themselves and he's not convincing anyone what he would attempt to do, we don't know for sure, in order to keep president trump out or then candidate trump out and hillary clinton in. >> it has been a remarkable 45 minutes of congressional action. no impact on the dow. it is up 200. neil, it's yours. >> we are up 217 points. we're going to be watching these hearings, not living on them. for the simple reason that they're not moving stocks, not moving your money, we think as a business network it would be foolish to continue ignoring some of the forces that are in effect that are moving your money, including a president getting very much in the face of some of the european counterparts when it comes to nato financing and issues of trade, and a lot of the unwinding of those positions that had stocks down now. but the belief that all of this will all settle down. we had better-than-expected news on the inflation front for

the immediate on the latest month of june, all up about .1% and the fact we see the deal still obank earnings back, technology shares back, as you can imagine, the overall foundation is very, very big. that doesn't mean we ignore what's going on with the peter strzok hearings. suffice to say, every network on the planet including the cartoon channel is on these things. check, i have a little bit of time. the explorers are covering it as we speak. i don't mean to make light of it, it is important to get the context why he was saying what he was saying about then candidate trump. it is unsavory story to put it mildly. when it comes to your money, it's not moving a needle, it's important to you and us here. let's get the read on the trade front, the president getting very much in the face of european allies, ruffling feathers, that is not new. what is remarkable is the fact that wall street is applauding

whatever he's doing, or maybe it could be a case of on the trade front, they expect cooler heads will prevail. heritage foundation's david -- i'm sorry, david kreutzer joins us now. i'm sorry, i lost my place. where do you see the trade battle going? i think for the time being, it will define the pace and the tone of our markets. the better it looks for not having a trade war, the better stocks look, the worse, just the opposite. what do you think? >> absolutely. nobody wins a trade war, unless the president claims he wants to do this to negotiate down tariffs on both sides, but everybody that's a protectionist says that, i hope he's not one of them. so far the tariffs have been damaging. not helping our economy. any bump we get in the stock market or gdp is in spite of the tariffs. >> so when the president want toss up the ante. even the case of nato where, he

is talking about having dramatically boost their defense commitment, forget about 2% of gdp, 4% of gdp, even though we heard from emmanuel macron of france, that was never considered, certainly never approved by fellow members. there is disagreement what was agreed on and what wasn't, but that too doesn't worry the markets or ours, what do you make of that? >> yeah, there's a lot of other stuff going on in the economy. deregulation. tax cuts. businesses aren't as worried about new regulations except for the tariffs. that's the uncertainty out there. right now it looks like the balance is leaning towards more good things than bad things. doesn't mean the tariffs aren't bad and doesn't mean ruffling feathers is good for the world economy. i don't think it is. >> so if the president were to get his way, now talking about throwing tariffs on the chinese, $200 billion worth of

goods and the chinese have to up the ante in one way, shape, or form, you could look at the technical condition where the chinese violate the agreements established by the wto, the very body they prefer we go through than the route we're taking. i could imagine that becomes a mess. >> it would become a mess, and i think there's some complaints that our use of national security for tariffs on steel and aluminum and other things is also a violation. so you know, these are problems. what i would like to focus on is something that got very little coverage at the end of the g7 meeting, the president said what about zero tariffs? it got no coverage, in part because he was going to his meeting in north korea immediately afterwards. but i'd like to say, hey, let's encourage that part. nobody that does trade seriously really thinks the tariffs are a good idea. and so we've all been

complaining. let's see if we can do something positive. you said zero tariffs, go with that. and i don't know if he's going to say anything quite like that at nato, and all of this may get lost as well because he has the meeting with putin immediately afterwards. >> we'll watch closely, david kreutzer, thank you. heritage foundation research fellow. very good having you. i want to bring my buddy charles payne into. this thank you very much for your great work. >> i had fun. >> sometimes you are working 12 hours, that's a slow day. what do you make of the back and forth. the market reaction is interesting, charles, they think this will become the tenor, the tone of the markets this summer. trade will dominate it, and for the most part, not too many worries about trade. this too shall pass, maybe the nato friction, that too shall pass. what do you think? >> there's a lot of things, and prior guests, i disagree on so many things that he talked

about. at least i think the american public does, they're asking questions, like for instance, when all the experts say tariffs don't work, you got to wonder where they worked so well for china? if they don't work, neil, why have they been so effective? why has china gone from 1979 to being less than 2% of the global gdp to being 15% now? with the average tariff of 10% at this moment, but over those years averaging growth of 8.8% for 20 years, tariffs were as high as 14%. why is any of this going to be the fastest growing economy in the world, supplying china, has been number 2 for a long time would effect an average tariff of 14%. >> we are not saints either. >> i'm saying average tariff. >> i understand, i understand. we're not without sin ourselves. would it be for mutual disarmament here. >> i would be, but when the experts keep coming on saying tariffs don't work. i keep asking why are they

working so well for china? >> i throw it back at you. >> we don't have them the way china has them. >> if we had tit-for-tat in dealing with tariffs with the japanese and drop that after a while and ronald reagan said he didn't want it to accelerate so the japanese never responded in kind. when we have in the past, it's created problems. now there are many other problems that you reminded me about smoot-hawley and lot of other factors before that and after that, this can accelerate, if we respond in kind? i agree with you. >> it's not just china. it's india. >> you think it's canada. >> they have higher tariffs than us, i'm talking about the -- >> their average, charles is higher than ours. >> the point i keep trying to make here is when they don't work, why have they worked for 20 years for china? why an economic juggernaut on the cusp of supplanting america if they're so awful. >> by the way, china draws

money because of the cheap labor. that was big allure. >> well -- >> but why -- >> by the way, canada, to your point, it's not always about the tariffs, they have a very protectionist economy. you know when we got out of tpp, they took advantage of that. they put in a lot of things to protect the dairy industry, meat industry and stripped away the ip protection that we sort of demanded. all i'm saying is i don't know that the after a while when worlds evolve, when technology changes, that necessarily the same rule book applies now that applied in 1930. i ask the experts about tariffs that we put in, in 1922. we had a devastating depression in 1919, 20 and 21. and maybe it was a coincidence but implemented huge tariffs in 1922 and had the 20s. all i'm saying is if we don't

fight them on this now, i don't know that we'll ever be able to fight them. also the impact on the markets. i'm not sure what that's going to be. delta reported this morning. the ceo said no impact on business travel associated with the trade skirmish. we'll hear from more ceos. they'll say cautionary things. >> that's not what we heard out of gm, not what we heard out of ford. for separate reasons. >> we hear from other companies and got to be clear, they always say it could, it might. i'm talking about pure facts. hasn't had an impact yet. i don't know many companies that say yes. >> the manufacturers report almost stop sales in china. now, as of now. something's going on. >> well, again, i'm talking about the american economy. >> right. >> the american -- not necessarily the american consumer but the american economy and the hyperbole over what might work, what will never work, what are set and

fast rules. for a thousand years, human beings believed the universe revolved around the earth. >> wait a minute! [laughter] >> and those few folks who came out initially said no, that's not the way it works. a few were burned at the stake! all i'm saying is that some of the things that we take for granted, as the needle can't move -- >> that's not charles payne responding to tit-for-tat, it's fair, if the other guy is doing crazy stuff. >> i know i went through the list, the new list of the 195 pages, and you know what struck me as i was going through the list, neil? golly, why do we import all of this stuff? you know like why do we import all of this stuff? and someone took me to task on twitter, and i thought he made a good point and somebody called me an idiot. [laughter] >> other than that, he said america shouldn't be

self-sufficient and can't grow or produce everything. and that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying why can't we do some of that on the list? i mean, really, he took me to task because i mentioned pistachios. it's a big industry, $3.6 billion industry with 22,000 americans why. in a state like washington that grows apples, the walmart and costco import them from another country. to sell to the residents of washington? why have we cut the amount of orange groves in this country? is it all economically unfeasible? >> great respect for you and your opinion, that's why i'm wasting my time talking about it. kidding. let's say we're trying to shield, this all started trying to shield our steel industry and how important it is militarily and national security and say nothing about in business. but let's say our steel industry on even a level playing field can't compete. would a president charles

payne, that's a scary thought. >> it is. >> would a president charles payne say i will still erect barriers and protections to shield it from the reality of global competition? >> president charles payne would tell you if it was a fair playing field, we would compete. china subsidized their steel industry to the tunes of perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. they went from zero a share to over 50% in the world. >> when we came close to levelling it with south korea for example, and argentina and they still demonstrably better, can you make the argument, i'll hear from steel representative, and thes, that we do no good shielding them from realitys? >> i think honestly that first of all, if it was always fair, if there was zero tariffs, we would outcompete everyone, and i think we would have the best products. >> no yield where we couldn't? >> the margins would be too low, work would be too menial.

you can't get a list of 195 pages. i think every sheet of paper was like 40 different items. 40 or 50 items. we're talking 10 -- it boggles the mind. i'm not implying we should grow or produce everything, but makes me wonder where we have to import all of those things on that list, like all of them, when i think we are better than the rest of the world at making those items, and if things were fair, if we didn't have barriers to entry. if we didn't have higher tariffs around the world. if it wasn't a value added tax, if it wasn't having to grease the palm of a providence governor here and regional person there. if we didn't have all the amazing obstacles to get into markets from india to china, then we wouldn't have to go through it in the first place. that's -- i'm hoping like everyone that is short lived. we get results and resolution, obviously it will never be the sa same. >> but to get to that, you free

markets charles payne is saying we might have to respond in kind, tariff for tariff is not greater tariffs to get them to the point of no tariffs. think about how realistic that is. >> well, go through the world trade organization, i went through and looked at complaints against chinamp the things we complained about now, this year, we were complaining about 10 years ago, 15 years ago. it's an ineffective system. argument america set it up. that's irrelevant. the bottom line is it does not work. china considers itself emerging nation and should get special benefits. by the way, not binding to the arrangements that come out of this. >> we made a lot of the decisions. >> that's my question, we never win anything, we won. >> you trust his instincts on this. there's a method to this.

>> if things had been fair, if we had been stronger earlier, would the list be half this size. >> i know we touched on the beginning, charles, that that -- i can definitely see the china -- you and i talked about it decades ago, how they rigged currency, market, even the numbers. >> everything, everything. >> but it is what it is. and instead we've chosen to fight with the world, and i just think you got to pick your battles. >> no doubt about that. president trump, everywhere he goes, he's bombastic and picked a lot of fights. i think the fights for the most part are legitimate fights, whether he can sustain them all at the same time. you know what, neil, germany, from 2000 to 2017 spent $222 billion subsidizing renewable energy and still cut a deal with the devil with the pipeline out of russia.

though we're spending $600 billion a year. $700 billion a year in part because we know we'd have to come to the rescue. smallest countries in the world, guam could invade germany. the military is wasted, they haven't spent money. if you look at german military spending. >> germany, germany, dramatically beefing up. >> i'm looking for germany, even the paris treaty didn't envision this germany. >> charles, thank you my friend. thank you very much. we do love each other, and the man is, well, normally he's great. [laughter] >> all right, we got the dow up at session highs, 210 points. we're getting a lot of pro-charles e-mails, i'm not going to repeat them. they say horrible things about me. and i'm very sensitive. more after this.

sweat the details. noticing what most will never notice. it's what you do. when the thing you're making... isn't a thing. it's your reputation. the all-new ram 1500. comfortably, the most luxurious truck in its class. and why more people are switching to ram than ever before. my secret visitors. appearing next to me in plain sight. hallucinations and delusions. these are the unknown parts of living with parkinson's disease. what stories they tell. but for my ears only. what plots they unfold.

but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. and these can worsen over time, making things even more challenging. but there are advances that have led to treatment options that can help. if someone you love has parkinson's and is experiencing hallucinations or delusions, talk to your parkinson's specialist. because there's more to parkinson's. my visitors should be the ones i want to see. learn more at moretoparkinsons.com

. neil: all right, lot of republican senators are getting a little onery about the president and the tariffs moves, they said they should see it, give it a yea or nay in the united states senate. trouble is how far it go on

that? they're not making much progress on that. apparently afraid to take on a president who is a rock star within his party. to former south carolina republican senator jim demint. always good having you, thank you for coming. what do you make of this? old colleagues are between a rock and a hard place. we think this should emanate in the senate and not in the white house, but not exactly taking him on too strongly, what do you think? >> funny to see when obama was president and i was in the senate, everyone was rushing to give obama the pow or our trade to get more agreements done and want to take some of the power back. but zero tariffs are the best idea, neil. we know, that trading with the world makes us prosperous. but we've been foolish over many years to allow trading partners to erect trade barriers including tariffs while we took ours down. it's drained domestic production, allowed other companies to build production base. unfortunately trump is doing

what he needs to do is call for account. if we have free trade, should be free both ways, and we haven't been getting that from allies. neil: haven't even been getting it from ourselves, right, senator? when it comes to vehicles from abroad, slapped 20% tariffs on them. averages count and agree we're among the lowest on earth at 3.5%. the canadians are at 4.5%. the chinese they're another story, they cheat blatantly and the statistics prove. it shouldn't we pick and choose with whom we have the fees? >> it's a dangerous war to get into and time will only tell if our president is picking too many battles but need to push back, push back on nato. we've been their piggy bank for decades and we're in debt. we can't afford to do that and allowed the world to take advantage of us particularly china, as charles was saying and that was a great interview

by the way, china had the tayde barriers, tariffs, subsidized industries, put our industry out of business and raising prices, they haven't been fair players. we need to push back and congress has not had the will or certainly not the consensus to make any sense of trid policy, so trump is on his own here. my hope is he'll shake up our allies and trading partners, that will be good for the economy but it's all up in the air right now. neil: i know you don't follow the markets so much, you have so much money, which i deeply admire. to your point, senator, the markets largely going up on this. this has been a flat year for them, but the threat of tariffs as recently as last year, went through that, today up again, strongly. it's believed that it won't come to pass, that the threat alone will lead to some, some sort of a deal.

talking specifically with the chinese. what if it's many months away that i think cooler heads prevail as well. somebody has to blink. it's more than likely it will be the chinese, maybe not to our exact goals, but this could be many months from now. then what? >> it could, and we could have a deteriorating situation, because charles mentioned with the regulatory state becoming more predictable, the lower taxes, you know, we've seen just a better more predictability in our economy as a whole, and a certain amount of predictability in president trump in what he's doing and trying to do. while he seems to be off the cuff, i think american industry knows that his goal is to do what's best for this country. we need to let this play out. i think you may be right, if it goes on for a few months and we end up facing a lot of tariffs from abroad as we put them up here, that's not a good situation.

so my hope is that the president will talk tough, carry a big stick, and our allies will come and work with us. neil: all right. sometimes that can lead to nasty things. maybe you're right, maybe it will avowed that. we hope that way. senator, thank you very, very much. we are following the peter strzok back and forth hearings. he's testifying on capitol hill, not much he can say with fbi lawyers telling him, well, don't say. that point of order with democrats saying he's gone too far, republicans saying we're not going to take up your point of order. he made it very clear that the disparaging comments he made about the president, the backdrop was the early russian thing. a lot of republicans requested the timing of that. as i say this is not so much about your money and the markets, though we are following it, just about a sort of a sad commentary what started an investigation who then we still don't know, but

we do know that it has become a cheap political broadside debate, and the last question summed it up. i'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. we'll still watch it. in the meantime, watching your money, we think that's more important to you right now. we can watch all of this, and i promise you we will. amazon, in case you're looking, all-time high for that issue. jeff bezos, in case you care, is now the richest person who ever walked the planet earth. i don't know about other planets, but here on earth, he's king. more after this. rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem.

like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here?

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

. reporter: welcome back to "cavuto: coast-to-coast." i'm nicole petallides on the floor of the new york stock exchange. and a deal and earnings are

bringing optimism to wall street. we're taking a close look at broadcom and ca technologies, jumping 18% while broadcom pulls back 14%. this as broadcom is going to acquire ca technologies for $18.9 billion. many of the analysts and investors somewhat perplexed. a lot of questions why broadcom has been growing and known for semiconductor chips and smartphones, why they would move into software and pick up ca which has seen declining profits and is a software company leading the questions of what's next? in the meantime, a strategic rationale, though no one seems to believe in the deal but the ceos are very positive and have come out with statements noting they're thrilled about the deal. in the meantime, a lot of us remember that broadcom was trying very hard to scoop up qualcomm. that was $117 billion deal earlier this year, this was

squashed by the trump administration on concerns of national security, but you can see in this deal, the 20% premiums, that's why you're seeing ca jumping nearly 20% today. of course, broadcom taking it on the chin today. back to you, neil. neil: thank you very, very much, nicole. charlie gasparino, guess where he is? at the sun valley conference going on right now. talk about someone who could be a really debbie downer at that media fest, they avoid him like the plague but he's the best in the biz. charlie, what are you learning? >> i'm learning i haven't been thrown out yet. neil: but you are outside. >> listen, sources have confirmed to the fox business network that security here at the sun valley, allen & company conference in sun valley despises me, charlie gasparino, i confirmed that through anonymous sources. anyway, we're breaking a lot of news out here. and the latest scoop we got, i

would love to take credit for it, my producer lydia moynihan who came up with this, apparently sinclair, the big broadcasting group that's trying to buy tribune and company stations to be a mega -- probably one of the biggest broadcasters in the country, more than 70% of all households. mostly on the local level. tomorrow as early as tomorrow likely to get the first step to getting that deal approved by the tribune stations, and that's approval by the d.o.j.'s antitrust division, that's what we're hearing from sources close to sinclair and close to the government. saying it's likely to come. it's imminent, could come tomorrow, we move the stock up when we earlier tweeted the scoop by lydia. people talking about this here and i believe the gentleman's name is david smith, he's the chairman of sinclair. from what i understand there's a good chance he's going to be here today or tomorrow and take his victory lap on this. that's the first leg. second leg is fcc approval,

which they have to get. ownership cap that fcc has to approve. and the way they got around the ownership cap, you can't be in a certain amount of homes, take up too much time to explain how they invaded that ownership cap, but i'm telling that you the fcc has to approve it as well. d.o.j. approves it on antitrust aspect. they have to get the ownership cap approved by fcc. that's another step. stock is reacting positively to the news bouncing around in sun valley, and another step for them, they're being challenged in d.c. circuit court of appeals by a consumer group on the propriety of the merger. if you get the two government approvals, the deal is done. sinclair is going to be a mega media company, a competitor to fox news and to a large extent, particularly our opinion programming, they tend right of center, this is a big deal and in a lot of homes.

the other stuff that is big news we've been reporting for the last couple of weeks, comcast, what is their intentions? i hurt your stock portfolio last week when i reported that disney bankers were saying they doubted that comcast was going to focus largely on the twenty-first century fox assets. they're going to look at buying sky or a part of that deal. stock went down. that hurt you badly, i heard, sources tell me. yesterday, they made their bid -- comcast made a bid for sky and one of the fox assets and our stock went down again. not only was i right hurting you once, my accurate reporting hurt you twice. neil: that's good to know. we're having enormous problems with your satellite feed so we have to leave you now, but thank you very, very much [laughter >> charlie gasparino, shares of twenty-first century fox have

been slip sliding here. one of the few sectors that that is barely holding its own. most of the s&p 500 sectors are having a very good day, financials, technology shares, amazon at an all-time high, and then the issue of oil, and the issue of gasoline, and the issue of those putin-trump talks and what he can get the russian leader to do about oil prices, he says are out of wack? after this. whoooo.

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.

. neil: all right, we're getting news of a tweet that the president sent concerning kim jong-un of north korea. the president says that kim in the note talks about firmly believing the two leaders' efforts will open a new future between north korea and the united states. the president went onto tweet the text of the note from the north korean leader that goes onto say that in translation, his meeting with trump last month was the start of a

meaningful journey and that in the note he firmly believes that the two leaders will continue on making great progress, i'm paraphrasing here. this comes at a time when the north koreans had a different impression of the visit by secretary of state mike pompeo, and that prompted the talk that it was like gangster-like and the behaviors and pompeo coming back to say, if we were gangster-like, the whole world is gangsters, this assurance from the president of the united states when it comes to kim jong-un and he, it is still, well -- all right. i hate to say that. if you're listening on radio, i have the hardest time. in the meantime, we have the hearing going on in washington, peter strzok. he was the guy who had a lot of nasty things about the president to lisa page, they would do their damnedest to make sure donald trump wasn't president of the united states. mr. strzok seemed to indicate at the time they were getting revelations about the russian

connection and that might have colored the remarks, i say might because the republican questioners don't buy it. edward lawrence is keeping track of this on capitol hill so you don't have to. edward? reporter: exactly, what a hearing it's been so far, neil. the attacks from the committee members started almost after the gavel dropped. now the chairman of the committee scolded not just the democrats on the committee but also the witness, right off the bat. listen. >> imagine if you were under investigation and the investigator hated you, disparaged you in all manner of ways, and fraternized with another employee working on your case who also hated you, denigrated your supporters, and made crucial investigative decisions how your case should be treated and eventually adjudicated. reporter: and republicans setting up the bias displayed by deputy fbi director peter strzok and ability to control

the russia investigation as well as the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. strzok falling back on an answer we heard a lot so far. >> how many interviews did you conduct, related to the alleged collusion between russia and the trump campaign? >> congressman, as you know, counsel for the fbi, based on the special counsel's equities, has instructed me not to answer questions about the ongoing investigation -- >> i'm asking for a number -- agent strzok, i'm asking for a number. reporter: and the committee members have talked at length about the text messages between strzok and former fbi attorney lisa page where they said they would make sure the president did not win the election. finally a very combative strzok fired back defending his actions and text messages saying he keeps personal opinions separate from work, listen. >> sir, i think it's important when you look at those texts,

you understand the context which they were made and the things going on across america. in terms of the texts that we will stop it. you need to understand that that was written late at night off the cuff and in response to a series of events that included then candidate trump, insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the american population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be president of the united states. it was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the fbi would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process. for any candidate. so i take great offense. reporter: very combative witness, been a long time since i heard a witness say those things or that tone towards congress. democrats are trying to use

procedural votes to get it dragged out. i can tell you that within the last 30 minutes or so, there's been an agreement reached with lisa page, she did not show up for her hearing behind closed doors yesterday. now the committee is saying there is an agreement she will show up behind closed doors for interview tomorrow for a deposition. back to you, neil. neil: edward lawrence, thank you very much, my friend. want to go to john fabio, former prosecutor, quinnipiac professor. professor, what is this whole thing proving? >> what it is, number one, the best thing rudy giuliani could ask for, he's getting a record, right? so he has this agent on the record admitting that he had personal feelings about someone he was investigating. forget about hillary, it's about his client, the president, which is what rudy wants. going back to the conversation you and i had a few weeks ago, this is great for rudy and the president, to muddy the waters so robert mueller never thinks

he'll get a conviction in this characters one he'll never bring forward. the other thing we're learning is agents and assistant u.s. attorneys have personal feelings, that's fine. but what was not asked and apparent is he was removed from the investigation, not because he had personal opinions but because it appeared his personal opinions were impacting his ability to be unbiased. those are great question asked, if you were a juror sitting on a jury, he would have been removed immediately had these kind of feelings about the person who was on trial had come to light while the trial was still going on. neil: but he was fired. >> he was. he was. so that was a question -- he didn't admit to that being analogous, but the question was a great question. the analogy was a correct one. neil: so where does this go? the mueller investigation continues where, it wraps up is anyone's guess. maybe the goal of the trump administration, you mentioned his lawyer, rudy giuliani, is

to color that final reading, whatever it is. what if it's not a bad reading? in other words, what if muller barely, if at all, touches the president? >> look, i don't think much comes out of this, and before we just got the news about lisa page, i was going to say on this show, she's going to eventually testify, especially after hearing this testimony today. so i don't think much comes out of this testimony. what we have is admission, he had personal biases that he kept to himself, didn't impact the investigation. and back to the mueller investigation, he's going back to our conversation a few weeks ago, the president's biggest threat is michael cohen without a shadow of a doubt. he cannot feel comfortable about, that's the one that keeps him up at night. but in terms of what this does for that investigation, not much. we still have the question of whether the president is going to sit with mueller. like i told you before, i don't think that meeting ever takes place voluntarily. >> looks less and less likely

every day. john, thank you so much for taking the time. i appreciate it. in the meantime, letting you know the dow is up 194 points. you wouldn't know in the middle of this, whatever you think of our market, the global markets, whatever you think of the markets in general, amazing how they've been racing ahead, ignoring the debt. not just our debt, everyone's debt. the whole world is awash in debt. in fact it just hit a record. the world owes, in many cases, more than individual countries, that's a problem, after this. le! all around louisiana... you're a nincompoop! (phone ping) gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one. so you won't miss a purchase large, small, or very large.

technology this helpful...could make history. what's in your wallet?

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.

i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®.

. neil: you know, these are the times i really miss. the former oklahoma republican senator, not so much party affiliation but building debt, gotten a lot more out of control since he left. he tried to draw attention to it in this country, globally it's a big problem as well as we showed you. $247 trillion worldwide. the former oklahoma senator convention estate senior adviser tom coburn with us now. this seems, as if it's a fox

alert, out of control, isn't it? >> it is, both the government debt, but also total debt, if you look at total debt in our country, pension debt, city debt, state debt, corporate debt, school loan debt and government debt, we're at 300% of gdp. neil: incredible. now we keep ignoring that or putting off the tough decisions, i know when you were serving in washington, very minor adjustments and for example, title and elsewhere, there are waves of slowing the growth of this. >> there were. neil: but even that, both parties are reluctant to do. what gives? >> interesting, neil. joe lieberman and i created modifications for both social security and medicare that were fairly painless except for those very well to do in our country, that would have extended the life of those about 25 to 30 years, and

neither mcconnell nor harry reid would hear for us to bring that to the floor. neil: not to give them a pass here, but even when you talk about minor adjustments, it's generally vilified, you are throwing granny off a cliff, or forcing older folks to live on dog food, and the debate ends, right? >> here's the thing, americans, 22 trillion doesn't mean anything to them, nobody knows what a trillion is. here's what's going to happen, and it's happened through 800 years of economic history. we're either going to have hyperinflation or marked decrease in valuation of the dollar. either way we all lose. either way. neil: but people say it hasn't happened. people say -- >> well, it hasn't, that's right. all you have to do is look around the world and the reason it hasn't happened here, we're the reserve currency. as soon as there's another reserve currency and that's coming because we're not

responsible, hyperinflation or marked devaluation of your assets. the only thing that's going to be of value is hard assets in our country, and so can you say nobody knows when that's going to happen, but economic history, 800 years of economic history tells us it will. so the question is, should washington be responsible enough and lose elections by doing the right thing? or should they continue to be the career politicians that they are so they can maintain their position and our children and grandchildren go through the floor, and that's why i left, that's why i'm working on conventional states because it's the real answer to solve the problem is when the people decide we need to start controlling our future, and not just kicking the can down the road. neil: real quickly on trade, what do you think of how this is escalating, the back and forth? >> i think it's going to get settled. trump isn't stupid but he's a hard bargainer, and they all know this isn't good for anybody, for china, america or

the rest of the world. so i think we'll get somewhere between what trump wants and what china wants and it will get settled out, and then it will create a pattern for the rest of the world because we shouldn't be supplying the rest of the world with our wealth. neil: so you think this will be settled and cooler heads prevail? >> absolutely. neil: okay. senator, always good seeing you, tom coburn, former oklahoma senator and senior adviser in washington right now. up 226 points at session highs. the nasdaq hitting an all-time high. technology having a good day and financial issues having a good day of it. what is dragging all of this? after this.

. . nah. not gonna happen.

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind.

call for a free kohler nightlight toilet seat with consultation, or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

>> this was a fantastic two days. this was fantastic. it all came together at the end and, yes, it was a little tough for a little while but ultimately you can ask anybody at that meeting they are really liking what happened over the next 2 days, there was a great spirit leaving that room. neil: all right, from the president of the united states. i don't know what french is for what did he say because emmanuel macron says the yours -- idea tt everyone was with the idea of increase defense spending of 4% is not the case, they are

sticking to original being up to the 2% of gdp to be spending on defense, france among them. anyway, not everything was as honky dory presented by the president. that might be the case, and now to london, the president for the next couple of days meeting with the woman who might not survive all of this political back and forth over brexit and so much more. blb is there with the very latest. hey, blake. >> hi, there neil, you know how highly scripted the international summits, they might as well have taken the script and thrown into very expensive trash cans in billion dollar plus facility because pretty much everything was up-ended. there was an emergency session called by nato secretary general after the president had demanded that member nations not spend 2%, he wants to see it,

president trump all the way to 4%. staff emergency meeting, president trump called an impromp press conference and took a victory lap. watch here. >> we had a great meetings in terms of getting along. i know most of the people in room because of last year, because of the year and a half that we have been in office, year and a half plus but we have a great relationship. everybody in that room by the time we left got along and agreed to pay more and agreed to pay it more quickly. >> but exactly unclear to what the president was referring to because the italian prime minister came out italy, for example, did not agree to pay more. the french president emmanuel macron said there's a communique, joint letter, we are still sticking to 2% target.

who exactly agreed to what and how much more still remains to be seen. there's another story that the president had threatened with withdraw from nato and on this one emmanuel macron is coming to the defense of the president saying after ward the following, macron saying, quote, i don't speak about what happens behind the scenes but president trump never at any moment either in public or in private threatened to withdraw from nato. so all of these story lines coming out of nato. by the way, there's a summit that will take place in fibland with vladimir -- finland. we are halfway through the trip. neil: is he meeting with the london mayor, those two are not buddies, have you heard that? >> don't exactly see eye to eye.

not sure he's meeting with the london mayor but president trump did open the door to possibility that maybe he might meet with boris johnson and if today is any sort of guy they took the schedule and sort of ripped it off, kind of did something else today. so we will see how this all plays out. neil: i see what you were doing there, the sound of cutting something up. i got you, brilliant, brilliant. blake berman. >> we are trying to add, we are trying to know. neil: who needs graphics and special effects? blake, thank you very much. let's get a read on former secretary, how do you think it's going? >> i think it's going well, if you cut to the chase, truth is always jarring to people who are used to and steeped in protocol, what the president said is he spoke common sense, if you make a promise, you live up to your

promise. right now 5 of 28 european allies are paying the 2% agreed. germany, the most robust economy in the european theater is paying 1.2% and, you know, i go back to history and you think about conrad, first chancellor, he insisted there be payment, equal engagement by europe to america, he didn't want america carrying the bucket. in fact, he always said, one to have famous quotes was we live under one sky but we have a different horizon, in other words, they're always looking at what russia should be looking at what russia is doing. the president made another point, he talked about energy dependence, what would strengthen nato alliance, what would strengthen is not be dependent for 60 or 70% of oil on russia and why not buy american and nato countries and what kind of signal does it send to russia that they could turn out the lights tomorrow on

europe. that's a choice they've made on energy dependence. neil: with all respect, what signal does it send when our american president practically begs russians, offensive is offensive? >> right, so the flip side of it is that interdependence is a stabilizing force. the notion that we are going pull out of nato, we are not going to pull out of nato, all right, this is a discussion -- neil: what do you think his threat is, sir, when he talks about, you know, all of them ponying up. i thought they had an agreement by 2025 reach 2% target but there could have been breaks from the deal all i know, i will differ to you, but what -- what signal does that send? >> well, the answer, the answer is that this president has very explicitly linked both here and in china an around the world, linked trade with security and

we've gotta riff issues pending and other issues pending, it's not about pulling troops out or ending nato. this is about the idea that privately, my guess here, watching, reading the tea leaves, privately the conversation did not get to closure and so the president took that conversation public in order to essentially say, listen, we've all got to pony up and pay up and live up to our promises and we haven't done that. so among friends, listen, we are carrying between 3.5 and 4.2% of hour gdp, the largest gdp contribution to nato and yet it isn't romania or montenegro or germany if an icbm hits. we are all going to pull on one sled, please do your pulling do. neil: if they are attacked we help them regardless, right? >> absolutely. i want to be crystal clear

article 5 is defensive defense. neil: you know, you're a great student of history, secretary, i will leave you with this question, but are you comfortable, germany, increasing its gdp commitment to the president's goal from roughly over 1% to four times that, germany? >> you know, so my answer to that, first of all, we are not living in preworld war ii era. we are living in modern era where we are interdependent. neil: they said that after world war i. do you think there would be some concern? >> i guess we are at that point where that percentage doesn't bother me because what we are trying to do is demonstrate unity against russia. neil: thank you very much, i do appreciate it. >> always. neil: treasure secretary steve mnuchin, getting a lot of pressure on trade issues from a

law ot lawmakers, republicans including, adam shapiro with the latest. >> hey, neil, the secretary will finish up testimony before the house financial services committee in just a minute but i want to read something to you that he said within the last ten minutes because it gets to the hard of what's going on with the administration's trade tiff with different countries. reluck -- reluctant to say trade war, we have given china issues and want them to open up markets so we can compete fairly and open up exports, the master plan for them to open up, the key question is how do you get china to open up. if you get too look a video at soybean harvest, it's soybean farmers that are feeling effects and the fact that chinese are now buying soybeans lswhere, prices fallen 13%. the secretary was asked about this, the administration is committed to free and fair trade, here he is in his own

words. >> the president is very focused on free and fair trade as you mentioned at the g7, the president specifically said let's sign a free trade agreement with no tariffs, no barriers, no subl saidies, the president is very much focused fighting every day on having free and fair trade. we have not yet seen any negative impact. >> the last comment the secretary said, we have not seen any negative impact he was grilled by democrats as well as republicans about the impact of the $34 billion in tariff that is have been matched by china. the impact on local businesses in the united states and they're saying there isn't a negative impact but if you speak to farmers who sell soybeans there's an impact and concern about companies which make products in the u.s., the secretary perhaps saying it's time to speak to some of those companies to get exemptions to get around tariffs before they close or lay people off. while the administration on one

hand say no impact, on the other hand, they are watching what's happening and trying to get ahead of it before it catches up to them. back to you, neil. neil: adam, thank you very much, adam shapiro. i've been getting a lot of emails from people saying this is isn't possibility about trade war and wall street realizing it won't happen. neil, why don't you get your thought box on, i don't know what that means. this is about the likelihood we will have a trade war and the markets don't care. we will -- well that could be as well. any way former investmenter ross, the markets are fine, if it comes to blow, we will be okay, we trust the president, it will be okay. >> i would disagree saying that the markets do care in this case, perhaps, not today because we don't have any bad news coming out of trade with china right now.

we had a tweet yesterday president trump slamming nato and markets went down and today looks like we have strong tides with nato and the focus is on fundamentals, on earnings, i think we are one tweet away. we are always one tweet away from the markets either selling off or strong rally based on any trade news coming out of president trump. neil: carol, what do you make of that? >> i tend to agree, we are in the goldy-lock and any continuation of trade war could mean less capital investment, lower global growth, inflation spiral lg out of control, all of those things in one way or another will upset the goldy lock scenario and to think that the market won't be disturbed by that, i think is a false sense of security. >> who sent you that neil, carol

and i will have to send him a tweet? neil: sean hannity. i'm joking. [laughter] >> here is what i need your help on, technology shares have been disproportionate to beneficiaries to market before trade and that latter part, heather, if you think about they would be vulnerable to something that got really, you know, with china, certainly am, certainly amazon, certainly a lot of the semiconductor tech players that have operations abroad and sell a lot of stuff abroad particularly in asia, particularly in china. it's odd. >> they would but technology, the tech stocks are on a fanatical run. i think investors are sticking with the winners and they are smart too. technology company is experiencing low growth, they have enough cash on balance sheets to buy up a smaller

company that can give them growth right now, so i think investors are smart to stick with technology more specifically small cap if you want to stay away from apple and large companies that might be more impacted by multiglobal trade issues, then you look at small cap companies and that's where investors are looking today. neil: you know, the market these swings notwithstanding, carol, flat on the year, since president took office, 8 years of barack obama, a lot of people look at it and say, well, it's got to run out of, you know, out of rope here. but it doesn't, and i'm just curious what you think. >> no, we are certainly in the later innings and we are having the stance -- neil: what do you mean, i understand baseball is a 9 inning game, sometimes you go to extra inning? >> i think we are potentially in the eighth or ninth with the opportunity to go into extra innings and i think that the all

the benefit that is we have seen from the tax cuts and the benefit of repatriating all of that cash are being completely tempered by the talks about economic policy like trade wars, so if we could get that cleared, i think we have that opportunity to go the long game, neil, just to complete the pun there, but i certainly thing that we need to get past that because otherwise we will see as these companies are talking about what's happening in quarters ahead and that's where the market is based on, that they are concerned and we are concerned about what's ahead that will impact markets. neil: lady, i want to thank you all, as they were speaking i was getting interesting e-mail. [laughter] neil: neil, you never have anything positive to say about donald trump. by the way, that's not true. you seem to think better that you could run the country than he could run the country. i didn't say that. neil, what's the problem with trade wars, you think we always lose them, historically, yes, we have always lost them. that's one thing that's consistent and for some of you who are doing wit the fat jokes,

i really prefer challenged, that's just me, it makes me feel vulnerable and floor director gets sad for me. no, he doesn't. you should see his face. we have a lot more going up. up 221 points. virtually all sectors of s&p 500 having good day, reversed the losses from yesterday and then some. kind of flat on the year, for technology is a hell of a year. more after this. ♪

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪

add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

>> your testimony is bob mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your text, he kicked you off of some appearance? >> my testimony, what you asked that he kicked me off of my bias, i'm state to go you it is not my understanding he kicked me off of any bias, it was done based on the appearance. if you want to represent what you sad accurately but i don't appreciate what was being said being changed. >> i don't give a damn, fbi with unprecedented with level working in 2016. neil: that went well, clinton

e-mail probe and the impression that he and lisa page were an item at the time disparaging candidate donald trump and doing anything in the power to make sure he never became president trump, bill mcgurn, as today eliza collins. bill, what is this back and forth proven? >> proven that peter strzok doesn't want to answer any questions, the democrats don't want questions answered and hide behind national security the way they did with house intelligence committee released its report. remember all of the predictions of doom and gloom and betrayal of secrets when that came out. there are a lot of people that don't want to us to know what happened in 2016. neil: elija, listening to back and forth, is it your impression that he was aware or that strzok was aware of this russian probe or that this is -- this russian noise, that's probably more the

way to characterize it because the probe hasn't begun and that color views of then candidate trump? >> i'm not going to speculate what strzok was aware of and not aware of. i will talk about hearing in general and how completely partisan it is. i think that the democrats, you're absolutely right in saying that they don't want strzok to say much about what the republicans are trying to get him to say, stay are stalling, they are fighting over releasing a transcript from a private interview before this. the republicans have gone in definitely with their minds already made up about peter strzok and peter strzok is a professional, he knows how to avoid answering the questions and some of them definitely he probably cannot answer and it's really a mess and all three sides are pushing for what they want an not what the other side wants. neil: bill, one thing i see continuing effort, these were the folks who were in crucial

positions passing judgment on a candidate who at least to date on the record, off the record identified, not identified, held anonymous in these, you know, ig's report, neither one of them apparently fans of donald trump. i have yet to run into any, any fbi personality whose bias was towards donald trump, what do you make of all of this in. >> right, one is mr. strzok hid behind attacks on the fbi and many thousands of people. this has nothing to do with the 35,000 men and women that work for the fbi very well in offices. it's about a dozen people at most in central office who didn't trust their own agents in the field, took control of these investigations, peter strzok's argument today is that what he said we shouldn't believe, what he said when he was being most candid or had reason to believe,

he didn't really mean anything and it's just kind of face that we still don't know when the fbi investigation was really launched and we are getting ridiculous answers from the fbi director wray, he took over at the irs, i mean, his answer is bias training, tell me, tell me two things, neil, one, what part of these men texts that mr. strzok sent his married lover over fbi phones screams professional? mr. wray's answer is we are going to have bias training. i guess fbi agents, even people at the top of counterintelligence circle seem to know that is not right to express your biases over fbi

phones to one of the investigations, i mean, it's just incredible. it's a show today. neil: well, i think you both hit on it, both sides try to milk all they can. i don't know where this point. elija, whatever bob mueller comes out with will be compromised or the precedent and what led up to it, was built on, you know, stack of biases and ineptness in the likes that we have never seen. damaged goods, democrats, meanwhile will say there was a lot of there there, remains a lot of there there, this guy was fired after all, it wasn't based on appearance of anything, based on the fact that that would not be tolerated by bob mueller so what's the big deal but ultimately it's a wash, isn't it? >> it really depends who you are

and i imagine there aren't a ton of people whose minds have changed but, you know, there's definitely new information being discussed but a lot of it has been out there. i mean, peter strzok is no longer on this. it's been reported all along when he was removed and all of that. so the ig came out and said, yes, it makes fbi look bad but there were there's weren't biasees is that's what strzok is standing on and i don't think they'll be much change today by people who want to spin it on both sides trying to ask the question. neil: guys, thank you so much, maybe the ultimate arbiter will be where stocks are up 213 and a half points. so if this was somehow a moving tumultuous event for good or ill, nothing at all.

e the bakers and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. 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.

neil: you know what's

remarkable, we have drop in oil prices today but we are on the brink. early next year, becoming the world's number one producer. i want you to think about that, anybody who might have lived through the twin oil crisis that the day would come when we would be calling the global market energy tune. it is a remarkable development and we are witnessing it right now. market watcher alan on what that could mean for a hoax of things. always good to have you, my friend. >> thank you, neil. neil: i have ties older than you and i'm joking because you're brilliant. it is remarkable, isn't it, here we are, the largest user of energy on the planet, now the biggest producer of it. >> right, yeah, we are also largest consumer obviously. that'll even things out eventually. that's what draw it is drilling down so to speak. one part of the equation that we

don't talk about enough is demand side. you are seeing global growth. that's good for us because we are able to export overseas and you are seeing global markets stabilize and move higher and that could be positive for the overall wealth effect and will cause more demand as emerging nations continue to grow and grow. nile neil it's risky to say, alan, one thing that's unique even in the face of higher prices, not dramatically higher prices but hasn't stopped people from traveling, taking to the roads, hasn't stopped people from buying pricey suv's, it hasn't had correction as it normally does, what do you make of it in. >> i hear from old-timers, they used to talk about crude $10 a barrel. i wasn't there that time. let's go back to last financial crisis and so forth, you saw some people pulling back on their spending but we had oil back up to $125 a barrel.

we are halfway point of the drop from the high that we saw. we recovered but i think you're seeing like i said the overall wealth effect, people are feeling more comfortable with finances and they're not afraid to spend their money as much as they may have been a few years ago, so they're doing the things they enjoy and american -- america is a driving car, we go out there and drive, we use a lot of energy, it's interesting to talk about what's happening here in the united states. yes, we are drilling a lot and getting lawsuit of production but we are having bottleneck that is we will have to fight through because we are unable to get the product inefficiently that will correct itself overtime but we are always one price shock potential away from, you know, balancing oil prices, around the world there's a lot of instability, any other producers may not produce as much as we do, that can -- this dynamic is very much on edge so any disruption anywhere in the world can drive prices higher at

any time. neil: you know, if energy stocks are doing well, the rest of the market can't for very long, do you buy that? >> can or can't? neil: cannot. >> i'm thinking this is a catalyst and we have seen in the market in general to get back to bigger picture, a lot of things have happened and we will not get in discussion of what's been happening in the last six months that could have been instability to the markets but the markets have shooken them off one more time. 2800 in s&p, ready to break out one more time. so i think part of that catalyst is the energy stocks that having not participated in rally have now stabilized an moved higher. again n relative terms, they've recovered but i don't look at them at market leaders, we are not in any danger of getting $100 a barrel tomorrow or the end to have year, i don't think it's going to hurt the markets overall, i like where we stand from macro standpoint. the overall market seems to be stable and strong pushing for

highs i think in near future and you are seeing energy stocks participate which is a very healthy sign as well. neil: alan, always a pleasure, thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: let's move out here with look at dow up 204, can we show dow 30, if you look at that to the right there shows 5, 5 of the 30, wal-mart, dupont, coca-cola. this is the theme, a lot of up and a lot of them down. very rarely do they split the difference. more after this.

jardiance asked: when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? you got a1c, heart, diet, and exercise. slide 'em up or slide 'em down. so let's see. for most of you, it's lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease, significantly reducing the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event and lowering a1c, along with diet and exercise. this really changes things. 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. man: ask your doctor about jardiance and get to the heart of what matters.

neil: all right, this is one of those events that came out of nowhere, the president upping ug the ante and the senate considering taking actions not on the trade issues but on the president, he's doing all of the tariffs and expanding it. it's gone to the point, you know, mr. president, you go too far on these, these are senate

commitments, we decide on tariffs. a lot of data on how far they can go and whether they'll have the backbone to go because they would be taken on a popular president within the party. house republican conference chair rogers if the republican party is going to take on this president, at least in the united states senate on these trade issues? always good to have you, thanks for taking the time. >> thank you, good to be with you, neil. neil: i know this would originate in the senate, toomey, a host of others, orrin hatch, others, this issue of tariffs whether we agree or disagree, we are the final arbiters on this, we decide whether you can do this or not, first of all, is that true? >> well, if you look at the constitution, yes, and tariffs are taxes and so absolutely the house and senate need to be looking at this issue and that's what we are going to be doing.

that's what we are currently doing in the house. you saw the action that the senate took yesterday and we are looking closer but i think i want people to know that i applaud the president for taking action against china, taking action against in this example with china, country that had been dumping, had been involved in unfair trade practice, has been taking our intellectual property, i have concerns about tariffs, i have said all along they need to be targeted, they need to be targeted against the bad actors. i represent a lot of farmers in eastern washington. tariffs are causing a lot of uncertainty. there's a lot of concern about getting into a trade war and the impact that that is going to have, so i've let that be known to the president and congress absolutely needs to be a part of deciding how we move forward. neil: what does the president say, the concerns are legitimate congresswoman, whether this escalates, certainly goes beyond china and now upped the ante

with $200 billion worth of goods and slapping tariffs, you can easily see how out of control this can get, is there a move on the part of the republicans, whoa, whoa, stop it? >> the republicans, legislators, republicans an democrats have made known to the president our concern but the president also is -- is taking important action to make sure that american producers, american farmers, american manufacturers are going to be represented and represented well in these trade deals. the president has said that he wants more bilateral trade deals, he wants to address some of the disparity and in that regard what he tells us is to give him some time and, you know, for me i encourage him to continue to lead with farmers in mind. we are celebrating right now the impact of the tax cuts an job's act. we are celebrating a booming economy, we are celebrating that we have more job openings right now in america than people on

unemployment, we just past the 1 million mark of jobs that have been created since the tax cuts and job's act was passed. let's keep that going and tax reform was about american manufacturers, it was about bringing back jobs to america, so this is all about making sure that we are keeping america first and that these trade policies are ones that are going to benefit american farmers, manufacturers. neil: so when you say to the president and you tell the president, you know, he comes back and says, all right, well, give me time, what is the time frame? obviously you want to get this resolved this sooner than later, is it your sense that this could drag into the new year or what? >> well, there's china, there's asia, there's nafta -- neil: there's everybody. >> right, a lot on the table. my -- i hear a lot about nafta and what he said on nafta, is that they are in the final

negotiations, that it should be weeks, you know, he hasn't given us specifics as far as timelines in particular, but he -- he, you know, approaching this, he believes that it needs to change, that we need to right some of the wrongs which i applaud him for doing because there have -- for too long there have been disparities and he's stepping up to address them. my plea to him is to make sure that he does it with farmers in mind, for example, american agriculture, american agriculture exports and probably understands the importance of trade and the market that takes -- it takes decades at times to build these markets, these are relationships that are built over a long period of time and if you lose them, you don't just get them back. so as he is taking this action,i encourage him to keep farmers in mind and not do something that will hurt farmers and agriculture which is leading

industry in america, we are proud of our farmers and that work that they do to feed us and the world. so that's where -- there's a lot on the line here. neil: to put it mildly, congressman rogers, very good seeing you. >> good to be with you. neil: the president is in england right now, he and melania are about to head, we will take you right there right after this at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. crowne plaza. dear foremothers,

your society was led by a woman, who governed thousands... ...commanded armies... ...yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com.

>> i think they agree with me on immigration, i'm very strong on immigration. i think that's why brexit what happened. i don't know what's going on with the negotiations, who knows, i guess that's become a very interesting point of contention. neil: all right, the president is officially in england, he will meet with theresa may, he will have a meeting tomorrow at this time, right w the queen, her majesty, a lot going on here. i'm excited about that. no one in the building more excited than ashley webster. sure. even varney. ashley: you're not allowed to touch the queen.

[laughter] neil: connell mcshane. you are going to be there? >> i am.to england. i'm going to game. neil: very nice. the president said they love him in england, do they? [laughter] ashley: some do, but others don't, much like this country. neil: are there more one way or the other. ashley: i don't think he's hugely popular in the uk, those who voted for brexit probably like him more, if boris said if trump was prime minister, he would have things sorted out. he's probably right. you will see balloons and all the rest of it. they find him a little frankly crude, volatile and those antiestablishment folks would probably like him more.

>> it is a lot like here. nigel farage and boris johnson, also if you go outside the of the big cities in particular outside of london maybe a little more popularity for trump just like if you go outside big cities like new york and others here in the united states. neil: one of the things that's interesting and maybe the president relishes this after the nato meeting, g7 meeting, and wondering one thing to commit to more defense spending and urge all the nato members to do so but suddenly doubling to 4%. what did you make of it? ashley: you to call yourself a stable genius. neil: come on, varney tells you that every day. ashley: listen, the dust is still settling, they are scratching the head saying what the heck just happened. that's what donald trump does,

he lives in chaos, he throws everything upside down and out the window. bottom line, he's right on nato issue, are they going to get 4%, forget it. se certainly -- he certainly made his point. >> will be more than than what we spend right now. every account after brussels after the president's comments we still were where we were before this where -- neil: i mean, do you want germany to spend four times on military? >> it is a wartime -- neil: that's here nor there. does the markets tend to ignore the fighting, the trade, tit far tat and i don't know why, is it your sense that they don't think it will happen or even if it does happen we benefit because we are in the proverbial drive? >> i think the first is more likely that the idea will be figured out before it's a huge problem, i'm not saying that's

necessarily going to be the case, that's the estimation. it is worth pointing out, but the dow is pretty much flat for the year. we have seen some of that, tech stocks and nasdaq are up 11, 12% so far this year. we have seen more strength in russell 2000. we have seen impact from trade, in terms of big market selloff which would happen, right, if we thought there was a huge trade war, the assumption or hope right now is that something will be figured out before we get to that point. neil: what do you think? >> i think the market is numb to this, we are getting used to this president, the way he operates, ultimately -- file neil they do give him the benefit of the doubt. ashley: when we hear harsh rhetoric, $200 billion of tariff and the next day is up 200 points. we are in same headline driven market if those tariffs go into effect and they really start to bite, that may have

impact on the market because that means there's real negative outcome from that but if it's a way of getting everyone finally to negotiating table and agree to go something, the market markets -- >> there's some thought that the chinese might be willing to come back to negotiating table. there's no real changeable signs that anybody is negotiating anything about trade right now, any reason to look at this and believe anything other than it will drag on for extended period of time, certainly with china but also with europe. after comments about the president on nato and how much they are spending on defense, taking backseat is tariffs already in place in the united states, the tariff that is the europeans put in retaliation and the next threat of tariffs, the president is talking about upping the auto tariffs -- neil: on nato, the president tweeted, great success of nato, great spirit. ashley: give him credit. we are getting more money, good.

we should be. neil: weren't we getting commitment on more money in ash about one thing is commitment and one to get it. neil: you think that the anger, e emmanuel macron -- ashley: one of those is greece that can ill afford from all the 29 countries can afford to pay -- neil: what if they didn't pony up or the degree he wants them to? >> i don't know. ashley: to be kicked out but knowing the president, that's not going happen. neil: if one of them gets attacked and any member nato -- ashley: no, i don't think so. that would be a step too far. neil: sorry about england. ashley: thank you, neil, do you mean it? neil: remind me -- [laughter] >> there's a video up.

>> that's not right. ashley: they were the better team and i wish them well against stark enemy france. neil: gentleman and scholar. ashley: thank you very much. neil: these people had just gotten fbn. [laughter] >> no, don't. please don't. >> anything but that. neil: latest from london, the president is there, we are told he had no intentions of meeting with the mayor of london. ashley: that would be entertaining. neil: all right, more after this . .

♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

neil: all right. still about up 195 points. corner of wall and broad dow jones industrials. trish regan to take you through a usual busy hour. trish: streets of london in chaos as anti-trump protesters take to the streets at night falls. >> hey, ho, hey, ho trump got to go. trish: good news, none of this drama is deterring our president from his goal to get nato countries to pay their fair share when it comes to defense. i am trish regan. welcome, everyone, to the to "the intelligence report". ♪