lift on the economy. the spreads at all-time highs and now is not the time. >> kevin, john, and robert, thank you so much on a rocking day here. rock 'n' roll. we're rolling right now. the markets go down. here's "after the bell." david: down in a serious -- this is a serious market angst from up to down, stocks going from 200-point gain at one point to almost a 500-point loss. this just after yesterday's best session in more than 2 1/2 years. that seems like a week ago. the dow seeing a more than 700 point swing today. closed down about 344 points, but the nasdaq was getting hit the hardest as big tech tumbled, ending down about 3%. it was off 7,000, looks like it's going to close above 7,000 but hovering around that level right now. what a day! i'm david asman. >> and i'm melissa francis. this is "after the bell."

microsoft, apple and cisco among the biggest losers. nicole, we had been up nearly 250 points earlier. what happened? >> not surprised to see the volatility melissa and dave. this is just an environment that we're in, and i know you aren't either. yesterday the s&p 500 gained 2%. different sectors that are very, very temperamental, and certainly seeing the names dragging on the dow. microsoft, apple and cisco. you can see that those are technology related, and this is what i mean when i say about certain sectors that are particularly temperamental at this time. you see the nasdaq, the theme of technology-type stocks. a name like twitter for

example, and tech financials and energy drive this market, and with all of them to the downside, energy was trying to give it a go. it's hard to make it out. i have a winner for you. general electric. for the folks who loved this company for so long and beaten down over the last 12 months, no doubt. today we're seeing ge up 4.25%. still a win. a buffett bounce, that is because there are reports that buffett's berkshire hathaway is getting back in and amassing a stake of ge, which they sold that last year. now, half price, they're losing about 50% over the last 12 months. maybe liking it again. it was enough to give it a bounce today. melissa: interesting. more on that story, back to you. david: gary kaltbaum and fox news contributor and lenore hawkins. gary, one of the things like forward to all weekend is your report monday morning what's happening with the markets, and we put together. it doesn't do it justice.

we've got a list of what comprises a bull market and what comprises a bear market. you spelled it out yesterday. in bullish markets, prices finish strong into the close in bearish markets, price weakens into the close. boy, was today ever an example of that. you go onto say in bull markets, bad news is good news, and good news is excellent news. in bear markets, good news is bad news and bad news is horrible news. talk to that first point, despite yesterday, we did have one of the days, we started out strong, we closed down into the close. >> yeah, look, we have just studied bull and bear markets going back 100 years and very simple, there are certain characteristics that come up all the time, and closings of the markets really do matter. and when you see a day like today, up 250, and you end up the way you are, it tells you the big money, the big

institutional crowd is selling. the one thing we notice today more than anything. when the dow is up 250, the nasdaq was hardly up. as soon as the dow started coming in, slaughtered the nasdaq and tech types and nicole petallides said it best, technology leads the market. when it's heading down, the market's going to be in big trouble. and i mean they slaughtered tech today, and we can talk about reasons why. for me it doesn't matter, it's not the news, it's how things react to the news, and today was a bad day adding to a lot of other bad days in the past weeks. david: lenore, kaltbaum says the big picture is decidedly bearish to when you say what? >> i agree. right now in a market in transition. gdp expectations were for above 5%. now they're for less than 2%. we used to have the world central banks pumping in liquidity. you have the central bank, the federal reserve and the london

bank all tightening. don't forget since 2008, 13 million people joined the financial sector. 13 million people have never experienced a bear market. 13 million people in the stock market have only known really, really loose monetary policy. they don't know what they're in for. that's going to lead to a lot more volatility. david: gary, something you said yesterday, in bullish markets, in bullish markets margin is your best friend. margin is a leverage that fuels high prices, in bearish markets, the biggest enemy first before the real selling gets going. has that been happening? >> well, margin has been at record highs, month after month after month, as the market's pretty much been omnipotent until the end of january. problem with margin very simple, greed turns into fear very quickly and margin is not real money, it's borrowed money in order to make money, when you lose money on the borrowed

money, you get out quicker. once margin comes off, you are left 100% invested, and if the market keeps going lower, it feeds on itself. that's the process of a bearish market. as of last tweeshgs was still at all-time highs. >> the panel is sticking around. melissa? melissa: facebook dragging on the market. the social media giant falling into the close as the ceo mark zuckerberg is reportedly willing to testify over data misuse. we'll see. our own deirdre bolton is live with the latest including a serious lawsuit there. reporter: yeah, a shot across the bough. the first of numerous ones to come, melissa. merrill lynch reduced the price target on facebook for the second time in five days. and i know you're talking about what's affecting markets and tech, that is certainly not helping that stock. but you mentioned this lawsuit. this is coming from cook county illinois. so we have seen 37 states

attorneys general investigating facebook, and we've seen them coming from big heavy tech states, california, massachusetts, new york, this cook county lawsuit is very specific, sort of going one step further, if you like, essentially the company is saying that both facebook and cambridge analytica scraped data from social media profiles. the suit says that both companies violated state fraud law. so that is a little bit different and one step further than what we've heard from some of the other entities that are so far doing quote, unquote investigations. but apple co-founder steve jobs seems to have a premonition about the hazy relationship between tech and privacy. so eight years ago, he spoke about this at a conference. here's what he told conferencegoers. >> silicon valley is not monolithic. we've always had a different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the valley. we take privacy extremely

seriously. and some people want to share more data than other people do. ask them. ask them every time. make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. let them know precisely what you're going to do with their data. reporter: ask them every time. i am sure mark zuckerberg wishes he had seen or heard or paid attention. just getting back to that cook county lawsuit. i'm going to quote directly from the paperwork. facebook is not a social media company, it is the largest data mining operation in existence. so this is going to be one of the let's say black clouds that facebook has to deal with along with the second ftc investigation in so many years going back to 2011. in addition to all these investigations by states attorneys general. you can just bet as we go forward, talking about potential regulation, not just for facebook, but for twitter,

for google. i think this is really the beginning. melissa? melissa: it's a mess, that is for sure. thank you, deirdre. david: gary and lenore are back with us. gary, start with you, i think this is the achilles' heel of social media. frankly it was a couple of years ago when we heard the obama administration was doing the same thing, mining this data, getting facebook to share with it personal details that the users didn't know is being shared for political purposes. but this has always been achilles' heel of social media. it's not only facebook, it's everything. the whole nasdaq is down so much today. >> yeah, i think google is actually going to come out pretty bad from this as well because google gets so much information about people, potentially even more than what facebook sees, and google people don't think about how much google learns from you with all of the different searches. david: gary, some people are going too far saying this is

like the dot com bust that we're going to see nasdaq back to 4,000, 3,000 levels. is that possible? >> i'm not there yet, but let me be clear and concise, we have not had a bear market in nine years because of central bank intervention, and these stocks have flown like we have not seen in a long time. they are overloved. overowned and overleveraged and three things can get them in big trouble. i got to make one statement on facebook. do they think they're the nsa? i got to tell you, when i hear things like they are logging phone calls and texts of people, is that what they were designed to do? i thought it was a community where we get together with friends and family. what the heck is that? david: obviously, more than that. the thing that differentiates it from that is the advertising money, and all that advertising money, and that's why this thing has been monetized, the social media network because

advertisers have been going there. will they stop going there now as a result of what's happened? >> i think they're going to be taking a step back and looking at the potential of aligning themselves with a company that is now becoming someone that people don't trust anymore. it was like gary was saying, i think people thought of facebook as a place where you share and connected. but that is not what facebook business model is based on. it is based on advertising. david: i got to press you on. this will advertisers be affected by this? if advertising money keeps going there. the profit keeps going up for facebook and google and the rest of them. if advertisers pull back and go to standard kind of formats, like, for example, cable tv, what happens? >> i think advertisers will pull back if they see that people are really using facebook less. and saw recently for the first time ever, the number of teenagers, the 16, to 19-year-old range was declining. if they see fewer people using it, the advertisers walk away.

if people are using it and loving it, it's a great place for advertisers to reach out. david: good to have you here today. melissa? melissa: let's bring in new york stock exchange trader tim anderson standing by right now. what was it like down there on the floor today, and what do you expect tomorrow? >> it was very calm, really, until maybe about an hour into the close. clearly the market started to get weak a little bit before that. you still have lingering concerns on number of social media companies as your guests have been talking about the last few minutes, and also you have the issue of the halt of the testing of driverless cars. no pun intended, there's a lot of moving parts in that trade, that involve a lot of companies that supply technology. melissa: but tim, talk to me about the drop-off at the end of the day. what is going on? is it algorithmic? people who don't want to go out

long on the day? a specific piece of news? why do we see the big movement? >> i think it accelerated into maybe about 15 minutes before the close. we got a little bounce at the very end of the day, but going into the last 45 minutes, once you get -- once people get the feeling that the market is being driven down by programs or sell orders, a computer formulated models, algorithms, the buyers are going to pull away and say let's just see how far down it goes. we don't need to be the first buyer right now. i think you also had maybe a little bit of portfolio flushing before the end of the quarter, but people, once they sense that the market might be in a mini free fall or potentially in a freefall, the buyers are just going to walk away. melissa: tim, thank you. >> sure. melissa: negotiating with beijing, trade talks continuing between the united states and china amid new revelations this is all about the art of the

deal. >> i think the real template is we're ending up with reasonable negotiated deals, not warfare. we're prepared to go and do as extreme in a section as is needed, but hopefully people will be logical and we'll help negotiate a deal. melissa: gary and lenore are back. gary, do you see it part of the negotiation or were you worried that the tariffs are the real thing? >> i have been not as worried as most because i believe all parties recognize that at the end of the day, a trade war will destroy the economy, which will destroy markets, will destroy the wealth eshth and you get into a vicious cycle and nobody wins. i gather cooler heads prevail, but i believe there is back and forth and a little chess game here to see who can do a little upsmanship, but i don't think it's going to get real, real

bad. not as worried as many others are. melissa: lenore, if you can stay confident in the fact it's a negotiation. isn't it an opportunity when everybody else in the market panics? >> it is, i'm a little more concerned than gary is. i'm worried for years that the u.s. trade policy has been about a lot more than dollars and cents at the end of the day. used as a way to expand our influence across the globe. at a time when china is using trade policy to expand influence. the u.s. is taking a step back to become more isolated and given a real vote of no confidence to the world trade organization and that is an organization that served the u.s. pretty well for about 70 years. melissa: i don't know about that, gary, i totally disagree with that. in terms of our policy out there, when we get stomped all over in trade, and make terrible deals and let our companies get beaten in other countries and no, we're not going to take that deal and drive a harder deal.

don't they have less respect for us at every bargaining table as well? >> i'm of the opinion we've been laughed at throughout the years on just giving away the store to so many things. numbers are gargantuan in places like china. so yes, i do not mind tough talks, i do not mind tough negotiation. it is great to get better trade deals. i do not mind that. what i will mind is if we get crazy, and you know what i mean by that, tit for tat, and bigger and bigger and a big gigantic trade war blob that kills the goose that laid the golden egg, and i'm pretty certain we have smart people here and probably smart people over there that get it. keep fingers crossed that cooler heads prevail. melissa: lenore, the headlines about china quietly coming to the table and wanting to talk about trade after threatening loudly they were going to come back with tariffs and the market responded over the

weekend. do you think this is the up-and-down we see going forward as we see these things progress and go forward. like anybody who made a deal, you bought a house, car, there is the moment it is done, they fall apart and they come back to the table. there are going to be ups and downs and you better get dramamine? >> exactly. this is not a smooth process. this is not a process we're not familiar with. this president has a very different style from any other president we've had before. and i'd like to point tout gary's comment about the numbers aren't so good, the number are inaccurate. the way we measure the trade deficit, for example, an iphone, costs to manufacture one, $200. china adds $6 worth of value to it. the way we calculate trade. the full 200 goes to the trade deficit even though china only added 6. the numbers aren't representative of what's going on. melissa: when a company comes into china and have to hand

over their intellectual property before they strike the deal, and then they don't get to, they have less than 50% ownership in their own company, whatever operations are going on. gary, is that what you mean? >> yeah, and look, we can go into the minutia, the fact is the trade deficits are still high. maybe not as high as some people say, and i'm good with that. by the way, i want to add one thing, and that's rhetoric. you got to be careful about rhetoric, when the president comes out and says we're going to have many more tariffs, that's going to affect the markets and put uncertainty into business planners and business owners. and when he talks about his trade rep to look for more trade targets. that doesn't help. i'd rather do that behind closed doors but i'm sure he's not listening to what i say. melissa: rhetoric only works in the open. rhetoric and the tree false in the woods it doesn't work. lenore, i think he's going to

do a lot of the talk and we'll see volatility. what would you say to people? what's a good strategy? don't react day by day? >> definitely don't react day by day. this is a good time to put on protection, to move from the highfliers and move into the companies that have great balance sheets. we have entirely too much corporate debt. melissa: good point. >> and as all the interest rates are coming up, look for those companies that have great balance sheets, a record of strong dividend growth. those places are a lot more safe. melissa: that's true, interest rates are going up no matter what. thanks to both of you. great insight. david: you want good news? melissa: yes. david: how about a good financial report. we got one from lululemon. they're popping after hours. nicole, what are the details? >> that's what everybody is hoping for to give the market a boost. not technology lately. this is earnings season which will really kick off. lululemon up 7%, beating on the

top and bottom line. fourth-quarter earnings from lululemon, the cool yoga pants i wear every day. 12% compsales growth and the outlook for revenue going forward is above estimates, and with that outlook going forward for revenue being above the estimates gives it a boost. the stock up 7.6%. back to you. david: real economy going on. the market is based on what the real economy does. so much of what has been happening over the last couple of weeks is fear about what might happen, but what is happening is companies like lululemon are selling a lot of stuff, and that's leading to good numbers for them. maybe that will spill into the market tomorrow. we'll see. good to see you. another busy day for the trump administration. the white house press briefing wrapping up this afternoon, as california is suing the administration over the addition of a citizenship question in the 2020 u.s. census.

so what's wrong with the question like that? adam shapiro live at the white house to break it all down for us. what's the latest? reporter: nothing is wrong according to the administration, since this question appeared on previous census counts, though it was officially removed from the census in 2010, but now it will reappear in the 2020 census, and when asked about that. here's what sarah sanders, the press secretary here at the white house had to say. >> i would argue that this has been practice of the united states government. the purpose is to determine individuals that are here, it also helps to comply with the voting rights act. it's hard are to make those determinations and that information needs to be gathered and has been part of the united states census every time we've had a census since 1965 with the one exception of the 2010 census. reporter: however, critics of this move to include this question point out constitution requires a count of people

living in the united states, not necessarily citizens. here's what chuck schumer, who's one of those critics had to say when he issued that statement. the census written about the -- a full screen quote -- that from chuck schumer. as you pointed out, the state of california is suing over this issue. more to be revealed. back to you. >> the constitution is about citizens taking a census. not about foreigners taking a census. melissa has more on this. melissa: here to react is charlie hurt, washington times opinion editor and fox news contributor. everyone is going to use this as a political football. how do you break it down? >> chuck schumer, bless his heart, got it exactly backwards. the only politics played is it was taken now the 2010 by the

obama administration. and you're exactly right. this is about counting people. it's something we do every ten years, in order to apportion seats to states for equal representation in congress, and if we want to have -- if chuck schumer wants to have the argument that congress is there to represent illegal aliens, then he should sign up for that. but that's pure lunacy, and i don't know anybody who thinks that the government is here to represent or should represent illegal aliens. illegal aliens are here illegally and we could talk about what to do with them and how to fix all of these problems, but to sit here and say that the government, that the constitution is here so that congress represents illegal aliens is crazy and, of course, these are the same people who want special protections because of our tough history. want special protections to

protect legal minorities in this country, such as american blacks. they are by definition diluting that representation in congress by trying to lump illegal aliens in with those people. melissa: so what about the argument that the moment have you somebody from the government knock on the door and ask if somebody is a citizen, that they're not going to answer the door. that it just is -- go ahead. >> they knock on the door and ask if you have a toilet. knock on the door and ask what kind of running water you have. where do you go to work? what color is your skin? i don't see -- of all of the questions that get asked which are fun and novel and maybe are interesting to statisticians and people who want to write it, the only one that matters is are are you a citizen? i'm sorry it might offend people, but it's a pertinent question. melissa: they're saying it's going to make the whole entire census void. people are not going to answer, not going to come to the door.

in 2010, i waited for someone to come forever. we didn't get counted. so i don't know how accurate the census is anyway. melissa: remarkably you are still here, you didn't just disappear. >> i didn't run to another country. melissa: orange county supervisor shaun nelson pushing back against sanctuary law which limits cooperation between local police officials and federal immigration agents. take a listen. >> there are a lot of states that don't care to live by certain rules than the federal government or the constitution if they agree with it. last i checked it's not optional. even if you don't like the outcome and puts law enforcement personnel in a very awkward spot. california decided to poke the president and his administration in the eye and rather they not involve us. melissa: what do you think about this one, charlie? >> amazing story and only a matter of time before we knew this was going to happen. this is what happens when you have lawmakers, some in both

parties but mainly in the democratic party who believe that these laws don't matter and shouldn't be enforced. it's a terrible thing and what we're seeing, i think, not to put it too dramatically is california tearing apart. have you localities that are trying to figure out how to comply with the federal laws, and you know, stop and think about this. what happens when somebody gets hurt. an officer getting killed or hurt trying to round up somebody who is illegal. oon i.c.e. officer trying to round up somebody here illegally who had been in custody before. when we know they aren't armed, some horrible -- i pray it never happens -- some horrible thing will eventually happen, if you have this kind of situation, and it will change the discussion dramatically, but unfortunately, you won't be able to undo the horror that has happened. melissa: kate steinle was the person, i know you're talking

about i.c.e. agents, kate steinle was the person who was killed by somebody here illegally and had been deported and done a ton of other things and thought that would change the conversation and only made part of california that much more adamant in what they were saying. >> i do think her case, while you are exactly right and never bring her back, her case has done as much as anything to highlight something that has been a very bad situation for a very long time. melissa: charlie hurt, thank you. >> thank you, melissa. david: another wild day in court. the u.s. government pushing hard to block the merger between at&t and time warner. so what could this mean for you and your cable bill? that's next. plus, is speaker paul ryan getting ready to say good-bye to congress. what we now know about ryan's future in politics and what it could mean for the mid terms? that's coming up. you know what they say about the early bird...

he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

. melissa: breaking news with today's drop of nearly 5%. facebook is now in bear market territory. down more than 20% from last record high on february 1st. the company is facing lawsuits and government hearings over mishandling of user data to say the least. david: 21%. wow. melissa: amazing. david: the trial over a megamerger between at&t and time warner is over. joining me with the latest is connell mcshane. gets hot and heavy inside the courtroom. reporter: interesting, david. things did get heated earlier today. dan petrocelli representing at&t and time warner, cross-examining warren schlichting owned by dish tv. it got so heated that the judge, had to tell the two to stop interrupting each other so you could hear what they were saying. schlichting started testifying

yesterday and discovered he was given a transcript of last week's testimony by his lawyer, which is a no-no against the rules. he was allowed to go forward with his testimony, and once he did, he said that the turner networks were a must have for companies like his for sling tv, and you know, they have so much live news, live sports, entertainment. today that argument challenged by petrocelli on the cross-examination. for example, he said that turner doesn't even broadcast the majority of the sporting events that we watch on tv. no nfl, for example, and listed a number of other leagues as well, and a number of comments by dish founder against him, said to investors some time ago that cnn may have been must have programming 20 years ago but isn't anymore. that is the back and forth that gets to the key argument of this case. how is the media landscape changed over the last however many years and change whether the merger should go through because the government argues at&t and time warner can't

combine because prices go up and the companies saying with all the new competition with netflix and hulu an argument like that is stuck in the past. schlichting's testimony continues, we expect to hear from the turner chairman after him. david: getting very interesting, connell, thank you very much. melissa: breaking news, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu currently in the hospital for examination due to high fever and coughing. the prime minister's doctor saying he did not get enough rest after getting sick two weeks ago which is why his condition worsened. he is being checked for pneumonia and received x-rays. we are following the story. as it develops, we'll bring you all of the updates. david: defending president trump. roseanne reboot is here and even in real life, she's not afraid of going against the politically correct grain. very interesting. melissa: the kremlin fighting back. moscow stepping up threats of

retaliation as the number of countries kicking out russian diplomats rose. that's next. how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. ♪ (nadia white) the moment a fish is pulled out from the water, it's a race against time. and keeping it in the right conditions is the best way to get fish to your plate safely. (dane chauvel) sometimes the product arrives, and the cold chain has been interrupted, and we need to be able to identify where in the cold chain that occurred.

(tom villa) we took our world class network, and we developed devices to track environmental conditions this device allows people to understand what's happening with the location, but also if it's too hot, if it's too cold, if it's been dropped... (dennis woloshuck) if you have a sensor that can keep track of your product, it keeps everybody kind of honest that way. who knew a tiny sensor could help keep the food chain safe? ♪

this is a tomato you can track from farm, to pot, to jar, to table. and serve with confidence that it's safe. this is a diamond you can follow from mine to finger, and trust it never fell into the wrong hands. ♪ ♪ this is a shipment transferred two hundred times, transparently tracked from port to port. this is the ibm blockchain, built for smarter business. built to run on the ibm cloud.

. david: the u.s. is backing our ally, britain, in a worldwide expulsion of russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of ex-russian spy on british soil. how does all this jibe with a popular narrative that president trump has been favoring the russians?

here now is and more importantly for our purposes here, a former "wall street journal" bureau chief in moscow. claudia, have you this expulsion, you have a meeting next week with the baltic leaders, lithuania, latvia, estonia, regions russia had its eye on. the arms of ukrainians the way we didn't have under obama and the tomahawk missile strike against the russian puppets in syria. in my eyes what's happened with russia in the past year has been harder than what happened in eight years with president obama. am i wrong? >> you are right. absolutely right. problem is president trump has to correct the eight years of deference and appeasement under president obama. david: i don't think he's going to do that simply by expelling a couple of diplomats. i mean i know this is the european way of doing things.

they think it works, but russia goes into the ukraine no matter what? >> exactly. not going to stop the use of chemical weapons when they want to. it's not going to stop anything. david: so what has to be done? what is going to be the real hammer. frankly, if a couple of hundred tomahawk missiles don't do it, i don't know what will? >> more tomahawk missiles. the answer i will say is bring down the government of north korea and russia would really think twice, because the big problem is reestablishing the credibility of american deterrence. that what was squandered during the obama years. and president putin doesn't think we'll do anything that would really hurt him. and, you know, preferably we don't fight a war, but we have to convince him that we're prepared to do that again. david: you brought up north korea. there is more evidence that the north korean leader kim jong-un made a secret trip to china.

day, green train with a distinctive yellow stripe. that's the same kind of locomotive that his father used to use on his overseas trip. spotted in the northeastern corner of china over the weekend. can't be confirmed that kim was on board, all signs point to it. what do you think, claudia? >> we don't know if he was on board. one thing we can be sure of. one thing surprised kim jong-un, when president trump said yes, i'll meet him at a summit. what he's trying to do, whether he's on the train or not because north korea hasn't officially confirmed this invitation. they've let south korea carry the water. so kim jong-un is, i think, trying to walk it back to the point where he can play this to his advantage where they can play it again and what he may be doing is trying to bring in china and turn it from what i think trump had in mind, a direct, you give up your nuclear weapons or else, into

another protracted, haggling thing involving china and russia, sending his foreign minister to russia which would play to his advantage and not ours. david: very quickly is. china forcing kim's hand because of the tariffs that we have pledged to put against china? is that working? >> i actually don't think so, david. i think in the short-term, china might make a great display of that, i don't think that is going to get rid of kim jong-un's nuclear program. i think china is going to try and manage us, and i fear that they may -- if we let this play out as a bargain, that's what will happen. the best thing going for us right now is ambassador john bolton is coming into head the security council. mike pompeo at the state department. i think we will have an administration that is staffed by people who understand north korea's games. david: hard to pull the wool over john bolton's eyes. >> very hard.

david: good to see you, appreciate it. melissa: picking winners and losers. how facebook might have broken the law by doing favors for the obama campaign.

. david: breaking news, it's the story of the hour. the markets. here's a look. now having worst march in 17 years. the dow is now down more than 4.5%, and more than 3.5% for the s&p and the nasdaq. melissa? melissa: facebook's mishandling of user data during the trump campaign is getting a lot of attention, a bigger story involving illegal activity with the obama campaign in 2012. our next guest says the federal election commission should take note in his latest article. did facebook favors for the obama campaign constitute a violation of federal law? joining me is the senior legal

fellow at the heritage foundation. hans, you also served on the federal election commission. i want to let our audience know. you know what you are talking about here. lay out the case? >> it's illegal for a corporation to make a contribution to a federal candidate. and that doesn't just mean cash contributions. that can't give in-kind services, can't give anything of value to federal candidate. carol davidson, the former media director for the obama campaign recently said that facebook gave the obama campaign access to the personal data of facebook users in violation of their own rules because they favored the obama campaign. this is the same kind of data that the trump campaign paid cambridge analytica to get. that indicates that facebook may have given for free very valuable data to the obama campaign. that's potentially a violation of federal law. melissa: so the way that she

tells the story. she's giving lectures, that is the video you're looking at, talking about her time in campaign and media and tells the story and she tweeted it. she says they sucked all the user profiles off and facebook showed up at their office the next day and said we know what you did, and, you know, but we're going to look the other way because we're on your side. is that the same? because they didn't actually give it, necessarily, right? didn't the company -- i mean the obama campaign sort of took it and then they didn't come after them? go ahead. >> yeah, but remember, facebook went after cambridge analytica and said you need to destroy that data. you took it against our rules. instead, with the obama campaign, they didn't do that. they didn't go to the obama campaign and say you need to destroy that data. you did not have a right to have access to it. that means that they voluntarily allowed them to keep very valuable data. so that may be considered an

illegal corporate contribution. melissa: hans, if someone were building that case. first of all, who would it be? >> if it's a civil violation, that's the federal election commission where i used to work. if it was an intentional and knowing violation of the law, that takes us from the civil area into possible criminal conduct, criminal violations of federal campaign laws are investigated by the u.s. justice department. melissa: so i imagine they would probably need more than this one woman's word, though she said it repeatedly. on tape saying it ages ago, she tweeted about it again, she's obviously happy to be vocal about it no matter what it does to facebook. i guess we'll see where this goes, hans. thank you, thank you for your insight. people wondering about the question. david: that was good answers. time for new leadership at gop? growing speculation about paul ryan's future on capitol hill. next, talking with the man who knows the beltway inside out

like nobody else. our own chad pergram coming up next. you don't want to miss it.

retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

. david: brushing off the rumors. paul ryan's office says he is not resigning as house speaker, this after reports that republican leader might be stepping down, leaving congress. so what's really going on here? here with us is chad pergram, fox news senior capitol hill producer. chad, truth be told, you and i were talking about this rumor last week. couldn't dig up enough evidence. you were thinking of cornering the speaker regarding if he's leaving. what is the specific evidence that you dug up? >> what gave fuel to this is the republican congressman from nevada, told a news maker interview he thought the

speaker was going to leave in the next 30 to 60 days and would be succeeded by steve scalise, the republican whip. everybody in capitol hill thrown into a tizzy. the speaker's office denied it. keep in mind, david, just days before john boehner, the former speaker abruptly announced his resignation by the pope, he stepped down. you don't know if there is legitimacy to this. what we seem tong to sudden that we will know more after the midterm elections. david: let me stop you right there. it's definitely not going to happen before the elections? >> very unlikely, but again the only person who knows that answer is paul ryan. david: let me throw something else at you, chad, time is limited. bill gates was in washington, and people thought when he was making the rounds, meeting with the president. he met with members of congress, that's where he has a big foundation, billions of dollars endowed by not only him

but pal warren buffett and others. could the speaker step down from congress and get a job at the gates foundation? >> think about what the speaker said he wants to do. he wants to work on poverty owelfare reform. some of the others that the gates foundation addresses goes into the speaker's lane. he contends he wants to address the issues later this year. it is an election year and it's going to be challenging to do that. some people thought he was out the door after tax reform because there is no upside for the speaker after accomplishing his touchstone legislative issue. david: we did get that through, all right. if he leaves, technically, kevin mccarthy is the guy who would have the shot for the speaker, but everybody is pointing at steve scalise. that's kevin mccarthy. steve scalise literally took a bullet for the team and came back so heroically from the shooting. president just loves the guys, speaks highly of him. wouldn't he be the perfect speaker?

>> if his health holds up, and family wants him to do it, yes, he could do it. he would have to leapfrog mccarthy. he just didn't quite have the votes. now what's changed in the equation for kevin mccarthy, he solidified his bona fides, he is close with the president. there is talk kevin mccarthy becomes the next white house chief of staff. there's that rumor too. david: chad, 20 seconds, if the democrats win the house, may not be nancy pelosi that's the speaker, right? >> that's right, that's right, because keep in mind that democrats have criticized her saying we need moderates, conor lamb won the special election there, if democrats win the house big time, pelosi will probably be the speaker. if they win by a seat or two, there will be a bloodbath if pelosi is the speaker come 2019. david: lot of fun gossip inside the beltway. chad, thank you very much.

>> thank you. melissa: i love it. imagine a world where hollywood isn't villainizing someone who voted for donald trump. how the roseanne reboot is standing up for the working class? are finding themselves morin a chevroletple for the first time. trying something new can be exciting. empowering. downright exhilarating. see for yourself why chevrolet is the most awarded and fastest growing brand, the last four years overall. switch into a new chevy now.

current qualified competitive owners and lessees can get this 2018 chevy equinox for around $199 a month. chevrolet. find new roads. you wouldn't accept from any one else. so why accept it from your allergy pills? most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase allergy relief is different. flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. start your day with flonase for more complete allergy relief. flonase. this changes everything.

when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want.

don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. melissa: roseanne gets a reboot. david: new version will have a focus highlighting the support for president trump. >> i know you are a liberal socially liberal person in general. >> i'm still the same y'all moved. you moved so [bleep] out you lost everyone. no matter who we voted for, we don't want to see our president fail. you -- >> oh, no. >> then zip that [bleep] lip. david: remember when he hopes that obama fails because he doesn't want socialist or left leading policies of obama to win, everyone came down on him,

she said the same thing about trump, and everyone comes down on her. melissa: i can't figure out if i believe her. david: there is that. melissa: i don't know. david: you know hollywood better than i. melissa: "risk & reward" starts right now. >> a question that has been included since 1965. with exception of 2010. when it of removed. we have contained this question that provided data necessary for department of justice to protect voters. specifically to help us better comply with voin voting right a. >> major averages plunging. as tech stocks slide on worries about regulatory streut ni, we're watching out for your money, more coming up. >> another california law the, this time hours after the white house announcing it bringing back is the ship