. . . . ashley: turmoil in washington, d.c. that is my theory. see what neil says. neil: we know the senate is expected to issue yet another revised health care bill. to tamp down fire from controversy over one that to then bipartisan bashing with at least five against it unless there are substantive changes. nothing tops this comment earlier today from nancy pelosi, who said we do know that many more people, hundreds of thousands of people will die if this bill passes. you can't make that stuff up. but it keeps in with a theme of a mean and heartless view that democrats have of this measure. take a look. i'm the geek here.

i have done the math. the doubling premiums you promised would stay low. what is mean is limiting their options for care when you promised they would still have plenty of options for care. what is mean, is saying you can keep your have, when you can't keep your doctor. what is mean forcing young people to pay up for coverage when maybe they can't afford that coverage. what is mean is saying government subsidies will help when they haven't or plenty of state exchanges will have their back when they can. what is mean, premium increases that keep soaring. and coverage keeps shrinking. for one party to claim the other party is all bad, that republicans are the ones who concocted a mess they're trying to fix, that is a by the rich. and a lot wrong. then to add insult to injury here we have nancy pelosi's remarks that hundreds of thousands of people will die. how does she know that? what does she base that on? media gloms on to it accept it's a given.

that is mean and cruel the height of reville. what is mean and cruel of height of evil to lose sight of some of the stuff going on with the health care law as is. any of the problems with it don't have anything to do with the offerings republicans are coming up with a new revised offer coming up hours from now. premiums have doubled, tripled in most states across this country. it has everything to do with higher deductibles t has everything to do with limited coverage. it has everything to do with people getting coverage at the price they want, they have higher up-front costs to keep it within their budget and means. that is reality. who is zooming who? to the federalist's bree peyton. i'm hardly a apologist for republicans and their plan. i have ample differences way they approach it, just obamacare light than obamacare very different. having said that, death thing, thousands of people weren't

going to die? weren't democrats making fun of death panels. this is that on steroids. >> what it forced people to buy insurance plans they didn't want, premiums which increased, one of my coworkers who has an obamacare plan, her premiums went up 96% this year. it also expanded medicaid which a lot of doctors are accepting less and less frequently because reimbursement pennies on the dollar for what health care professionals should get paid for their services. very clear this narrative is just completely false. the media is focusing on it and pushing it because it fits the narrative republicans are mean. honestly to this point, obamacare light, i think only mean aspect of the republicans health care plan, it doesn't bo far enough to repeal obamacare. instead what it does, it throws billions of dollars in corporate

welfare to insurance companies to deflate premiums couple years to win another term in the house and another election in 2020. neil: you costep back on that, i will pursue this next couple hours, bree, that democrats won the argument. they won the argument that the government will be in one way, shape or form in charge of health care. the only difference is deagree is which it is. that bothers me, it thes is in stone something that could easily spiral out of control. what do you think? >> i think you're completely right. leaving aspects and skeletal framework of obamacare in place chipping away aspects of it will cause more problems down the road for average americans like you and me. i think a lot of the narrative we are seeing, that this is just tax cuts for the rich, et cetera, et cetera, is really completely false. i expect the congressional budget analysis we're anticipating to come out later today is just going to be a partisan hack job, just like

their analysis of the house version of the plan was. neil: what worries me about these analyses to your point they're based on supposition. i don't fault the cbo, dealing with data the best way it can, but doesn't exactly have a great track record. >> right. neil: the fact of the matter it is guestimating how many people will not have insurance or fewer americans will have insurance as a result. if you take the away the requirement you have to have health insurance, good many people, particularly young people, say to heck with it, i'm opting out. leaving that aside it is trying to get some level of cost containment here. even things like medicare, started at $65 million a year now it is a trillion dollar program and then some, it can get out of control unless you put some sort of limit, caps, recognize basic math ahead of that. >> yeah, you're totally right. i mean for every dollar in taxes that we pay, nearly half of that dollar goes towards entitlement

programs, including medicaid. so any sort of program like obamacare that expands medicaid and exacerbates that problem and rushes us towards, you know, impending doom and death in terms of the deficit, in terms of the budget, in terms of just completely going breakfastter is honestly a lot meaner than reforming medicaid and fixing the problem. neil: well-said. continue one at a time. i want to go to a doctor, family in emergency medicine doctor. doctor, one of the things i keep hearing again and again on this notion that people are going to die as a result of this. thousands according to nancy pelosi. what do you make of that argument that because republicans are tightening up some eligible requirements here a lot of people are going to die? assuming prior to this coming along people were dying left and right? >> that is a bit of an exaggeration, neil, it is

completely inappropriate to put fear in minds of all patients in america. look, i said in this before no one in this country should be denied medical care because they can't afford it or forced into financial ruin or bankruptcy because they can't afford it. i understand it is not a constitutional right to have health care, but it is morally and ethically right to provide medical care to our neighbor especially those most vulnerable, our children, elderly, those disabled. will it ultimately directly kill patients? no it is not. you know what? we have what is called an emergency room. no one is denied medical care in an emergency room in a emergency situation. neil: where do you think she got that, nancy pelosi got notion of hundreds of thousands of people will die if this bill passes, based on what? >> sometimes the fear you can put in the mine of patients and voters might alarm them, might see some changes there but i think that is inappropriate. i think what needs to happen

democrats to need involved, need to be proact he tiff and not react he tiff. they need to negotiate and work with the republican counterparts. neil: do you think, doctor, that, you also run a practice, you have a business to run as well, that this attempt on the part of republicans, there will be several of them. we're told another revised plan is due out later today just on the senate side, that it is accepting at face value that the government will now have a role in health care? are you okay with that? >> right now, that is just something that's happened for many, many years, since the 1950s, 1960s. but what they're trying to do now is shift control and give power to the states. they're trying to do that. they're trying to give more power to the states. neil: is that better for you from your perspective, doctor? is that better because it is more local, more regional, more to the needs of the patient in that area? >> you know what? if the government is helping fund medical care for patients,

federal government is helping, so they have to have some part of it but they are doing right thing by trying to shift the power to the states, trying to stablize insurance markets. trying to strengthen medicaid. in addition to that, preserve preexisting coverage. a lot of things that people are forgetting stay on your parent's health care insurance until age 26. those with medicaid will not lose their coverage. when they say medicaid cuts, they're talking about looking into the future to reduce expansion. you know with the economy, with growth, with tax cuts we may not need continued expansion of medicaid. that is a step in the right direction. neil: doctor, thank you very, very much. to the doctor's fine point we should stress cuts have a different meaning in washington where you don't go in reverse on this you just slow the growth in the medicaid budget. many people argue that will not compensate or keep up with patients and demands.

nothing is being cut here. nothing is being reversed or being cut. just the rate of growth is. why get into those nasty facts. freedomworks says problem is republicans are not doing enough, but actually they're growing to far on all of this. he joins me now. adam, your you view here republicans are playing to the tune that democrats already had with the affordable care act, just presumably a lighter, slightly leaner version of it, right? >> yes, and when i take a look at all the campaigns going back to 2010, every republican has run on obamacare repeal. mitch mcconnell's famous line, we'll repeal this thing root and branch. neil: right. >> that is what the electorate wanted. when you get here to d.c., this is a perfect example of the swamp of the swamp coming in to preserve a government program. neil: you automatically, look, just callous and mean and like a real sob when something people

have gotten used to in the last seven years, you're telling them that went too far or we'll scale that back. all of sudden you're doing the nancy pelosi thing, killing hundreds of thousands of people. no one bats an eyelid. accept it at face value. >> we can't accept the current system at face value. obamacare is collapsing. i'm hearing story of our activists their premiums are beginning to rise up and up and up. heritage foundation said up to 66% of health care increases since 2013 have districtly attributable to obamacare. we have to stop the bleeding. first do no harm. go back rip obamacare out. i would be happy change the bill in two-ways, go back to the 2015 repeal obama himself vetoed. or just that, the meadows-macarthur amendment back in allows states to opt out of title one, we could have this battle in the states. neil: meantime it is what it is. republicans will try to regroup and at least in the senate come

up with a more acceptable version, moderates, those who are concerned about medicaid and related cuts, but medicaid itself good example of program supposed to benefit 4 to 5% of the medical population, now over 40%. that is not sustainable. >> it is not sustainable. it is our fastest growing entitlement program right now. we're talking about moral issues. it is not moral to bankrupt the united states. i am a firm believer in free-market capitalism. i believe the market can be a tremendous amount of help here in lowering costs by increasing choice. but when you look at our current path right now, it is not sustainable. if you were the chinese and you're designing a poison pill program for the united states, our health system is what they would probably design because we are absolutely hollowing out our future by programs we can not afford. neil: well-put. thank you very much. adam brandon. >> thank you. neil: i keep mentioning these nancy pelosi remarks, put them in perspective, if you accept

face value what she is saying this is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, by definition you have to accept her argument, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved by the health care law, prove it. someone please prove it. issue i will be raising even though he head as different department with dr. ben carson tomorrow on "coast to coast" at noon on this very fine show. what is at issue here. these same old arguments exist. he encounters a great deal of heat, how he wants to run housing and urban development, make the housing we provide for the poor more productive, so they are not always poor. they have a chance to aspire to something better rather than just the government. we'll have more after this. [vo] when it comes to investing, looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that

often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock.

neil: all right. not a tweet. a statement from president trump who says the supreme court decision on this travel ban is clear victory for our national security a big win by 9-0 vote, essentially means the supreme court will rule on this in october. or at least hearing oral arguments on them. probably a month after that an outright decision. something keeps in effect most of the broad parameters of the president's travel ban, essentially reversing two different appeals courts tried to slow it down, not stop it. blake burman with the latest

reaction. reporter: neil, for weeks on ends for months, when the white house is asked, they have taken the position in face of lower court setback after set bark, look we feel this is legal. we feel it is within the president's bounds. they feel they have stayed within the lines on all of this. the statement that they just put out, as you just summarized expresses just that we expect to hear from white house press secretary sean spicer off-camara in a little bit to get a little more perspective from the white house's point of view now that this ruling has officially come in. no doubt about it, this is a temporary win for the president as the supreme court will take up this issue again in the fall at some point. though they do say, as it relates to the here and now, that part of what is put on hold is whether or not somebody has a bonafide relationship with the u.s. here is part of the supreme court's ruling. they say, and i quote here, an american individual or entity that has a bonafide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a

refugee, we do not disturb the injunction. that says as is. however, here is what the big win is for president trump and the white house this is the part that allows the travel ban and refugee process to be put on hold, stay in that manner. the very next sentence goes as follows. they write, quote, when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the united states, the balance tips in favor of the government's compelling need to provide for the nation's security. the two words at the end, nation's security, which you saw the president in his statement just reference. as for the way going forward, neil, it is expected that the president will implement parts of this, narrow scope within the next 72 hours. as i mentioned supreme court will take this up probably in october in the fall. a few of the justices gave a little bit of insight how they view all of this. as justices thomas, alito and neil gorsuch took issue with the scope of this, as to how they kind of narrowly focused the

scope of this, the supreme court. either way a win for president and administration on this day as we await official comments from his press secretary to half hour, 45 minutes from now. neil: thank you very much, blake burman. we have the former chair of the house intel committee, congressman pete hoekstra. congressman, very good to have you back with us. what do you think of this? interpreted as a early win. we don't know how the final decision will pan out in the fall, what do you make of it? >> it is good to be with you, neil. there are four areas where this is very, very positive. this clearly from the supreme court sends a message to the lower courts, get out of politics. at the next level, i'm always concerned about the level of power that the presidency has but i'm concerned the president, the office should have the authority to implement these kind of actions to keep america safe. third, i think the policy was right, and at forth level, yeah,

this was a win for donald trump. so i think on a number of different levels this was a good day for the country and for the president. neil: pete, i was looking at the decision, i'm no lawyer, but i wondered they already thread the needle very judiciously, if you don't mind the play on words and let this stand as final decision. we like what the president is doing. understand what he is trying to do. we don't want adversely impact those with connection or ties or either family or business here and leave it at that, wrap it up, call it a day. instead we have to wait until october. >> i don't think they have had arguments and all of that but we'll wait for october. but the die is pretty much cast direction alley where this court is leaning. it would have been one thing if this was a 5-4 court. but unanimous decision by the court. i think sends a strong message on all of these levels. neil: you're right. they could have just said we'll take this up in october but they were quick to hasten here, that

we are now putting back a lot of the stipulations that the president had with this in the interim. let me switch gears, if you don't mind, congressman, talk a little bit about the fact that republicans we're told hours away from senate rework, do-over, not completely a mulligan, but close to it on the health care thing to secure more votes before the july 4th recess i assume. what do you make of that? they seem to have a real battle royale on their hands? >> they do. this is a very, very difficult fight. this is not at all a surprise. mitch mcconnell roughly knew he was going to have some defections. he now has kind of a, he gauged the playing field and said okay, i've got to go back. i have got to do a mulligan. i have got to make changes to get to 50 votes. that is not surprising. that is how the process works. what's that? neil: do you think he would do a vote either way? paul ryan is famous for not even attempting a vote unless he has votes there. mitch mcconnell not so much. what do you make of that?

>> i think republicans in the senate and country would be best off leader mcconnell puts the bill on the floor when he thinks he is ready. as close as he believes he can get to 50 republican votes, put it on the floor of the senate, have the vote. that sets clarity. if he gets 50 votes, they go to the house, they have a conference. if they don't get votes, says okay we've got problems in health care. we'll have to figure out a different way to resolve issue. meaning they have to work with the democrats. neil: congressman, when i first heard those remarks by nancy pelosi on this senate measure i couldn't believe them. i checked them. indeed she said this. we do know many more people. hundreds of thousands of people will die if this bill passes. what did you think of that? >> i mean it is absolutely outrageous. this is about how we're going to structure health care. the debate whether it is going to be done by government or

whether we're going to allow doctors and private sector have more influence over health care and whether you and i will be making that those decisions or whether a government bureaucrat. just ask nancy pelosi. do you really want health care for all americans to look like what our veterans are getting through the va, or do you believe that there is a better mechanism to make this happen? you know, i think both republicans and democrats should stop talking about 30 or 40,000 feet, and start talking about really how this impacts you and me and american citizens on a daily basis and how we get health care, but you know, there is no of the he that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die because of this. you know, many of us believe that if we move, that if through innovation, in private sector reform, we will see better quality health care. we'll see more innovation. we'll see the costs go down like

we see in a whole lot of different areas. you let free market, let the american entrepreneurial spirit thrive and which all benefit. we all benefit at lower costs. neil: maybe republicans should counter it, hundreds of thousands of will live currenter this ridiculous argument. chairman, always good to see you again. >> good to see you, neil. neil: net flings, amazon, facebook now wants to do it, create original tv content. just a different wrinkle here, slightly different wrinkle. i'll explain. ♪ hey, i'm the internet! i know a bunch of people who would love that. the internet loves what you're doing... ...so build a better website in under an hour with... ...gocentral from godaddy.

the internet is waiting. start for free today at godaddy. with some big news about type 2 diabetes. you have type 2 diabetes, right? yes. so let me ask you this... how does diabetes affect your heart? it doesn't, does it? actually, it does. type 2 diabetes can make you twice as likely to die from a cardiovascular event, like a heart attack or stroke. and with heart disease, your risk is even higher. you didn't know that. no. yeah. but, wait, there's good news for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit. jardiance is proven to both significantly reduce the chance of dying from a cardiovascular event in adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease and lower your a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects

including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so now that you know all that, what do you think? that it's time to think about jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. and get to the heart of what matters.

neil: all right. we're getting a clarification from a senior senator republican aide telling fox that this revision or update on the senate health care plan, whatever you want to call it, really just a technical correction of the bill. it doesn't represent a compromised designed to win over skeptical gop senators.

it he occurs on the same day we're due up for a score from the congressional budget office from this. we were by now hoping to get one, given a chance for republicans to clarify what they want to do here, whether this will address that. they are saying whatever they will come out with, will be a technical correction to the bill, not a whole new bill to win over doubting senators. there are five by last count.

facebook hoping to do what amazon and others are hoping to do, find unique programing source to them. mashable kerry flynn a friend. >> facebook is looking to get more high-end, high quality, original content what you would see on netflix, hulu or traditional television networks some what they're doing trying to provide another reason for you and i to open the facebook app every day. beyond looking at my friends photos, family photos, sharing news articles. they want to stay engaged in the app to make money. neil: if you're engaged in the app, kerry, you're watching exclusive programing on facebook, will it have commercials or something to advertisers would covet?

>> facebook for a little bit has been testing minimal advertisements, a fancy word for a commercial. you're watching a 10 minute video. maybe after first couple minutes there are 15 seconds or 30 second ad break. like television, opposite of youtube where you see like ad before the content. this is just would be in the middle. neil: i see. another thing i wonder about whether they will have all this programing dumped? in other words get it, like 20 episodes of house of cards in one fell swoop on it. they don't want to do that, right? >> they haven't talked exactly how programing strategy will work. it will be a case-by-case basis. they're in conversations with digital media companies, individualtores and tv networks to strategize what type of shows to build. you would be seeing daily programing, weekly programing or

like you said a bunch of content or videos on the platform at once. neil: kerry, i wonder if they move far afield from where they were and costly what they do. we said this about netflix, not you, i was one worrying about the cost of programing, whether that would eat their costs alive. they found a way to make it work. wondering in facebook's case. things are more expensive to produce, no matter where you do it, could this be a money burner for that? >> there are reports they're spending upwards of $3 million per episode, that is not cheap. "game of thrones" is probably double that, this is definitely not cheap content. that is not what they're going fore. good thing for facebook they have a lot of money in the bank. they can spend but they do have a lot of competitors. there is hulu, netflix, traditional tv. there is am a son, like you said

there is amazon and there is twitter. there is snapchat. there is apple starting to play this game of new high-end video content. neil: we'll watch closely, kerry flynn, mashable business reporter. following very closely day one of this trial for martin shkreli. has nothing to do with some of the sins he is known for hiking life-saving drugs part of his can require. it has everything to do using a hedge fund to hedge off that in a ponzi scheme. ironically could be something like that could land him behind bars. after this.

liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

neil: all right. martin shkreli became poster-child for bad ceos doing bad things. it wasn't, his endorsement of doubling tripling life saving drugs . >> like i is bored. i don't know if his defense attorneys are recommending him he doing that. he is taking some notes. looking at jury. but they're going to the pool right now. we expect opening states tomorrow.

34-year-old martin shkreli, neil, named farmer bro, saw this attitude in february when he addressed congress. he hasn't changed his demeanor so far. defense attorney at some point will say, you might want to sit up straight and -- neil: cheryl, thank you very much. cheryl casone. when we talk about things health care related, this is a bit of a stretch here. one of the things you learn, if it sounds too good to be true, probably is. found out hard way with something called california universal coverage apparently not quite what the doctor ordered. gerri willis with details. >> hi, there, neil. unbelievable. we talked a lot about senate bill 6028, the better care reconciliation act and draft made public by senate republicans there. is another senate bill washington lawmakers would do well to pay attention to, that is california senate bill 562. that bill would set up a

universal single-payer health care system in the state of california. led by nurse's unions. it was spiked by assembly speaker, quote, woefully incomplete. the big problem, proponents yet to identify a source of funding for the bill. a legislative analysis pegged with costs at $400 billion. the bill received support from senator bernie sanders who plans to introduce similar legislation at the federal level. in a speech in los angeles he told the democratic-controlled legislature in california, please leave the country and pass a single-payer bill. but big questions about the cost were raised by many, including governor jerry brown. health care debate became an issue in the governor's debate. former los angeles mayor antonio villaraigosa a democrat compared unfunded health care promises to snake oil. that is a dig at lieutenant governor gavin newsom who pledged to support a universal health system if he is elected

governor. senate bill 562 in california would have wiped out the current health insurance market, authorize the government to negotiate prices with services with doctors and hospitals. sounded good on paper to some folk, neil. ultimately the numbers just didn't add up. neil: time and again these kind of things, numbers do not add up. thank you very much, gerri. meanwhile illinois on just the brink now of becoming first state to hit junk credit status, which is essentially one step away from bankrupt. jeff flock live from chicago with the very latest on that. jeff? reporter: which you sort of can't do, as you the, neil, push getting pretty close to shove here in illinois. i'm at a construction site, one of 700 construction sites around the state which are going to shut down this friday if we don't get a budget. take a look at the last time we had a budget in illinois.

almost go years ago to the day, july 1st, 2015. we've gone 727 days. they got a letter from the department of transportation, we hope the situation is resolved before then, the department is notifying all construction workers to shut down on june this. they just don't have anymore money to pay them of the state has almost $15 billion in unpaid bills. the structural deficit in the budget is $7 billion. and don't even talk about unfunded pension liabilities. that is now over a quarter of a trillion dollars. that is a whole problem of its own. nobody wants to raise, nobody wants to raise income taxes in this state. actually about 30% of the state really does want to raise income taxes because they realize it is pretty much going to have to. s&p has said, essentially, the unrelenting political brinksmanship is now poses a threat to timely payment of the state's core priority payments,

if you don't raise taxes don't get money somehow. roads like we're talking about here. of salaries for state employees. they might not open the schools, neil. if you get to that point, i don't know. people come out with pitchforks, torches, god knows what. the deadline is the end of this week. republican governor and democratic-controlled legislature aren't even talking to each other. they have got a week to go. neil? neil: this could play out in host of other states facing, just talking about the unfunded pension liabilities. a lot of it. reporter: by law they can not to bankrupt. not like detroit or new york city could have done years ago. so i don't know what the ends is. we don't have an answer. neil: not yet at least. jeff, thank you very, very much. we're watching this very closely, illinois and other states money in, money out, it is math. i keep pounding the basics. it seems like a cold, callous read on all of this but unless

you can find a way to pay for a lot of this stuff, just saying you will continue to offer it without a viable financial plan, dealing at state level in illinois or national level in washington, d.c., on health care, you're really feeling people, especially when you add insult to injury, if you do something calls for slightly better math, you will kill hundreds of thousands of people. that is on health care. that is enough to make you sick. more after this. ♪ art. it can be sculpted, bringing to life beautiful detail. or painted in luxurious strokes.

and in rare cases... both. ♪ i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, i accept i take easier trails than i used to. a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but no matter what path i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding,

like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis.

neil: all right. you ever had it with the media? texas resident paid for this billboard to rail against the media. take a look. what happened, what got you to do this? >> in the last three or four years it started to look like propaganda, and, it hurt. those people are part of my family. and, i, i don't have somewhere to go to news anymore.

so, we're through. neil: all right, not everyone can put up billboard like that to air their displeasure. a lot of people feel like doing it. accuracy in media editor why some say journalism, anything approaching fair journalism is dying. very good to have you, roger. this guy went the extra mile to put up a billboard. here was a regular veteran, watcher growing up of abc news, back in the days of frank reynolds, peter jennings and different incarnations where he felt he could trust the delivery and trust the delivererrer. no more. this is happening across a lot of different media, that doesn't even dare to question some of the, sometimes outlandish stuff being said. what do you make of this? >> yes, absolutely, neil. kyle courtney is speaking for lot of people. accuracy in media has been around nearly 50 years talking about the liberal bias in the media. so we're very familiar with it. when you look at, for instance,

the, what we call the incest between the democrat party and the, major networks, for instance, abc, ben schorr wood, his sister was on obama's national security council, david rhodes, the president of cbs news, his brother, ben rhodes is deputy national security advisor for obama. you have this across the board, this harvard shorenstein study shows the first 100 days or so of the trump administration, how the coverage has been even, particularly cnn, and nbc, 93% negative. now i question that. i still haven't seen 7% positive coverage on either network. neil: one of the things that you do wonder about, roger, i always say, people interpret the news through their own prism and their own bias and own set of facts. what i always like to argue with people, regardless of your political viewpoint, in my case

i had three hours of programing i do a day here. two hours on this fine channel. an hour on fox news. there are several 24 hour news channels. several 24 hour business channels. we have time to get into any and all. plenty of time to get into the russia, collusion charges, donald trump, whether he is crazy, if you want to do any of that, fine, fine. you also have time to step back to go into some of the other issues that are out there like the president meeting with ceo's. like the president improving market economies. time to get into all of that. but what worries me, when we pick and choose one or the other. we have time to do both. >> we have time to do both. tell you what they really should be investigating, there should be special counsel looking into hillary's collision with the russians. uranium one, podesta's ties. obama during the election saying that oh, hillary was just careless, while the investigation was going on. we know what happened with live

lynch, meeting bill clinton on the tarmac. and then telling comey this is a matter, not an investigation. i think he understood there was never going to be an indictment. that is why he laid out such a compelling case. here with trump, you have this situation where, hey, he was told by comey three times, you're not under investigation. cnn and abc both reported two days before comey's testimony earlier this month that he was going to be saying, no, i did not tell him that. two days later he released he had said that, put to shame their anonymous sources brings into question some other anonymous sources. neil: you have to wonder about this. president of this media never been a great fan nor he of theirs. i wonder when i hear outrageous comments from the left, nancy pelosi this morning on

cbs news saying hundreds of thousands of people will die if this senate health bill passes. i'm, i'm wondering where the challenge is to something like that. where do you come up with a number like that? if a republican had said it, it would certainly be pounced on as it should to follow up on it. none of that. that is what worries me. >> right, she doesn't feel the restraint to have to come up with a explanation for her numbers. saying blood money and they're killing hundreds of thousands of people. neil: they're mean and callous and, i just argue that what we have might be mean and callous because of what happened under this with rising premiums. in other words, it gets back to as we talked before, roger about time to get into all of that. you can't be so distorted in your thinking that it one or the other. you can do both. >> yes. absolutely. bernie sanders yesterday on "meet the press," chuck todd, whose wife has helped him tremendously through her

marketing firm, he never mentions that, he never asks him the tough questions about the people who are out he killing and shooting in his name, about where he comes up with these figures, about he and his wife being under investigation for what happened with the college of vermont. neil: plenty of time to get into this stuff. we're not doing it. we're not doing it. roger, thank you. >> thank you. neil: holding people accountable on both sides of the ledger. to nancy pelosi and that hundreds of thousands of people will die, think that through. that is a leader in washington telling people what is just a craze he sy statement. that is a crazy, crazy statement. we focus on crazy statements out of the right, do we ever focus on the left?st after this. often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this

kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock.

♪ ♪ >> we haven't seen the cbo report yet. we do know that the, many more people -- millions, hundreds of thousands of people will die if this bill passes. >> trying to be overly dramatic. thousands of people will die. i mean, if you don't have any health insurance and you have a chronic disease and you can't afford your prescription drugs, you know what? you will die, you'll become much sicker. >> the way this bill cuts health care is heartless. the president said the house bill was mean. the senate bill may be meaner. neil: all right. mean, meaner, hundreds of

thousands will die. really, folks? really? i raised this last week on "your world," my fox news show, how out of control this hyperbole has gotten. and i mean out of control. take a look. what's heartless is when the same chuck schumer says this senate measure will send costs soaring while refusing to see those costs already are soaring. what is heartless is saying republicans are actually killing people. they actually said that. when, in fact, what is really heartless is year after year of obamacare lemmings lying to people, all the people, about deductibles now pricier than some premiums and premiums pricier than most can afford. now, if that is compassion, what counts for clueless? if that shows heart, how then to explain this present-day health care hell? that is what is heartless. that is over the top hypocrisy on the left. that is what is mean. so regardless of your political

view point, when you're starting to reduce this to hundreds of thousands of people dying and you can't back it up, prove it or use anything approaching reliable numbers to vindicate or reveal what you're saying or to remotely prove what you're saying, we're out of control here, folks. and all of this when we're supposed to get a technical sort of clarification of the republican plan in the senate. it's actually going to be sort of a precursor to the cbo, the congressional budget office, scoring this thing. which i'm very glad my next guest is here to clarify, the former acting director, barry anderson, who really gets to the heart of the matter by saying, look, none of these plans address the underlying problem which is the run costs involved in all of this. barry, good to have you. >> good to talk to you, neil. neil: a lot of hyperbole, very little cool, rational thinking behind all of this. where's it going, do you think? >> well, you know, i've got to confess, when i look at the

hyperbole that comes out of there, when i look at the bills, the first thing i think of is my grandchildren. what does the bill, what does it really mean towards my grandchildren. and when i looked at the senate bill, again, i confess the thing that really impressed me most was a reform of medicaid. medicaid is one of the big drivers of our to unsustainable fiscal position long term. and finally, a bill is going to address some of that. and it can and should be addressed. so the hyperbole they're using about whatever, thousands of people dying and things like that, well, i try and look what's actually in the bill, and i really do think that taking a look at reforming medicaid is long, long overdue and that this bill can add to it. but as you said, neil, i'm upset that it doesn't take a look at the long, the real fundamental costs of health care. of course, the affordable care act didn't do that, nor did the house bill, nor did the senate

bill. neil: you know what i worry about whether you are for medicaid, you can't be for the math that is increasingly not sustaining it. you know, something that used to, whose goal was the help 4-5% of the population, and now we're up to 40% in some cases. that is simply not sustain the bl. so i'm wondering if the math on both sides is specious, and we're going out of the frying pan into the fire. what do you see happening? >> again, washington needs a real kick in the butt in order to get things done x this may be what they need in order to do the proper reforms in medicaid. you know, there's a lot, an awful lot of medicaid costs go to seniors and people say, ah, but it's low income seniors. but there are asset tests on whether you get medicaid assistance as a senior. and the asset tests involve that you can keep a home greater than $500,000. well, none of my kids own homes more than $500,000. [laughter]

back when i was at the white house office of management and budget, we used to have a little saying called reverse robin hood. that's where you take money from the poor and give them to the rich. well, in this case that may be it. i mean, if we're subsidizing medicaid for seniors who have homes of $500,000 or more and taking it from people who have homes much less than that, isn't that sort of a reverse robin hood? i'm not trying to take a position on what should be done -- neil: no, i understand. >> i'm saying that reform needs to be done. neil: well, that's the kind of thing that gets us to the point where we're going to have 100% of the population dependent on medicaid and that doubling or tripling of taxes isn't doable, to your point. thank you very much, barry anderson, the former cbo director. that's just part of the problem, isn't it? by the way, we're getting these sort of clarifications out of the republican senate right now which has introduced a couple of modest revisions, more to

clarify not necessarily win votes including a penalty for consumers whose coverage lapses. you might recall particularly in the case of pre-existing conditions if you let your coverage lapse and then sign on because you've discovered you do have a serious condition, you will have to pay a higher premium for that. but if you don't let it lapse, you don't have to worry about that. the same is holding true right now in democratic plans that are still the law of the land. but if there's a lapse and you let it lapse, you're going to pay for that. the only question is, how much? senator dean heller becoming the fifth gop no, and a group is indicating that he is going to be targeted right here because the nevada senator dares to question something that they want to try to get republicans in lockstep on, and that is a health care measure they argue will be better than the one it is hoping to replace. to america first policy's spokesperson, katrina pierson. is it fair to say, katrina, that

senator heller is going to be targeted by republicans because of his stance? >> well, i think, neil, it's fair to say that senator heller is being targeted by the millions of americans, republicans and democrats, who want to see this obamacare be repealed and replaced. you know, we didn't get here overnight, and this is the biggest problem that i believe many of us have with this particular stance, is because these guys have been campaigning forever -- neil: but why, why this senator? p why not ted cruz or mike lee or ron johnson or rand paul or others who have serious concerns like lisa murkowski or susan collins? why not any of them? why this poor guy? >> i think that is a great question. let me answer that for you. senators like rand paul and ted cruz have been saying the same thing since the beginning. someone like senator heller has not. in fact, if you go back to even his campaign web site, his senate web site, he's been saying we have to get rid of obamacare, and now he's saying we don't.

senator paul and senator cruz are saying -- neil: well, he's saying that these measures aren't much different. he's saying these measures aren't much different and that it's obamacare lite which is what rand paul is saying. we could get caught in the weeds, katrina, but i just feel and i wonder if in rallying around an alternative measure, you've gone from one big, old government omnibus program to a slightly less big government omnibus program, and this guy is the guy that's got to suffer, face a primary challenge because he's deemed more vulnerable than any of those others i mentioned. >> leapt me just say -- let me just say none of those senators are off limits. senator cruz says i want to get there, let's talk about how to get there. that's two very different positions, but moving forward -- neil: but you're okay with him being primary challenged, because the end result could be you lose a senate seat that i'm sure the president wants to keep in the republican fold, right?

>> well, of course. but at the same time, if you're going to govern as a democrat, what's the difference? neil: where do you have proof that he's governed as a democrat outside of concerns about this? >> well, this is what we're talking about. this is the one thing that particularly republican primary voters care most about. neil: yeah, but looking at something -- wait a minute, katrina. he's looking at something that isn't markedly different from the one it replaces. he's just saying i think we can do better, right? >> and we probably can -- neil: but you're already threatening the guy. >> obamacare -- neil: if you go ahead with this, we're going to primary your ass. >> obamacare is gone one way or the other. republicans did not have a plan to put up at the very beginning. there is a plan now. this is a vote to move the process forward. this is not the actual plan that's going to be in place. they're making revision as we speak -- neil: right now is the time to fix it. >> you can do that in conference as well.

this is a process decision at this point, and we need to get this process moving forward so that we can get to a final bill. neil: all right. but how can you do that under the threat of we're going to primary you if you don't go along with what we say? that sounds like a bad tony soprano episode. >> actually, it's an accountability issue -- neil: you have accountability for all these others, and you don't. you have accountability for him because he's the most vulnerable. that's not fair, that's not right, and you know it -- >> this is just the beginning. neil: what do you mean? you're going to do the same with all the others? >> any house member that does not move forward on the policies that many of -- neil: what's moving forward to you, katrina? accepting something that is fatally flawed and even conservatives are saying is just a lighter version of what we have out there? what's wrong with someone who stands up and says, well, you know, i don't flip over this, i'd like to make it bigger, but already katrina's talking about

the trump white house trying to have a primary challenge for me simply because i spoke out. >> first, we don't represent the white house. and somebody like a senator cruz and rand paul have said, yes, i want to get something better. this is a little bit different -- neil: he has said he'd like to -- >> no, he said no. he said he's not onboard. period, that's the difference. neil: no, no, that's not what he said. he has also talked about he is open to something that could be more cost effective and fairer when it comes to medicaid treatment, a very big issue in his state. >> it is a very -- it's a very big issue. it's a very big issue in all of the states which is exactly -- neil: well, i don't know, it seems like you're picking and choosing who you want to screw here, and it looks like this guy is fair game. >> well, any person that is not supporting putting america first in their policies -- and this is something like obamacare, something that has hurt all americans -- neil: he's saying what you've come up with is something like obamacare.

look, i'm hardly an apologist for the guy, i'm just saying what he's trying to do is something that these other guys are trying to do, but for system reason he becomes the target and these other guys not. >> again, this is just the beginning, and we have to move this process forward -- neil: what do you mean it's just the beginning? what does that mean? >> because we have to move this bill forward if we're going to get to a bill. we have to get to the conference. this would be a vote to move this process forward, and that's to all the conservatives, anyone that is still on the fence on this bill. yes, we can make amendments, yes, we can move forward. but we have to get this vote through so that we can go to conference, neil. we can't sit here and do this for another ten months. this is something that republicans have been promising americans, you give us a republican president, we will get obamacare repealed and replaced -- neil: and you either go along with us, or we're going to primary you out even if it means risking losing the senate in the process -- >> you know what, neil? neil: cutting off your nose to spite your face. >> you know what? when democrats believe in

something, they use that power and follow on the sword. this is the exact same thing for republicans -- neil: as long as you're recognizing, katrina, that by falling on the sword you have a good possibility of losing a republican seat in nevada, that's your call. but that's the risk, right? >> we promised voters, conservatives and republicans alike, that we were going to repeal and replace obamacare. neil: well, you didn't really repeal it, and this is hardly -- [inaudible] >> this is beginning the process. this is beginning the process. neil: that's all this guy's saying. >> that's not what he's saying. he's saying he's not going to support this bill. and in order to -- neil: have you heard what he's saying, katrina? that's not what he said at all. >> yes. that's what he said on friday. he did not want to support this bill. neil: we're going nowhere fast. thank you very much, katrina pearson. >> you're very welcome. neil: more after this.

♪ ♪ welcome to holiday inn! ♪ ♪ thank you! ♪ ♪ wait, i have something for you! ♪ ♪ making every stay a special stay. holiday inn, smiles ahead. whether for big meetings or little getaways, member always save more at holidayinn.com

neil: all right, a key senator is speaking out on this health care back and forthright now as republicans have put together more, you know, clearer specifications in their measure. not to win over vote, but more specifically just to explain the math. for example, penalties for those who let their coverage lapse. adam shapiro with an exclusive chat with senator orrin hatch who's going to play a vital role in all of this. hey, adam.

>> reporter: hey, neil. as chairman of senate finance, that committee has oversight over greater than 50% of the u.s. budget, tax reform and health care. so we talked with him about the big issues of the trump agenda. let's talk tax reform right now. president trump wants the federal tax rate lowered to 15%. senator hatch told us during the exclusive interview that the administration has already backed off of that, looking at something around 20-25%. that's the corporate tax rate. here's what he told us. >> corporate tax rates are not going to change, balance the budget, but they can certainly help. and, yeah, it'd be wonderful if we could get them down to 15%. now, i think the president has probably come off of that particular figure recently, but i'd like to get them down, you know, if we could get them down to 25% or 20%, this country would turn around, i think, overnight. >> reporter: now, we did speak with him about health care. mitch mcconnell, he says, is a master at this, and they have to

win the vote in the senate or else the country faces a future for health care that orrin hatch doesn't agree with. here's what he told us about health care. >> i'd prefer anything other than socialized medicine. if we go that route, pretty soon health care will be almost every dime that the federal government -- and i've got to tell you, people were glanding more and more and more -- demanding more and more. if we go to socialized medicine, we deserve what we get. and we're almost there. if we don't win on this issue in the united states senate, that's where we're headed. >> reporter: but the emphasis now is on tax reform. behind the scenes the committees from senate finance, house ways and means and the administration meet almost daily as they write the legislation. but the legislation faces a huge hurdle, that's the border adjustment tax that chairman kevin brady in the house ways and means committee will not let go of. here is what orrin hatch said, he is not in favor but won't rule it out just yet. >> he won't give up on that.

he's very convinced that's something they just have to do. they're going to have to show me how it does not violate international norms and how it really will work and how, how it's not just another way of taxing people and how it will not raise retail sales rates and everything in this country so that the middle class is hurt really badly and the poor especially. these are all issues that have to be raised. >> reporter: you know, neil, one thing we don't talk a lot about is that 10% of the highest income earners in this country pay roughly 68 president of all federal -- 68% of all federal income taxes. senator hatch told me that 10% of income earners should not expect a tax cut. they're going to eliminate most of the deductions, so those people in the top 10% probably won't see a tax cut. neil: that could be a wash. you broke a lot of news there, not the least of which was hatch's comments early on about the possibility that, you know, the 15% corporate rate looks

probably not and maybe 20, 25%. i mean, that seems to be where he sees things going. >> reporter: yes. neil: that could be startling. >> reporter: yeah. and we actually heard from the administration that that 15% rate, that was the opening of the negotiation. neil: right. >> >> reporter: what's important here is they've been negotiating this. we've all been paying attention to health care and the other issues, but this has been going on behind the scenes. neil: that's a little higher than most people were counting on though, thank you very much. meanwhile, keeping track of a supreme court saga that could be a win for the president, at least the decision on the travel ban that the president interprets as a clear victory saying today's ruling allows me to use an important tool to protect our nation's homeland. if this is proof the supreme court is looking at a ban here, it is going to be done in stages and something that will protect those who want to be protected in this country. but if you're a foreigner, you

have interest in this country, connections in this country, you'll be safe. all right, in the meantime, i want to get a handle, carrie, from your vantage point what the administration got here that two appellate courts had denied it. >> what they got is a court that actually looked at some of the legal standards rather than jumping to conclusions based on politics. it looks like a unanimous court, no one objected to this granting of a stay here today or getting rid of the stay here today that said this order can actually be taken out, in effect, except with the rare exception of people who have a connection to the united states. so there are people who say students admitted to the university of hawaii or family members of u.s. citizens or residents who are coming to visit them. for those people there is someone, there's a citizen who can be concerned about this and there may be exceptions for those. but for the vast majority of people who have no connections to america, yes, they are able to have a halt, a temporary pause to they can look into the safety concerns and the real national security concerns here. neil: right. >> that's a big win, especially

when it looks like it was unanimous. there were federal courts who were rejected the government's position out of hand that really got a big knockdown today. neil: all right. it's a 9-0 vote in this regard, until they hear these arguments in october, presumably rule shortly thereafter. but does the unanimous nature of this portend good things for the president? he certainly seemed to hint that in his response to this today. >> well, it's definitely very encouraging. and, again, i think the questions in this case respect just questions you can jump to a conclusion on. the court's going to have to grapple with them, but we need justices. it would be good to have judges in the lower courts as well who are going to look at the real legal questions and grapple with those and not just jump to, oh, the president said things i don't like on the campaign trail, that's it. he must be this horrible bigot. it's not how our process works, and that's what i hope the supreme court will afford the president in the fall. neil: all right, normally courts don't like to encroach on a president and his executive powers.

they might just say this is something within his duty as commander in chief, or will they get more nuanced than that? what do you think? >> well, the president does have broad powers as commander in chief in events of our national security to do these kinds of things as the court mentioned in its order today. you know, there are those exceptions where there's an american that's involved, a family member, etc., who might be able to make claims. for the vast majority of these people, this is, as the court said, really the center of the president's authority to be able to protect our nation. so the president does have a lot of leeway here. and, you know, there are going to be a lot of arguments. it's going to be a serious case, but they're going to have to come up with something other than we don't like the president's campaign rhetoric if they want to win at this point. neil: carrie severino, a lot more on this and the implications later on in the show. in the meantime, after a string of runoff losses, democrats might want to reassess something. not about what their doing, but what they're saying about russia. after this. ♪

♪

muck flushing. ♪ ♪ neil: all right, maybe bill clinton was right when he used that famous be line, that dog don't hunt, when it comes to democrats continually talking about russia and a connection to the trump campaign and their own election loss. signs right now the democrats are reassessing after all of these special elections since the general rex, that maybe it is time to rethink that strategy. former cia analyst, fred feist, former republican congresswoman nan hay worth from the fine state of new york. congresswoman, to you first on this. we're told that some democrats are concerned they went too far or that this issue isn't registering or resonating. what do you think? >> well, it's not registering, neil, and the reason is primarily because the democrats decades and certainly, you know,

eight years before the 2016 election, their policies have failed the american people. they've placed enormous burdens on us. people have lost are jobs, they've lost livelihoods, their cost of living has skyrocketed, their health care. to the try to get them somehow to imagine that president trump had something to do with russia and sabotaged the election or tried to obstruct an investigation when ono one has come up with anything to verify that or validate that and democratic officials from past administrations who are not friends of the president and james comey himself said, look, we don't have anything, there's no proof, no wonder the democrats are -- those who are in districts where their constituents are actually interested in solutions are saying, hey, you know what? let's get off the topic of russia. they're right. but they have to get on the topic of how they help the president pass an agenda that will work for the american people. neil: andrew, what do you think of maybe they're beating a dead horse, go on to other issues, you know, that that might work

better for them? what do you think? >> neil, i don't think this is a one-size-fits-all approach. on russia i think we should let the trump administration dig their own grave, because that's what's happening. there's a special prosecutor who's widely respected, who is really looking into this. and at the end of the day, whenever it takes a year, two years, we're going to find out the truth -- neil: so no one say anything in the meantime, republicans or democrats. >> i'm not saying no one should say anything, but democrats need to focus on issues, because unlike what the congresswoman just said, we do help real lives -- neil: i think that's what she's saying, get to those issues -- >> i'm not going to disagree with that. i think we should talk about the real issues that matter, about how we really make sure premiums go down for people who have health care, how we don't take people off their insurance who have it, how we make sure they get higher wages -- neil: don't talk about hundreds of thousands of people dying as a result of it. that's a whole other can of

worms, right? >> that's another can of worms, but our policies represent the values -- neil: all right. well, we can debate that. fred, what do you make of the fact that, obviously, it's in republicans' interests to say, all right, let this russia thing go. but, i mean, on security issues wouldn't it be important for republicans to let go of it or the president no longer tweebt about it or -- tweet about it and just let whatever's going on with these investigations go on and move on to these other issues? >> neil, i think you're right. i think it would be better for the republicans to move on too. i think all three guests agree that the democrats need to focus on other things, and the reason the american people don't think there's anything to the collusion story or the idea that russia affected the outcome of the election. there's no evidence of that. but i think democrats are concerned that these can investigations are moving into dangerous areas they'd rather not talk about such as barack obama being informed of possible efforts by the russians to affect the election, but he did

nothing about it -- neil: in other words, be careful what you wish for, you might get both sides caught up in something they don't want. >> and also the attorney general who apparently obstructed investigations of hillary clinton and, frankly, if that hadn't happened, she may not have been on the ballot. these things are being dredged up because the democrats are insisting on these russia investigations. >> that is not what i'm saying at all, neil. i just want to make clear. neil: okay. i thought it was -- i'm can kidding. [laughter] with all this breaking news, i do appreciate you taking the time. meantime, nasdaq is on pace for its longest monthly winning streak we've seen in almost 22 years. i wasn't even born. [laughter] isn't that wild? ♪ ♪ [vo] when it comes to investing,

looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference. it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz.

before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.

neil: all right. shares of pandora up on reports that its ceo is about to step down or will be stepping down, and that is enough, obviously, to buoy interest as to whether that company could be a merger candidate or bought out by somebody else. you know how the drill goes. i always feel for the ceo involved, it's got to hurt the ego to know that your stock is up after you're all but indicated out. but it is what it is. rife is cruel. anyway, tech -- life is cruel. tech till trying to recover from earlier this month. nicole petallides at the new york stock exchange with the latest on tech plan and much more. hey, nicole. >> reporter: tech is not so cruel, actually among the best performers for this year, 2017. and facebook the one tech stock that made it back from the tech wreck in early june. take a look at where it is now. 154.57. today hit an all-time high. was looking at a record close again.

and since its ipo in 2012, up 365%. but the tech wreck, the two-day selloff -- it was a friday and a monday from june 9th to june 12th where the analysts basically said the group for the most part had gotten ahead of itself -- really hit the whole group pretty hard. we saw names such as netflix down almost 9%, apple down over 6%. the whole group sold off. only facebook has managed to recover those losses, and even though the close of 154.71, so hovering around those levels. but the idea here is for the long term that they will recover those levels. and last but not least as we talk about tech, and tech is really a favorite. it is in just about everybody's perform in some way, shape or form. but take a look at the nasdaq for the month of june. an up arrow for this month, up about 1%. all the indices are higher, the russell's the best of the bunch, but the tech-heavy nasdaq up

eight months in a row. goes way back to 1995, about 22, almost 22 years that we've seen eight straight months of gains for the nasdaq. so let's see, by the end of the month of june if we can clock in another win. back to you. neil: nicole, thank you very much. meanwhile, is branching out into tv sustainable for facebook? it's looking to do just that. it would follow, as we've been saying, the likes of apple, of course, doing so, netflix. to market watcher josh gillensky. i guess the question is whether they can make up for that with something new and different. what do you think? >> yeah. i think it may be a little too late if you look at a what's happening with ten cent and we chat with 800 million users in china. they're sort of riding an already-broken wave. i'm a little worried about that. i think they need to be doing something big and bold. i think mark zuckerberg should focus less on becoming the

president of the world and more focus on something cool like holograms and using oculus riff in a really cool way. i think a what i want the see is hologram friends. i think the strategy is a perfect outgrowth of the place for friends, if you think about it. what do you want to do with your friends? you want to binge watch. but netflix is already doing it, amazon's already doing it. they're facing stiff competition from snapchat as well. i mean, my nephew was just over the other day for a graduation party, and he was showing me where his friend was on an exact block in ocean city, maryland. it was crazy. and, you know, facebook is big in the boomer set, in the gen-x set. i'm on facebook, but my nephews and nieces are on snapchat. facebook is kind of dying. yes, it has two billion users, but i think they need to stay out of politics, focus on big

and bold and build a transformational technology with their oculus riff software. neil: that's interesting. you know, one thing i also wonder about, josh, is these companies that are going well beyond what was thought to be their niche, amazon comes to mind. we saw it as a retail site that has now grown to include the big grocer whole foods and, obviously, now expanding into clothing you try on and then return the items that you don't want, etc. i wonder in the case of facebook, too, trying things it hasn't done before. there's nothing wrong with that, but do you risk losing your brand identity in the process? in other words, it should be a spoke and wheel type of thing. what do you think? >> i think that's a great point. look at what happened to myspace. nobody uses it anymore. i think facebook could go the way of myspace. i do think -- i commend them for at least trying something new so that they don't go the way of myspace, but i want to see

them use oculus riff to create holograms. imagine doing a hologram interviews, neil. imagine holographic visits with your grandma that you can't go to see. i want my iphone to be used as a place for friends where they're actually there. i want to see them do something big and bold. but, yes, i think losing your core we ten -- competency, i think everybody's trying to be the next am sorntion monetize their two billion users. obviously, they've doubled users over the last five years which is certainly impressive. neil: right. >> from a billion in 2012 to about two billion today. that's nothing to sneeze at. i'm not necessarily a bear on facebook, but i want to see them do some more things with oculus riff. i think monetizing video's already been done with netflix, already been done with -- neil: you don't want to -- i assume it's not a transformer character you're referring to, but a technology. >> it's that technology where

you wear the goggles and you appear. is so you would be, like, right there. and your 3-d image would appear. i think that's the future. neil: really? >> so that you're communing with not just a screen -- neil: but you're all wearing those big, dumb glasses, right? or headsets, whatever. >> yeah. that is -- i think google glass kind of failed on that front. neil: you know, you're absolutely right about that. josh, thank you very, very much. i'll make note of that. you could be on to something here. all right, in the meantime, charlie gasparino with a reaction that is already getting quite a few tweets and e-mails on both sides. my asking katrina pierson whether it is wise to go after a senator simply because he doesn't like the republican health care measure that's been cooked up in the senate. she saved that only for this nevada republican senator. in other words, primary challenge for him, not for any of the other republicans. is that self-defeating? charlie weighs in after this.

♪ ♪ introducing new parodontax. the toothpaste that helps prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782

on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. neil: asylums like you're picking and -- seems like you're picking and choosing who you want to move forward, and it looks like this guy's fair game. >> any person that is not supporting putting america first in their policies -- and this is

something like obamacare, something that has hurt all americans -- neil: he's saying what you've come up with something like obamacare, and he doesn't want a part of it. look, i'm hardly an apologist for the guy, i'm just saying what he's trying to do is something these other guys are trying to do, but for some reason he becomes the target and these other guys not. all right, the subject of discussion with katrina pierson, former trump surrogate, is senator dean heller, nevada republican. remember, he won his seat by less than one percentage point back in 2012, and he's going to be up for re-election the year, and he's facing an uphill battle. he is among five republican senators not keen on this latest senate version of a health care rework, but he's the only one being targeted for primary challenge. to charlie gasparino on where this is going. i think, you know, you keep your party together. >> yeah. i mean, the argument that the trump people are making on this is stupid, and here is why.

let's take out a republican, let's weaken him, okay? maybe get another, i guess they want a different can republican in there. neil: right. >> but who knows where that's going. usually incumbency is pretty good, by the way. voters know you -- neil: usually a primary challenge is beaten by the challenger. >> let's look at the math. let's just say republicans lose the house and they lose the senate because donald trump went out there and beat this guy up. guess what's coming for donald trump? impeachment. and then it becomes a very real possibility because you have the senate switching sides, they have to vote on the impeachment proceeding that the house could serve up. now, it could be fake news, all this russian stuff, but, you know, remember what they got president clinton on, and they basically got him on something on a blue dress. it was a trivial matter, if you think about -- neil: but that's more likely with the house or senate in a different party's hands --

>> absolutely. neil: my only point was, all right, you want to go after this guy because he's -- and many nevada nones are saying you don't understand, really heller is a republican in name only. still, he won narrowly and got that seat for the republicans. he loses it, and you want to go after the ted cruzs, the mike lees, the rand pauls. and if that's going to be a rationale that they are denying a senate plan that even a number of republican senators aren't keen on, then what's your -- >> wasn't rob portman out this weekend saying he can't vote on it? neil: right, right. you're up to ten who are either against it or have serious doubts about it. >> so donald trump is going to declare -- neil: he's not. to be fair, she said she's not speaking for donald trump. >> who are these ads coming out from? neil: it's a group that is now looking to go after this guy. >> and you don't think they have his blessing in. neil: i don't know. i think it is self-defeating. >> my gut is they do.

donald trump and katrina pierson should spend more time on the hill trying to persuade people to the vote for this -- neil: that's what a lot of people have said, charlie, about this measure. whatever your views, that they haven't reworked it enough or differentiated enough from obamacare, that it's a lighter government version -- >> right. neil: and maybe in a substantive way, but still not all that different. >> listen, i'm not saying i'm for it -- me, i would vote for this as one step towards unraveling obamacare. but i'm just telling you, the problem with this bill is it's attacked from the left and the right, and you really don't have the prosecute making a real, good -- the president making a real, good case for it. i hear a lot of threats -- neil: are you hearing he's going to be more actively involved in this? >> i do not hear that. if you think about what he's been tweeting about, maybe we just let obamacare crash and burn and replace it. i've not heard that he's going to take an active role in this. i hope he takes an active role in this and tax reform.

you know, here's the thing, our viewers should put this -- listen, it's one thing to be talking trump here, it's another thing to be talking trump throughout the world. donald trump has a 38% approval rating. he does not have the stroke to be telling senators what to do. i mean, he doesn't. if they don't want to vote for this, he's got to either make a case -- i should say he has the stroke to make the case, he doesn't have the stroke to threaten them into doing something. neil: yeah. and i think this guy is making a case that these other republicans are that we can make this better. which they can. >> it's a chorus. neil: right. >> everybody's in their own little world here. remember, when you have a 38% approval rating, i don't care, you think those are fake polls, fake news -- neil: right. >> guess what? you're not a popular person. you don't have the ability to demand -- neil: or to go after your own -- >> it's crazy. neil: let me ask you, you broke this news about joe biden at this event. >> right. he was talking about why he didn't run, this was in may, why he didn't run for president.

he talked about how he, you know, earlier that day he talked about how hillary clinton, he was a better candidate than hillary clinton. he actually made news saying that. this was at a private event where everybody's supposed to keep their mouth shut, but, of course, i find out by these things. notably, this was put on by anthony scaramucci, this is what happens when you don't invite me. i find out about it anyway. he's at the dinner, they bring up the question of why he didn't run again. he gets kind of emotional talking about his son, i didn't do it because of my son, and i want to stop there, he says. i'm getting emotional now. bill ackman, an investor known for his own big mouth sometimes like joe biden -- similar guys but different industries, big hedge fund guy -- said that has never stopped you before. neil: whoa. >> he turns around as the room gets quiet, turns to someone next to you and says who is this a-hole? only he didn't -- neil: biden says that. >> yeah. and then he turns to ackman and dresses him down.

we have the full story on fox business. now, why did we write this now? one of the reasons is one of biden's people who told me about this basically say if you think the guy is too slow and not willing to go toe to toe with donald trump, think again. here's what happened. this guy will take on anybody that messes with him, and he's the type of guy that can go forcefully against donald trump. neil: and ackman was use making the charge that he was using the death of his son -- >> i think ackman was making a dopey comment, just being a jerk. neil: all right. >> if that's what -- or just making a flip comment. i shouldn't say he was a jerk, i don't know. but i'm just telling you that's not something you say during -- neil: especially in a venue like that. all right, thank you very much. we'll have more after this including the latest on some of these big movie numbers we're getting. they're doing okay internationally, fear not. we'll explain.

. . . .

neil: 124 million in china alone. you don't need to push quality here. you just need to push special

effects and a lot of it across the globe. this movie the latest example of that. do not forget dr. ben carson on special coast to coast tomorrow on fox business network. trish regan right now. hey, trish. trish: laughing at the transformers images. you didn't see that, did you? neil: no. trish: big win for president trump as supreme court hands the president a victory by reinstating key parts of the president's executive order restricting travel into the united states from six middle-eastern nations. i'm trish regan. welcome to "the intelligence report." supreme court ruling upholds key parts of the travel ban for reasons of national security. making important exception for anyone with a quote, bonafide relationship with a person or entity the united states. we'll talk about what that means. meantime president trump issuing a statement to applaud the decision. i quote, my number one responsibility as commander in chief is to keep american people