am as i often say but i don't see any movement or any budging. if anything i see now the positions have hardened? >> no. i don't think things are hardened. neil: really? >> we want success, right? if you can give us any bundled insurance regs that push the price down. paul ryan said the whole premise is to bend the cost curve down. under obamacare prices going up 25%. neil: do you see progress at second shot? only reason i messenger because back and forth between some of the members and the president has not been promising and i know justin amash, your colleague from michigan was a little ticked off from that at the president, saying freed dome caucus tweeting back at president, stood with you, when

others ran. remember who your real friends are. we're trying to help you succeed. is that your sentiment as well, congressman. >> we're all a pro-trump guys. hedge fund twice and folks in moderate group were negative very trumpers. all critics in "wall street journal" dan henninger who i expect to have catholic flavor is pinning us on the head. neil: dan hen anyone gear with likes of karl rove and others this establishment cabal and others? >> when you're asking insurance companies we make fun of them, they're in a hard spot being mandated. a young person under this bill can not go out and buy a cheap health insurance product. community rating with the same price for everybody in a market. that is not insurance. that is what happened when we did the mortgage market. when federal government got in the middle so bankers could no longer do banking and assess risk, what happened? we tanked. we're in a death spiral right

now under obama's socialist plan. do you want to replicate that logic? i don't think so. smart people need to get smart. neil: who decided that it was a good idea with some of these divisions that are still fresh in people's minds to pursue the health care thing again? i understand some of the math behind it, provides a means you build tax cut presumably in comprehensive tax reform. >> right. neil: i don't know, i find far broader agreement, congressman among your colleagues over tax reform than health care thing. it seems like lunacy to revisit health care thing at least now. what do you say? >> i say the health care piece is essential for the tax piece. we want to get it right. the moves are all right. to have hedge funds take a look at bill. everyone saying who cares about 1/5 of economy. just pass something. that is not our job as representatives. we have to look at the trendlines and study it and it is the wrong answer. we can do much better. neil: you're an honorable man. very good professor and getting schooled in the ways of

washington. >> that's it. neil: congressman, thank you very, very much. >> always pleasure, thanks, neil. neil: thank you, congressman. then there is the neil gorsuch situation. one triumphant achieveeeot we're told of team trump. here is the can dilemma though. if he needed 60 votes, he doesn't have them. he has two more democrats who would say yes to him but he is still shy by six votes of the 60 i would presumably need. so you're in control of the senate. you're looking at that math. what do you think you're going to do? we have some ideas and it all goes down a week from today after this. yes? please repeat the objective.

♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.

♪ neil: all right. a week from today we should know, that is whether it is looking like the senate will commit to a vote on neil gorsuch to be next supreme court justice in the united states. two democrats already indicated they will vote for him, joe manchin of west virginia, heidi heitkamp of north dakota. in fact it was senator heitkamp who said despite the friction over the merrick garland treatment, i was thought two wrongs don't make a right. u.s. supreme court should be above politics. enter louisiana republican senator bill cassidy on what he

makes of that sentiment and whether other democrats, he is a republican i should remind you,ç will follow suit. what do you think, senator? >> you know i think at least a few will. hard to think michael bennet from colorado, where neil force such is from would not vote to support. this is clearly partisan politics. jurists and attorney lawyers across the political spectrum endorse gorsuch. the fact that folks would not, i agree with senator heitkamp, it will be partisan politics. two wrongs don't make a right if you perceive merrick garland being wrong i think we need to go forward. the. neil: in that case you don't have enough democratic votes, a simple majority will do? >> clearly what you're alluding to do we make a rule, change it from the current rule, the current rule 60 votes are required, to make it only 51 votes. clarence thomas was approved

52-48. it was recent innovation that 60 vote were required. no one was more controversial than clarence thomas. chuck schumer introduced a rule to make it a threshold of 60. neil: senator, right on the money. chuck schumer, enough about politics he boxed himself into a corner on this. didn't look like he would push the 60 thing. now he is. there is no way to retrieve himself from that corner. so, that is why you're not getting more democrats coming out because they don't know what to do. they don't know what the real marching orders are? >> chuck assumer is lining up his crew to go in lockstep. whether or not we should hold the supreme court of the united states hostage to senator schumer's vision of how partisan politics should be played, i think no. we need to have a supreme court. we need to have a constitutional third branch of government fully staffed. again chuck assumer kowtowing to

the far left should not be dictating how senators vote. neil: do you ever have any regrets, a lot of democrats, senator, go back to the merrick garland treatment saying that mitch mcconnell never even allowed an up-or-down vote on his nomination. and since you had the majority anyway, you could have gone ahead and shot it down, but at least he would have been afforded that. what do you think about what they're saying? it is many months after the fact but what do you make of that? >> there is a difference between a sharply-divided country, 10 months or eight months before an election in which they will decide the dregs of our country. that is when merrick garland was nominated allowing the american people to vote on election of the country. the american people voted. they wished to go in more conservative direction. that is last year of an eight-year term. this is the first year of a new term. neil: i understand that. it is easy to play monday morning quarterback with this stuff but do you think in

retrospect -- with that, goes on both sides you accurately point out in the past but you would have numbers there to repudiate the judge and all of this stuff would be silly? >> yeah, i suppose. if it would have avoided snit on the left that would be a good thing. on other hand i'm not sure anything would -- neil: there would be another snit. you might be right. >> donald trump irritates the left so much they will make a rational decision because they're irritated by donald trump so much. neil: by the way he is irritating some in your own party. you're a to h -- freedom caucus thing angering the president voting against the repeal and replace effort. what do you think of that, how they argue, the president is hurting his agenda by going after them? >> it is the president's responsibility to over come inertia of an institution. there is a lot of inertia right now. the president by the way, when he ran for president he wanted

to cover everyone, caring for those with preexisting conditions and lower premiums. dave brat was right that last bill did not lower premiums. millions of people would have lost their insurance. i didn't care for the last bill because i thought it betrayed candidate trump's positions but certainly did not lower premiums. neil: if you had your druthers you would have voted against it as well? >> i think we can do a lot better than that bill. neil: you think the second shot at this is going to work? >> i don't know what second shot will look at or look like. if it looks like candidate trump's pledges we should work to fulfill the pledges and do it, at the same time lowering premiums. neil: i think the tax cut thing is getting dragged way back. am i wrong? >> i think the tax cut thing is but people overestimate the impact of last friday's vote upon tax reform. dave camp, the previous chairman of ways and means before paul ryan was, actually came up with a plan that he lowered corporate tax rates and individual tax rate and did it

basically without touching obamacare taxes. we can still do tax reform without the obamacare reforms. neil: i agree with that. i don'tç know why some of your colleagues are revisiting the well here. we'll see. have a good weekend. >> thank you, neil. neil: michael flynn says you know what? i'm ready to talk to congress. grant me immunity. not everyone is so keen on the idea. after this.

i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity.

trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin

increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. click to activate your within. of silver last year at their 2 mexican mines. their recent mine acquisition in peru, once fully operational, stands to increase their production up to 75 percent. great panther silver

what?pony neighing] hey gary. oh. what's with the dog-sized horse? i'm crazy stressed trying to figure out this complex trade so i brought in my comfort pony, warren, to help me deal. isn't that right warren? well, you could get support from thinkorswim's in-app chat. it lets you chat and share your screen directly with a live person right from the app, so you don't need a comfort pony. oh, so what about my motivational meerkat? in-app chat on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade. ♪ neil: all right, we're getting indications michael flynn is ready to talk. he wants immunity. details have to be worked out because we're getting indications in the senate they're not keen granting it to him. connell mcshane with the latest on getting the general to speak at all. what are you hearing? reporter: gasparino got it started on your show, his

lawyers met with the committee. "wall street journal" picked up on it, he will testify with immunity. robert kellner he had a story to tell, quoting from the statement, no reasonable person with benefit advice from counsel would participate in questioning in highly politicized witch-hunt environment without assurances from brosscution. president with his own twitter account, saying mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch-hunt. excuse for the big election loss by the media and dems of historic proportions. critics are quick to point to past comments even from film himself. for example, in sent on nbc's "meet the press," mike flynn had said in appearance, he was talking about hillary clinton granted a the time, when you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime. now to be fair to general flynn, even, number of lawyers who have

been asked about this, that is not necessarily true. he did say it though. the background as we all know by now all this, flynn's ties to russia have been scrutinized by fbi. he was fired as national security advisor having misled the vice president we're told about a conversation with the russian ambassador. adding to all of this, congressman adam schiff, ranking member of the house intelligence committee accepted the invitation from the white house to look at intelligence may or may not be the same that devin nunes already viewed. we'll see when that may happen. not sure when it will happen. we're waiting to hear and i'm sure we hear about all of it from sean spicer in an hour. neil: that same intelligence critics that "the new york times" reporter was provided by white house -- >> white house officials. we don't know 100% what it is or what they want to show adam schiff. he says he will go look at it. counterparts in the senate, senate intelligence committee chairman want it brought to them, want it brought up to capitol hill so they look at it

in a secure facility. a lot again for spicer to talk about i think in the briefing. neil: thank you, my friend, connell mcshane. we have a former cia analyst with us right now. she says calling for immunity doesn't mean you're guilty at all. that was the perception, certainly, tara, left when he was saying that years ago but the point whether he is granted it or not i don't know whether it moves the ball. say he testifies, where is this going? i think it's a just a matter of time before it does and others testify. democrats seem to be seizing on this like a watergate thing. is it? >> once it remains to be seen of testimony of individuals like flynn, like comey, a lot of people here, yate, who have not yet been on record. it is flynn immunity could go either way. i'm not a you lawyer. could be something criminal or prosecuted for he is trying to protect himself in terms of, but

also could be this is very high-stakes investigation. he is worried he may have been involved in conversations that were perhaps covering up criminal activity. he may have been in conversations with the russians which were, there is spectrum here, right. there could be criminal activity or potential blackmail scenarios or collusion. we don't know which of these scenarios if any is at the crux of this. what we do know there are a lot of coincidences. there are a lot of incidents of misinformation about meetings with the russians. there is a lot of timing that seems inconjunction with things that were happening on the russian side of the equation. we're not really sure what is driving all this. whether it is covering something up internally within the campaign or whether or not there was in fact some watergateesque collusion. it could fall somewhere in between. neil: with watergate it wasn't so much the break-in as much charges of covering up. again i'm not he equating the two but here is where that black helicopter crowd comes in with

their argument here. that these people who supposedly shared this information with chairman nunes were in fact on the white house staff. they were two operatives there. they weren't some sort of guys who had inside skinny or sort of whistle-blower types as first alleged. i don't know if in the end that makes a difference, data they're showing or material they're showing is indeed worth looking at. but it does start to raise questions about how reliable the white house has been on this and more to the point, how much the house committee chairman might be protecting that white house. so do you think better part of valor might be for nunes to step out of this particular investigation? >> i think you raise a really important point. the optics on this are very problematic particularly when you're trying to launch a bipartisan investigation. on senate side you have seen things proceed in bipartisan fashion. that doesn't seem to be the case on the house side.

the fact of the matter nunes was at the white house meeting privately what seemed to be white house officials according to "the new york times" and that is not really how an independent investigation done by he capitol hill or done by congress should work. that republican chair is on the white house ground should be in scifs or plateses where things can be reviewed and that is not how it works. this is not confirmed by the white house so we're not 100% sure. we know nunes was at the white house reviewing information. unless other individuals were at the location he was meeting with people who were at the white house. it also raises questions as to how or why the individuals at the white house were looking into that information. were they directed by president trump or other more senior officials to dig in to pull that intelligence? they're claiming they happened to come across it while looking into surveillance and unmasking but it remains to be seen how and why they were digging for this information.

it is also just one other point, in foreign intelligence collection the bottom line is you may pick up individuals not the direct targets of the intelligence collection. that is the nature of intel collection. neil: unintended consequences you're right. >> unintended consequences. it doesn't necessarily mean there was wrongdoing or monitoring or direct targeting of anyone on the trillion many many -- trump campaign. if there was it may be for criminal or other reasons but it seems to be coincidental. that is what the press is saying. i haven't seen the documents. all reports say the documents referenced were incidental collection. neil: it makes my head hurt going through it but you clarified things. tara, thanks for being here. >> thanks a lot. neil: president trump says i have a job to do. i have to look at things beyond just russia, more like the world. in two executive orders he is

kind of targeting the world and trade deals and once that benefit this country. more after this. can i get some help. watch his head. ♪ i'm so happy. ♪ whatever they went through, they went through together. welcome guys. life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. ( ♪ ) upstate new york is a good place to pursue your dreams. at vicarious visions, i get to be creative, work with awesome people, and we get to make great games. ( ♪ ) what i like about the area, feels like everybody knows each other. and i can go to my local coffee shop and they know who i am. it's really cool. new york state is filled with bright minds like lisa's. to find the companies and talent of tomorrow, search for our page,

jobsinnewyorkstate on linkedin.

but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line.

what's in your wallet? neil: all right. you know, cynics saying oh, you're trying to deflect mr. president, with the latest stuff you're doing, executive orders coming up on trade. the white house is saying, we're trying to go about the business of running the country. blake burman on what is up with the executive orders and who he could be targeting. hey blake. reporter: he described them as very powerful, important and very, very special. two different orders we're expecting him to sign later today. the first one deals wanting a report over course of some 90 days to be produced by by the commerce department and trade representative to identify every form of trade abuse. officials look at countries like china, japan, mexico, germany, just to name a handful. the second one tells agencies to

assess, potentially take legal measures as it relates selling items into the u.s. below market value which is sometimes backed by foreign governments. essentially undercutting prices here in the u.s. whether or not legal and financial ramifications will be set up for that. this all comes of course as president trump is set to meet next week with the chinese president, xi xinping. members of the administration is saying this has nothing to do with that next week. instead they say they're trying to address an overwhelming problem. listen. >> let me be very clear about this. these two orders have nothing to do about the whip trip. nothing to do with china. what we have here with the two orders and customs and duty order. 40 countries are cheating the american people and my job at the white house is to defend our workers, defend our manufacturers and this kind of order does that. >> we've been in a trade war. that is how we ended up with a

$500 billion trade deficit. reporter: neil, keep in mind this also comes after the president has already signaled his intention to withdraw from the trans-pacific partnership trade deal. renegotiating nafta is potentially on the horizon. these two executive orders believed to be signed somewhere around 3:30 today we believe. neil: thanks very much, blake burman. are these distractions or legitimate beefs the president has? mark stein has probably upbeat view on this. multiple best-seller. read virtually of his books, not all of them but they have a common them theme i titles that bum out. lights out. broad bay baby. good night, undocumented. after america. america aloan. i hate everybody. that is not, i understanded that in there. mark, very good to see you. >> don't forget head for the hills.

powder keg going up. coming soon. neil: exactly. is the earth overrated? another popular toe tapper. mark, when i look at this, i kid you, you're prescient in a lot of development we don't see until it is too late. i was thinking about your last beak and what we're seeing now play out, that is a guy jack welch equated to, a glass breaker, who is coming in to bust heads and to take names and to change the system and he is running into a buzzsaw of resistance. he felt that, welch, a lot of this russia stuff is subterfuge to go after killing that agenda, killing him. what do you make of that? >> yeah, i think that's true. i think the whole russia thing is basically kind of a bit of reverse engineering to provide cover for the fact that the democrats and the permanent bureaucracy, in particular, and their friends in the media, are trying to interfere with the results of the election.

trump is basically attempting to get his agenda through, not only over the democrats, but over the bureaucracy and over something like 2/3 of his own party. that's, that's a challenge. and this russia thing, i think goes nowhere as serious proposition. i can't even be bothered wrapping my head around it, the idea of russian interference in the u.s. election. but the fact that this turmoil is being used to obstruct the day-to-day business of the united states government is serious. neil: but you know, mark, i agree with that premise by the way, which would have you running the other way but what i worry about sometimes that old nixon line, i gave them a sword, remember he said that to david frost, he provided ammunition to his enemies. i'm wondering if the latest ammunition here white house having operatives or working on the white house staff meeting with devin nunes of the house intelligence committee, to feed this cloak and dagger argument

he is trying to manipulate stuff to his advantage or cover up stuff, or just, you know, drop in someone's lap on intelligence committee stuff that could vindicate him? that is what fuels this, you know he, must be something going on argument, right? >> well, if you, if you take seriously the idea of house and senate investigations, and i don't actually, i think there are two parts of the american system that no longer work as they're meant to work. i remember a couple years ago when john bolton was nominated for u.n. ambassador and barbara boxer solemnly asking a witness whether it was true that at one point john bolton had got so heated he put his hands on his hips, going full carmen miranda on everybody? if you think that the purpose of congressional oversight is to choreograph, rechoreograph john bolton's hip movements it is a terrific system.

neil: by the way, president bush went past that system making recess appointment here. >> yeah. neil: but thats where 've gone with this, right? >> no. neil: i'm wondering, if you buy the premise this is meant to distract, there are many who argue otherwise, it is meant to plant seeds of doubt about the administration and judging by the media, it is clicking, right? >> but only i think within a very inside baseball world. i mean i do not believe, the american people would like something done about immigration. they would like something done about jobs. they take it for granted that putin is prosecuting his nation's interests. insofar they're interested, they would like the united states to prosecute its interests. i'm with lord parmistan. the lord famously said england has no eternal allies and no eternal enemies. only eternal interests.

serious nations prosecute those interests not always in savory ways, and that is what, that is what the american people want. on your network, neil, every day of the week you come, you cover, i was listening to varney and co, stuart is all exciteduse ama plan to drop a triple cheeseburger direct in your mouth by drone within six minutes. yet, when you get to washington where we're dealing with cumbersome, 19, mid 20th century an titlement programs that defy any way of reforming them. people are sick of the sclerosis of big government institutions. neil: next time you say how you really feel. mark steyn, syndicated columnist. next book, santa class, overrated. don't miss that one. that will be a best-seller. more after this. jack welch coming up. yes?

please repeat the objective. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.

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: back and forth is on the russian role in the election all that. is that, whatever you think of that subject, do you think it will be enough of a distraction to delay any of this? >> i think there is 80 plus% chance we get tax reform done about it end of the year. neil: really?

>> yeah. neil: 80% chance we still get tax reform. john layfield, what do you think of that? >> i think that is what the market is betting on and that is what the market has been betting on since president trump was elected. the one big caveat whether the trump administration or republicans got mired in travel bans and obamacare and not get to tax reform. certainly market believes we'll see tax reform this year. neil: later in that same interview, john, jack welch talked about the fact they might only get the corporate tax reform, they might only get the corporate rate down and might have to weight on individual rates. my view that would be a disappointment. he said it would still be a victory and a w, referring to a win here, what do you make of that? >> i think it would be a huge victory. last time we saw corporate tax reform was 1986 with president reagan. gdp went from 3.5 to 4.2% next year. if you get the corporate tax

reform -- neildid we marry that with individual rates at time? >> yes we did, to answer your question, but that was biggest corporate tax reform we had ever seen. i think that had more to do than personal rates. the personal rates are a political football, i think that is really hard. looks like giving tax breaks to the rich. corporate tax reform is bipartisan. neil: all right, another wrestlemania going on this weekend, the actual one, your guys, wrestling guys. you look forked ward to it. >> i'm thrilled. biggest time. year. i'm doing commentary. 70,000 people in the orlando citrus bowl. neil: how many? >> 70,000 plus down here. last year we had 101,000 in texas stadium. economic impact in orlando alone is around 150 million. one of the biggest sporting events of the year in north america. neil: obviously that says something about the economy? >> i say, at least says something about demand. i think americans always see when they see demand.

you saw manufacturing index come out today. people were feeling optimistic around the country. neil: do you have a freedom caucus villain, nope? >> there is one much our commentators has a brother who is some type of republican villain down in mexico right now. i think he talked about him on your show. has a picture of president trump on the flag. he is portraying the evil villain down there. so there is one, not here with wwe. wwe we have more standard characters, like brock lessner and goldberg and john cena. neil: watch out for the supply-siders, brother! that was awful. >> eight different languages. we're in mandarin and hindi for the first time. i'm doing english. neil: excellent. there we go. more fallout from that after this. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. h e allergy relief keeps your eyes and nose clear.

flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. for relief beyond the nose. flonase. you know win control? be this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. ..

neil: we are 30 minutes from a sean spicer briefing. we are wrapping up a month and a quarter for stocks, one of the biggest quarterly winning streaks we have seen and we 10 years and this despite the drama or because of all the drama over russia, tax cuts, we have liz harrington joining us, gary s, gary, the markets have held up very well in the face of all

this, we are only down 2% from our march 1st highs, they are betting, we are going to get tax relief. what if it is delayed relief? >> let's look at the first, the worst, no tax relief, the markets are going to struggle and by struggle i mean go down, then you are -- you don't get healthcare, tax reform, those are supposed to be the economic drivers which if we get partial and the words kind of like the fed but or to come, you have a solid 2017. you need some kind of double you on the board, going into the fourth quarter. neil: the federal reserve bank of st. louis, liz harrington,

some, not all are dying dialing back expectations, i think there's an 80% chance we still get tax cuts but just on the corporate side the individual rates wait till next year. how will that go down? >> on the corporate side there is a bigger chance of getting that through because there is bipartisan support for that and there is some skepticism and not as big optimism because of the health care debate and the way it worked with congress on tax reform there is a learning curve so they will not get down the timeline, it will be a longer slower process once you get a victory on this and work with conservatives on the issue of tax reform, there is a lot bigger, broader consensus than

there is with republicans on healthcare, people are dialing back expectations, not going to happen as soon as the trump administration expected. neil: a number of democrats say they want to work out something as long as it is not a repeal because that is a nonstarter according to chuck schumer but this could blow up in their faces so they are open to that. >> open to a health care bill? absolutely our. i think on tax reform as well, not necessarily democrats want to go to the corporate tax rate donald trump is proposing but they know their voters are the same as any americans, they would like a tax break, that is something that is bipartisan and unilateral. raising taxes on really rich people, we like giving middle and low income americans -- neil: people likgary smith.

>> taking the gary down. neil: let me ask you how you play this up, as an investor, 11% since donald trump was elected let alone the 5% run-up in the first quarter, how sustainable is that? >> i don't think the rate of growth we had since the election is sustainable. markets will favor the upside because even if nothing happens for trump he at least shows he is pro-growth, pro-business, pro-for the american people. i don't think you can say that about the past administration. like a doctor, do no harm which is good for the markets. there's probably going to be a holding period through spring and summer and i would stay invested. i don't see -- there's nothing to show any sharp downside, positive for the markets. charles:

neil: what would happen with the selloff like the 800 point fall off with congress under president bush initially failed. then they regroup quickly, and the market started after that but market tends from the likes of which we haven't seen since that time is the only thing to get people off in washington. >> the incentive for congress to do something would be larger if that happens, not convinced we will see a big selloff, the market is doing well, the media noise about russia and all these scandals. the trump administration and ushering in a completely new environment, completely different attitude that couldn't be more different than the obama era and what we are seeing with

deregulation and trump bring in the coal miners and repealing epa regulations is one example, those policies and attitudes toward business is driving markets, didn't see that under the obama administration at all and starting to see businesses want to invest in america again drama what is driving markets and markets responding to that. >> if you don't mind my hearing like a crazy professor, do you think chuck schumer has boxed himself in a corner with 60 votes or bust or wants to be flexible on it and save that battle for the next supreme court appointment? >> i hope we say that battle for the next appointment or something else. i'm not a huge fan of neil gorsuch. i wish it were merrick garland, you couldn't get a candidate from the other side and we have big things we have to do,

democrats need legislative wins whether we work with republicans or find some way in the caucuses to get this together. if we want to win in 2018 and in 2020 we need to say to our voters we delivered all this and i don't think neil gorsuch is where we should throw our hands up, joe engine and a lot of democrats in red states need to do those things and not risk being chal left, really dangerous looking ahead a little really for us so i hope he will be flexible on us and push but not push too far. neil: neil gorsuch said nice things about you. >> 99-0 confirmation is pretty good like merrick garland. neil: you seem a little agitated. thank you very much. i want you to look at this about

sentiment toward the economy and a certain said official feels about things. >> this view my colleagues expressed in various projections and three rate hikes overall this year seems about right. there is upside risk to the economy, we need to have four rate hikes this year depending on economic data. >> may be for rate hikes, whether that was the possibility of rate hikes, he intimated as much as he could as federal reserve official that would impact more likely than less likely more hikes than fewer hikes, let's ask james bullard. when you guys move on rates, what is the first thing you do? >> the most recent economic data and forecast, big staff, they

prepare a lot of information, but things as they are now. >> projected to be going forward. it will be big tax relief, democrats are not so convinced that happens. how do you play that? >> could be very important but the way i am thinking about it let's take as a baseline for the purposes of monetary policy a baseline we are growing at 2% and everything is fine, there is nothing that needs to be done and we can wait and see how the political process plays out, maybe it will be great and we get a lot of growth out of it, but we don't need to bad ahead of time or be preemptive in that

situation. neil: do you say rates continue going up? >> we have the flattest rate path of anybody on the committee, we are flat for this year. no moves. let's play growth is 2% in 2015, 2% in 2016, first-quarter tracking below 1%, we don't have a lot to go on. inflation has just come up to 2% with the report today and unemployment hasn't changed for the last 15 months. a lot of variables are stable going into the fed a lot going on in washington but from the hard data the hard data looks smooth so let's see what happens, see how it plays out,

and in front oprocess. neil: in the election, and -- >> the perspective of corporate tax reform the future and possibly personal tax reform, capital gains taxes, by itself is enough to revalue the corporate sector on 10% to 15% which we have seen during the election. if that falls apart in washington, most of that coming out, there has also been better corporate profits feeding into this. and the run-up is not necessarily due to more growth,

all they need is the tax rates to change to revalue the level of the stock market, that will be a one time move up that will go from there. neil: not going away anytime soon. and the debt ceiling quagmire, how much does that enter the equation? >> it is up to the treasury to manage the debt. neil: the cost is very low. historically low, a slight uptick. >> we need to keep inflation near target and keep markets humming. neil: you look at that and say if we move too aggressively we shoot ourselves in the foot. >> congress has to come up with its budget, managing the debt

load, our policy, offended these by law, these mandates. by the way we are doing a great job, inflation rate at 2%, interest rates are moderate. neil: the criticism that candidate trump had of the federal reserve. critical of chairman and a little less so the presidency could change you or how much noise does that make? >> the monetary policy, the st. louis fed over the years listen to a lot of critics and -- neil: out of sync with them. >> most of them for 20 years.

neil: at odds with the crowd that is 3 or more hikes, how does that go down? >> they listen very carefully to what i said but maybe i am getting myself. neil: they see a different -- >> i don't see it, not right now. i don't think we can get out in front. and raising rates ahead of time but might be growth ahead. we will see if that develops. neil: something coming down the pike. inflation of 3 persons, i would be all over it. and we got this going on in

washington. it is still below 2%, so we are not in a situation to be preemptive, we are not in the situation today. neil: two executive orders, with whom we trade, and china a big target of that change trades are an important issue and it takes a long time to reorient trade policy, and we can do one off things, and and a lot of what we talk about in monetary policy, 18 reince, and in that timeframe trade is 5 years.

neil: many of your colleagues say three more hikes this year. i know you don't share that view. what would happen if we got three more? >> a bit of overkill, you might see long-term rates come down. you might see inflation expectations fall, you might see slower growth. you might see dampening on the economy. we could do something else. we could get the reinvestments policy to end and the balance sheet to normalize. it started out and $800 billion, it is very large, relatively benign environment letting it come down.

we are ready to see. the dow down 21 points, and what that could mean after this. yes? please repeat the objective. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.

at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

far broader agreement among your colleagues overtax reform then this healthcare thing. it seems lunacy to revisit the healthcare thing at least now. >> everyone is saying who cares about 1/5 of the economy, just pass something. that is not our job as representatives. neil: the freedom caucus could lose its impact and power. party leader is disgusted by that talk and disgusted by the way donald trump has been characterized in the caucus and members who voted against the healthcare measure. good to have you back. what is your beef with the president targeting this group, the freedom caucus for its tough

stance against the healthcare repeal and replace effort. >> it is an incredible transition, gone from the guy who went to dc to drain the swamp, freedom caucus are drain the swamp guys, now we have the creature from the black lagoon in the white house because he is talking about no repeal, breaking his promises, his promise was repeal of the repeal, repeal, i am disgusted he is going against the wrong people, the moderates and the leadership, not the freedom caucus. neil: he is saying this was better than the measure they were shooting down, then the one he was replacing and it wasn't perfect but was most of what they wanted to cancel obamacare and the externs exchanges, cancel out the tax cuts and remove the individual employer mandate so most of what they wanted was in there. what do you say? >> the reality is there is no conservative group in america

that agrees with what you said or what the president said. everyone says it is the worst deal it is going to be a disaster, increasing death spiral on the externs exchanges, ultimately what is going to happen is the system is going to crash and the republicans will be to blame. we are looking for a president who keeps his promises. >> i wonder if this relationship can be saved, whatever people think of the freedom caucus they did stand by the president after the release of that tape where one of the groups that stand by it, they say -- justin of michigan was reminding the president you forgot that and don't forget your friends. is that real anger at the president? >> i don't know if it is anger, certainly frustration and i do think he is forgetting his friends. he is standing with the swamp creatures instead of those that are there to help him drain the swamp.

the biggest mistake of separating himself from the base. i know what the grassroots think and they are furious with the president over this, they don't like him attacking the freedom caucus, the freedom caucus speaks for most of us in the base, damaging trump's brand. neil: the president and his people say don't forget ronald reagan who said better to get 80% of the loaf then know loaf at all, even ronald reagan compromised on these issues. >> even ronald reagan grew the federal government under his watch. people are sick and tired of that. we had $1.7 trillion in debt, they were $20 trillion, it will take more than what ronald reagan did because we can't afford to continue growing t federal government. neil: what is really going on?

they are going to go down on that, should they then focus on the one thing they find broader boston-based agreement on, tax-cut, and talk about victory for both sides, to a wider extent the president? >> in my opinion it should be a simple two step process, they ought to go forward and vote on representative mo brooks's proposal, one sentence repeal of obamacare, if he says that is great because it gives grassroots a targeting list whoever vote against the to get nailed in the primaries and will get nailed in the primaries and move on to tax reform, not just text decreases but real reform which is what the president's promise was during the election. the 20 there is talk the president intimated getting primary challenges to those who were inclined to vote against us. what do you think?

>> my answer is good luck. if you're going to challenge your own base, bring it on. the tea party deliver the house of representatives in 2010, the senate and ultimately the presidency. this is an uprising not created by donald trump. he rode the wave, helps increase that wave but he can turn the wave against him and i would they bring those challenges on because people will stand against him on those challenges. neil: good seeing you again. i have a feeling some of mark's comments and some from conservative caucus members in today's briefing at the white house, we are 5 minutes away. to investors even more value. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be.

♪ neil: all right, a lot of things we're trying to squeeze in here before the white house briefing begins in a matter of minutes. keeping track of hillary clinton speaking at georgetown university. this is her second big speech this week, fueling a lot of expectations maybe she is off and running for 2020.

then there is the secretary of state rex tillerson attending his first nato meeting, sending the message to the administration, you know what? you have to start paying up a little bit more for the costs we have been largely absorbing. then there is michael flynn and russia, will be he be granted immunity to testify before. the senate committee said you're not getting immunity here. what this could mean for the white house longer term. what do you think? >> i think sure, definitely going forward we'll have to figure out how exactly russia was involved throughout the election. i think by adding drama, adding speculation, asking for immunity, these things, this adds to the drama, adds to the speculation, adds a lot of question marks in our brains what exactly happened throughout the election and i think that is not necessarily healthy. i think an investigation into this matter is the best way forward.

and i think that you know, being precise about what exactly did or didn't happen is the best thing to do to minimize russia's influence and their propaganda game. neil: isn't that all the more reason to grant the general immunity? people read into that the general himself did not too long ago, immunity implied guilt but be that as it may, it would be a way to advance the ball and get this investigation going? what do you think? >> immunity for what though? what he did or did not do. the way you and i are talking about this right now, we're saying things, oh, what should happen, what did happen? there are a lot of questions being raised, right? i think that is an interesting question or topic that maybe we should grant him immunity, make him feel safe to talk about it. i think the fact that donald trump is loudly tweeting about it, you should be asking immunity means there probably wasn't all that much collusion

with the russians if that makes sense. i think the fact he is getting in front of it, staying on top of it, making us shy away from the story makes us think it is not that big of a deal after all. neil: i don't know where the investigation is morphing but it started out being the role the russians played in the election, which seems undeniable, they played some kind of role. whether it affected the outcome, most seem to say no. it is too early to say unequivocally whether it did. the allegations from the president that his predecessor tapped his phone. widened out tourveillancth might have caught in other white house officials tied into the president and including the president himself. then what information was out there to supportthat allegation. in other words, more about the after the fact stuff then before all of this stuff. where is this going?

>> yeah, that is a great question. i think you're definitely right. it is undeniable that russia was involved somehow throughout the election. what i think it is, i think you know, they're playing into our fears. they're playing into your securities in our governmental system. they're playing it up with this kind of propaganda long game and i think all the drama, all of the fears, all of the speculation, all this chatter about it, all of the partisan attacks i think is really feeding into the propaganda long game that we're seeing and i think it is kind of helping the kremlin out. i think depoliticizing the issue is the best route going forward. that way we can calm things down and talk about what really did happen, what didn't happen, instead of you know, making it about democrats versus republicans. neil: why would vladmir putin want, if that were the case, donald trump then hillary clinton?

>> i don't think, i don't, i think that question is kind of flawed in the sense i don't think he really favored one candidate over another. he wanted us to doubt the outcome of the election regardless who won. neil: interesting. >> i think he wanted us to doubt the person in power. he saw what was happening. he saw the doubt brewing in the minds of americans and played into it. neil: so he could take a bow for the outcome look how much power and influence i have, still exercise same type of influence we're told in european elections, for example in france? >> right. i think hillary clinton had some interesting connections with russia and ukraine that he could have exploited or pointed out or carried out as well. neil: apparently he has that same sort of intelligence on donald trump, if we're to believe everything we're told. i can't keep track of it myself. so at the margin i could he see him wanting donald trump more than hilla clinton. just don't know to what end? >> you're exactly right. i mean the more details that

come out about this story my head feels like it is scrambled eggs. i think honestly the confusion surrounding it, all the drama, all the questions are really adding, and helping the kremlin sort of this is what you should be so confused, you should be questioning the government, questioning the elections, questioning everything. that is what they want. they want us to be afraid. they want us to feel like, oh, our system of government is being undermined by this foreign entity we fought in a cold war the past 50 years. that is what they want. they want us to be confused about this whole thing. that is why i'm saying be precise, having precision, getting to the bottom what exactly happened i think is the best way forward. i think a partisan probe into this issue probably isn't the best route. neil: i think that is right. bre peyton, federalist staff writer. well-put. you seem to know what is going on here so i appreciate that. meantime we'll get a better

sense what the administration will describe what is going on. they say they're doing everything they can to share intelligence with any committee wants to see it. what they have they will share it. whether that mitigate a lot of criticism that is piling up that the administration is hiding something is anyone's guess. wall street is off the lows of the day. they're still hoping for tax cuts. these guys are amazing to me, in the middle of an international crisis everything goes back to money, money, money! i admire that, after this. whoa, this thing is crazy. i just had to push one button to join.

it's like i'm in t office wi y even though i'm here. it's most like the virtl reality of business communications. no, it's reality. introducing intuitive, one touch video calling from vonage. call now and get amazon chime at no additional cost. don't let dust and allergens and life's beautiful moments. flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything.

♪ can i get some help. watch his head. ♪ i'm so happy. ♪ whatever they went through, they went through together. welcome guys. life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. neil: all right. i'm very sorry you missed a minute what will be a 30 minute opening statement on part of sean spicer. let's go right to it. >> that is why the afl-cio, the united steelworkers international, the international association of machinists and the aerospace workers international all came out today to applaud the order. the second executive order addresses the current lack of enforcement of one of our strongest tools fighting unfair

trade practices, countervailing duties. countervailing duties were put in place to address the problem of other countries dumping undervalued goods into american markets, making it impossible for american businesses to compete with artificially low prices. this is a especially a problem in countries whose governments subsidize exports into our country. to discourage this practice the u.s customs & border protection agency has a mechanism for addressing these types of transactions and imposing financial penalties of countervailing duties when it is determined this kind of ma like should dumping has occurred. since 2001 the u.s customs & border protection agency has not collected $2.18 billion in these duties. you think about it you can do a lot by maximizing this enforcement power for our country. we need to do a better job on behalf of a an america worker. if they are able to flood

american markets with artificially cheap steel, for example, they price american companies out of the system. say you're the owner of a steel company in ohio. you can't compete with some of these below-market prices. so you have to find other ways to meet your bottom line like closing a factory or laying off workers or might entirely having to close down entirely. by not properly using this enforcement mechanism we're costing americans who work in some industries not just steel but in agriculture, chemical, machinery and other manufactured goods in particular. president trump was elected to do everything he can to support american workers and american manufacturers. together these two executive orders are a significant step in accomplishing the president's promise to end unfair trade practices once and for all. also yesterday we were pleased to see that senators manchin of west virginia and heitkamp announced their support for judge neil gorsuch. senator claire mccaskill conceded at a private event among the list of potential nominees tha

released during the campaign, judge gorsuch was according to her, quote, one of the better ones. we hope her praise leads to additional support and her support. it is hard to find any reason except for obstructionism why fellow democrats in her caucus is not joining them. judge gorsuch received a rating of well-qualified from the american bar association and has demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of transparency including the release of over 75,000 pages o documents fielding nearly 300 questions from senate democrats on the committeend 70 pas of written answers about his personal records. he has demonstrated a mainstream judicial record with nearly all the decisions joined by democrat-appointed judges. without disqualifications democrats fudged facts about the history, essentially claiming a nonexistent 60 vote standard the

as i said before, should senate minority leader chuck schumer get his way this would be the first successful filibuster after nominee to join the supreme court. this would make history in a very bad way. they have also forgotten their own words. i cited previously this week the rhetoric of senator schumer, democratic nominee hillary clinton, the regrets of invoking filibuster by senator, president obama, then senator obama. and words that many other senate democrats like senator mccaskill blocking a vote for a judge, having gone through the process has no precedent and is irresponsible. let me cite one more argument many democrats recently made. current members of the senate seem to also reject the notion of a supreme court operating with eight, not nine justice. these include senators schumer, dick durbin, bernbierne, dianne feinstein, jeanne shaheen, amy close but char, ben cardin and martin heinrich. these members need not listen to me or the president but their own words recently last year.

the president told the american people in his weekly draws address launched earlier today, why this. we call on senate democrats to end this unnecessary obstruction and confirm eminently qualify jurist for bench. department of justice filed an appeal of the ninth circuit to hawaii's federal judge preliminary injunction against the president's lawful and necessary executive ordealing with protecting this country. moving on to some events of today and this morning president met with former secretary of state condoleeza rice. they had an opportunity to talk about regional threats, current foreign affairs hot spots, our attempt to to deisis and many more areas. it was a great meeting where they discussed many more challenges facing our country, president saw former secretary of state and niol security advisor'opinion on variety of subjectses. he signed house joint resolution 42 allay states to drug es

unemployment claims and. this morning the president joined jay timmons the national sags of manufacturers and members ceos unveiled the association's annual manufacturers out look survey. incredible 93% of manufacturers surveyed by the national association of manufacturers now have a positive outlook for the future. it's a 20-year record high that is more than 35 five points higher than the same rating was last year. to quote from the survive itself, the rising confidence stems from the belief that the new administration in washington, d.c. will bring much-needed regulatory relief, reforms to the tax code and a significant infrastructure package. the optimism is evident across a spectrum ofished indicators. the dow jones industrial average is up over 12% since election day. national association of homebuilders confidence index is at its highest level in 12 years.

gallup small business index shows small business owners are the most optimistic they have been since 2007. not surprising that american industry is reacting in this way. the president is taking immediate steps to make it easy to do business in it country. we're at beginning of this process. on top of significant steps taken in executive orders we drawn from the trans-pacific partnership trade agreement, cleared the way for keystone xl and dakota access pipelines, began a much-needed governmentwide reform of regulatory pros services. and stream rule causing further harm to america's coal industry. this was added to the measurements reflecting incredible optimism and positivity his pro-growth policies have instituted. back to the national institutes of health before signing aforementioned executive orders on trade at 3:30. he will meet with the director of office of management and

budget, mick mulvaney n cabinet news, secretary of state rex tillerson is in brussels attending the nato foreign ministers meeting. there reaffirmed the trump administration steadfast commitment to nato. secretary tiller been stressed the need for all member countries to meet their defense spending commitments and also the need for nato to take a larger role in the fight against terrorism and isis. the president looks forward to meeting with his nato counterparts this may and to discuss ways strengthen the alliance to cope with challenges in national and international security. this morning the office of united states trade representative released 12th 12th national trade estimate. annual report which is required by law surveys significant barriers faced by american exporters. its findings reinforce the need for the president's america first trade agenda which prioritizes enforcement of the trade laws to protect american workers and job creators. the president looks forward to

having ambassador lighthiser in place as ustr so he can begin his important work in ernest to fulfill the mission of this report. transportation secretary chao who yesterday celebrated the 50th birthday of the department of transportation today directed the federal highway administration officials to award $10 million in emergency relief funds to begin repairs on atlanta's collapsed i5 overpass. releasing these fund will quickly help insure that the bridge is repaired safely and in a timely manner. white house as of intergovernmental affairs talked with georgia governor's team and secretary chao has spoken with the governor. looking forward as promised today we're releasing the us oge form 78 financial reports filed by commissioned officers here in the white house. right after i'm done we'll have background briefing with senior white house compliance and officers to walk you through how the process will go and public release of the information that will occur later this evening. we'll update if there is anything further to add.

this weekend the president will be here in the white house holding mein. we'll be sure to uate you if there is anything further to add. on sunday the white house will honor world autism awareness day by lighting the white house in blue to join with autism awareness community. further research into the causes and treatments for autism spectrum disorders is one of the president's priorities. as we light it blue on sunday the white house will be celebrating all of the individuals whose and families whose lives are impacted by autism. i would note that it's really interesting story how this came to be. the head of autism speak, an organization that has done tremendous work with this, bob wright, one of the cofounders is long-time friend of president's. his wife suzanne was struggling with parkinson's, pancreatic cancer last year, and president made a pledge to her. he said if i'm elected president in support of this cause you care so deeply about i will light the white house blue. so it is in suzanne and bob

wright's honor that this will occur for this great cause. and i hope bob knows that suzanne is looking down proudly to see that pledge has been fulfilled. with that, be glad to take your questions. john roberts. >> sean, couple of questions if i could about chairman nunes's visit to the white house. fox news has been told by intelligence officials that chairman nunes is aware of who did the unmasking of certain individuals in transition and may be aware of who ordered the unmasking of those individuals. is the white house aware of that information? >> i don't know what he knows in the sense that's, and again i tried to make it a comment not to get into the specifics of that report. i will not, i think it is not in our interest to talk about the process. what occurred between chairman nunes in coming here was both routine and proper. chairman nunes and ranking

member schiff who i understand is expected here later today, both possess appropriate credentials and clearances. we've invited democrats here. i've been told that material they will see will shed light on investigation. i know a lot of folks want to talk about the process not rveillance and underlying issue, substantial. unmasking and leaks is what we should all be concerned about. it affects all americans, freedoms, civil liberties. let's talk about some of the substance. i know that is not, march 2nd, day before the president's tweet comments by senior administration official foreign policy expert dr. evelyn farkas together with previous reports raise serious concerns whether there was organized and widespread effort by the obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes. she admitted this on television by saying i was urging my former colleagues, frankly speaking, the people on the hill, i was telling people on the hill get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you

can. i had a fear they were essentially watching trump staff and he was worried about the trump administration. that is out there. nbc news reported something very similar about information that was used by the obama white house to spread disinformation in this politically sensitive information. dr. farkas's admissions alone are devastating. on march 4th, the president as you all know raised serious questions about surveillance practices by the obama administration including whether or not the president-elect or the transition team members were being improperly monitored for political purposes under the obama administration. later in march in the ordinary course of their work, n -- national security council staff disdiscoverred information that may support dr. farkas's claim. we're committed to the house and senate committees as we said multiple times to get to the bottom of what happened here. why it happened and who was

involved. for this reason we're in the ses of insuring that the reports the nsc staff discovered in normal course of business are made available to those committees investigating to insure all of the facts come to light. if everyone was treating president and administration freirely you would ask a series of much different questions about the substance than and the materials. as we've said before, when you everyo who has been briefed onr, this subject from republican to democrat to cia, former obama administration's clapper, brennan, you name it, all of the people come back with the same conclusion. i think that is important that there has been no evidence of the president's campaign and russian officials. in fact, as you heard me state before, it was hillary clinton who was the architects of the lasted a administration's failed reset policy. she told russian state tv that it was designed to strengthen russia. that was their goal, to strengthen russia. she used her office to make concession after concession, selling off 1/5 of our country's

uranium, paid speeches, paid deals, getting personal calls from vladmir putin. i think if there is really want to talk about a russian connection, the substance, that is where we should be looking. that not there. >> i wasn't expecting to tap quite such a deep well with that question. >> it is friday. >> intelligence officials also tell us that chairman nunes knew about the documents that he viewed at the white house back in january but ended up looking at them at the nsc scif only because he could not get access to those same documents through some other intelligence agencies. it was last resort to come to the white house. do you know if that is the case? >> i don't but i do think it tracks everything that has been, i saw a couple tweets the other day where i mentioned people were saying the nsa was trying to get documents. from a narrative what's been out there, we've tried to be very careful about this, tried to be consistent about you how we want this handled, but everything

that he has said, when he came out initially and talked to the media he made it very clear he had been looking into this. he stated this much earlier than the president had ever raised the issue about surveillance and unmasking of individuals for areas that had nothing to do with russia, had nothing to do with substantive intelligence or surveillce, so i think that as we continue down this path, if you begin to focus really on the substance i think we see more and more a very, very troubling and devastating path. >> one more thing sir, about process if i could. we're also being told by intelligence officials that the two individuals who were identified yesterday and watnick, michael ellis were not the source of information for the intelligence chairman. they did play an ancillary role finding some extra evidence here at the white house and helping to sign him in so he could view the intelligence. do you -- >> again, john, i'm not, if i start commenting on everyone of

these stories i can't, that is not our practice. again part of is if we confirm some things not others we'll go down very slippery slope. i continue to say, i think substance of this matter, what continues to come to light in terms of obama officials admitting either off the record or frankly on the record consistent with what dr. farkas says, that there was clearly an attempt to do something politically-motivated with the intelligence out there and the question is why? who else did it? was it ordered? by whom? but i think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talk iting about that day on march 5th. jonathan. >> sean, we heard from the president this morning saying that mike flynn should ask for immunity. we also know the president has long-standing views what immunity means. back in september, he said if you are guilty of a crime what

do you need immunity for. so does the president think mike flynn is guilty of a crime? . . . >> mike flynn or anyone else legal advice from the podium, but i will tell you the president's view is he should go up there, he should testify. >> the president gave legal advice from his twitter account. >> i know, john. >> the only reason you ask for immunity is if you commit a crime. >> the only point you are missing is go testify, get it out there and tell congress and tell everyone exactly what we've been saying for a long time. i get your point, bui think that the interesting thing is that if you actually stop for a second and realize what the president is doing, he's saying do whatever you have to do to go up, to make it clear what happened, take whatever precaution you want or however your legal counsel advises you.

but again, the -- i've heard in legal circles that the president could have exerted legal authority with him and sally yates and others, it's quite the opposite. again, compared to the narrative that you hear from a lot of the folks in the room all the time is a little opposite. here you have a president who is telling mike flynn and others to go up there, make sure in fact we talked about the other day with members of the administration that we volunteered. this doesn't look like the administration is doing everything it can to get to the bottom of this in the appropriate way. that is an important distinction lost on a lot of you, that every action we've taken, we've got up here and talked about russia and the lack of connection. we talked about the fact that every single person briefed has come away saying none exists. republican, democrat, obama appointy, et cetera. at the end of the day, the narrative comes back to us. we encourage people to talk to the house and senate intelligence committee and the appropriate investigators so they can continue to g t