in this deceitful act. stuart: gutless loser. that says it all. that rhymes with the theme of the show, really does. time as up stuart. neil it is yours. neil: all right, stuart. just finishing this anonymous editorial about you. stuart: about me? i want to read it. [laughter]. neil: all right. i had nothing to do with it. some are going to interpret it being anti-varney. was not meant to be. but anyway, thank you very, very much. we're taking under and over who the heck wrote this letter, in this editorial. everyone is doing the palace intrigue. and apparently there are a dozen possible candidates here. we'll get into that. we'll get into the fact that this is nothing new. certainly at this level it raises concerns but in corporate america happens all the time, when ceos, lose the support or there is a palace revolt within their own boards. steve jobs experienced it. papa john's founder john

schnatter experienced it. of course uber ceo travis kalanick was kicked out by his own board. "wall street journal's" james freeman is here, fox business's deirdre bolton and late but not least noelle nikpour. if you could tell us who wrote this? >> i will tell you. i need a contract from fox if i am out of business, i will have no one hire me for campaigns. neil: what is the advantage, of keeping it anonymous? >> well, what i told you before we went on air, the reason why this person wants to keep it anonymous because he feels like -- neil: it is a he. that has been ascertained. >> we think. we don't know. the person probably feels like i am a true patriot and i am between the american people and donald trump. and me and all my cohorts that are working together to make sure that he, you know, doesn't do this or, whatever, the situation is, at hand, he feels like he is the person between it

all. which means, if you, what we were saying, if you go out and say, i'm mr. so-and-so, i wrote it, i'm proud, bye-bye, that means everyone around you will get fired. everyone that was your friend, everyone thaw knew associated with this person is out. that means -- neil: say it's a cabinet official. why would it be a given anyone associated with that, they are all on the cabinet. >> because he says he is working with other people. that there is a basically a group of people that are pretty much -- neil: that best to remain anonymous. >> he will out the group and everybody else. you know what, when you're working together in your mind for the betterment of the country and you are protecting people from this article, from what i'm reading, protecting them from the president, pretty much, then you run the risk of outing everybody else down the line? and we don't know what this president might do if he found out who this is and everybody, assistant. everybody associated. everybody on committees. who knows. neil: there has to be a formal

palace revolt, right? one of the things has been raised in the corporate examples, the board says we have had it. we can't deal with it. the option for elected officials, entertain the 25th amendment, you're incapable of doing this job, incapacitated some way, shape or form even mentally. barring the history of that in corporate america, you're not long for the job if you lost trust of your own people. >> there is very little evidence compared to the corporate examples. this is actually happening. neil: by the way this would not be the first president disliked by members of cabinet and senior staff. richard nixon wasn't exactly a rock star with them. but the point are we leaping to conclusions that might not be there? >> i don't know what we ought to make of this because the term, senior can be stretched to apply to many people in the government. some people have said hundreds. i think it is possibly even thousands. neil: really? i was saying during the break, your senior type of guy at

"wall street journal." beyond that, right? >> the, so, what are the facts in here? i think it's, people are probably getting a little tired of this story that, there is this chaotic, crazy white house, when they see the outstanding results that are coming on the economy but even more than that this repeated story, unsourced, anonymous that the brilliant staff is keeping the crazy president from doing bad things, who hired this brilliant staff? so i think, they're are a lot of questions here. neil: that is a very good point. >> this piece doesn't answer too many of them. >> as someone works on campaigns, every campaign i ever worked on there has been huge disagreements, a lot of backbiting, a lot of back-stabbing, a lot of disagreements. what we're seeing here, i think it is coming out for the american people almost how the sausage is being made. >> in a weird way i actually took away one positive, which i know is a bit odd but the writers most concrete example of

how the trump administration is failing was about the sanctions against russia, which, seem to be something that the president did not want to do initially but then came around and when push came to shove, actually put them into place. so in some respects, even though the person is very critical obviously, it shows what noelle is talking about. that is the point. you get all the smartest people in the room. everybody argues. hopefully the best idea wins. that is the idealistic view of the sausage being made. i thought it was interesting, the one example, most concrete example we were told, i was, like, well i thought the system was supposed to work. smart ideas are supposed to win. neil: someone last night, while hearings were going on and one of the things, that struck this individual was, well, if this crazy president with all this crazy, volcanic temper tantrum behavior, you know, is producing these markets and producing this economy and producing these

record low unemployment rates for one group after another, i can deal with that. so i'm wondering if there is a mixed read of that? and that, this isn't going to get much traction if all of that other stuff continues? >> first of all, i think that is a great point, we had this big, dramatic, now, it can be told anonymous piece, and they basically describe what is sort of straightforward discussion of sanctions where reasonable people could disagree and ended up going forward with it. neil: that by the way was foreign policy person like, you know, that, in a diplomatic role there, you know. >> but to get to your real question there, if you really looked at the results, they are very different and i would say better than most politicians. neil: acknowledges that. economic one and all that. >> not just the good economic results but fidelity which this president sticks to the agenda he campaigned on. you read speeches from 2015,

2016, those are all issues he pursued as president as a politician. neil: republican, conservative or not he espoused views, whether you say they're all trumped up pardon the term or fake, well he stuck to them and resulted in this. >> none of it matters if the economy keeps on a high. none of this matters, because people are going -- neil: corporate examples. >> consumer confidence. neil: companies making money hand over fist. they were doing well, but, but, but, there was still enough controversy around it that they were saying, you know, good-bye. we're seeing this with les moonves at cbs today. >> at apple. neil: the way you delivered goods, if you're also delivering the controversy, i think we've seen it maybe at this company. it is what it is. >> the economy, where i'm focused is this trade and this potential $200 billion of trade is much bigger number than 50 billion if someone at u.s. and china -- neil: led me to believe i parsed this, i read it 10 times, it is

someone in that sphere, foreign policy, diplomatic area, who is, looked to how these accords came about, maybe not liked the results, not liked pivoting or whatever. >> the trade deficit is widening. look at a chart, widest since 2015. there are, i could see somebody following this would fin to think, okay, this will end in tears not just for us, not just for the u.s. economy but worldwide economy. if you look at those records, yeah, there are a lot of people starting to say, okay, maybe these trade tariffs, these trade tiffs are not going to end so well. neil: but a flipside to that, is, if the good times continue with the economy and markets today, notwithstanding, if he were than panicking about any of this they would certainly be in free fall now, but they're not. can a good economic performance, good market performance, absorb blows for you? if you're donald trump, you just say, that is my ultimate argument. as i mentioned, plenty of companies were enjoying great

times, go-go times and just some of those examples i mentioned, it wasn't good enough to protect the guy running? >> by by the rising trade deficit doesn't say we're not heading to a some cataclysm t correlates often with a good economy. manufacturing, 14-year high. neil: in other words things are show good people are buying like crazy and compounded the problem? >> success of tax cutting, deregulations have given the president running room. they're hoping -- neil: do you pay attention? are you trade numbers guys? >> i don't like trade fights. i don't like limiting immigration. fortunately to this point on the numbers, you have to say the power of tax cuts is much bigger than the tariffs so far. neil: you're high i.q. person. >> thank you. neil: because i'm going to criticize you now, because i'm beneath you. >> now i'm ready. neil: i'm being, facetious here to say, is that good enough, in

other words? just to say you have delivered the goods, the economy is roaring, the markets are roaring, that absolves you of any personal stuff that gnaws at people? you could make the argument republicans should be much better shape going into the midterms if not for the p's behavior which apparently is what really exasperates this writer? >> the personal stuff in this case, you're going to weigh this outstanding economy, great policies in many respects, against anonymous leaks from who knows, who knows from the government -- these people thinking -- neil: it doesn't? >> doesn't matter if there is fire. the thing of it is, people are immune to all these attacks on trump. it is part of the everyday rhetoric what i'm seeing. neil: you're out there. you talk to the bundlers all all these other stuff -- >> look bundlers i know they're eye rolling, oh god, another thing. but we like his policies. we like his supreme court

justice picks. we like this, we like that. to your point on immigration, it is all about that base because if you look at everybody that supported him, how even got to be president of the united states, was immigration, the hardcore, crackdown on immigration. so that is his whole base. that is the -- >> i disagree. >> i don't. >> big picture what he was promising an american economic revival. >> it was immigration. >> i'm hoping he will see tax cuts and regulatory relief essentially made us competitive again. he doesn't need, he doesn't need to do the trade fights. neil: on all the points you mentioned, corporate examples i mentioned, even what is going on with les moonves might be out of a job, albeit with a 100 million-dollar payoff to say good bye, controversies are controversies they stick with you, no matter what you're doing, no matter what you're putting up. i'm curious on all the viewpoints here, whether you think this is something the president should worry about? even in discussing this, talking about it, being exasperated yesterday as he was, kept

mentioning economy, kept mentioning what is going on, that would be the saving grace, is that enough? >> i think vote shows up in november. we'll see how many seats that the dems take in the house and then i think, that is, that is going to be final -- >> good point. neil: that is your view? >> no, very good point. if we hold the house and senate, the republicans do, then trump, trump has spoken pretty much, his ways and gop -- neil: if not? >> if not, then we've got trouble. the net new wave they talked about is actually happening. neil: this is tempest in a teapot? >> yes. >> i think the generic ballot tightens between here and election. neil: spoken finally as the, senior person over at "the wall street journal." >> james, james, james. neil: all right. just want to get it out there but it is interesting. sometimes, just delivering the good, isn't enough. that is the case here. we shall see. brett kavanaugh hearings are going on here. a number of democratic

congressman and or senators i should say threatening getting themselves kicked out of the senate, on a point that they're forcing. what do you make of that? 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.

we used to play so beautifully together. now... we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. (vo) if you have bent fingers and can't put your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. (hand) isn't it time to do something about this? (vo) your hand is talking. isn't it time you speak to a doctor? learn more about dupuytren's contracture... at factsonhand.com. more information is within reach. designed to save you money. wireless network even when you've got serious binging to do. wherever your phone takes you, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less.

use less data with a network that has the most wifi hotspots where you need them and the best 4g lte everywhere else. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. and ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your internet. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today. >> it shouldn't surprise anyone

that the new york city times, a liberal newspaper, that has attacked this administration relentlessly chose to print such a piece. they should not well have chosen to take a disgruntled, deseparatetive, bad actors word for anything. and put it in their newspaper. i come from a place where if you're not in a position to execute the commander's intent you have a singular option, it is to leave. neil: does the secretary of state mike pompeo have a point? you don't like it, leave it. to "daily caller" editorial director vince coglianese. he sat down with the president. he got a lay of the land for the president, right before everything hit the fan but i guess during the whole woodward controversy. >> yes. right after the notes about the woodward book had just been released and excerpts were published in "the washington post." we were the first to get a chance to ask him questions about that. that was on tuesday afternoon.

right away questioned about bob woodward's credibility and including documents were stolen on resolute desk to preclude him from signing them. that was beginning of week's reaction to the week's events. neil: did he believe that staffers, cabinet members might do something like that? >> he didn't to us. he questioned the credibility of the author here but i would say that, the president has every reason in the world to be a bit ral he willed by the notion people around him are completely loyal. we have seen plenty of examples already, omarosa, michael cohen, people recording him without his knowledge, using it in public. earlier in the administration, you recall, foreign leader phone calls leaking president was having. the idea people are within the government sabotaging him, undermining him, that has been long-running plenty of evidence for that. "new york times" piece is latest evidence of that. neil: has to be frustrated, you have to look over your shoulder, you don't know who is on your

side, you don't know who is taping you. used to be presidents taped staff members. now they have to worry about staff members taping them. everything seems upside down here. is he frustrated or convey that to you? this is before the so-called anonymous editorial in the "times," that his own team was working against him? >> obviously weighed on his mind. we tried to move on to other questions, he brought us back to the woodward book. people can write anything they want. he was sort of insistent there are some lies out there about him. but i think one of the most illuminating moments about how he is in washington, was i had, we were having a conversation about how he constantly encourages countries to pay their own way when it comes to their protection. often is talking to people even in his own administration, why is it that america pays so much to defend rich countries around the world? reality is president trump is one of the few people who spends anytime thinking about that question. i asked him if he felt alone? do you feel alone in that view?

his response to me said with gravity, amazingly alone. he says, even the generals he talks to don't agree with him. he feels like he is alone in the view in washington. that is template for the way trump is, the president, with everything in d.c. d.c. doesn't like him. of washington, d.c., does not like this president. and he comes in, short of challenging conventional wisdom at all times. as a result i see you see d.c. going through the growing pains dealing with him. the president has such unconventional approach to the world. this is the guy american people elected. brought him in for the very reason, institutional d.c. is very uncomfortable about that. neil: does he express to you, or did he, any help, he conveyed this in this taped conversation with bob war -- woodward after the book was put to bed, economy is great, markets are doing great. i'm presiding over one of the best economic environments we've seen in decades, that is it what he can fall back on, that is

invariably what he falls back on, critics notwithstanding? is that, was that the center piece of his argument to you? >> quite literally, he had a piece of paper on the resolute desk when we were talking to him in the oval office, with all of his accomplishments printed on it. we had had imprinted for us, because he figured we would ask about the woodward book. he hands it to us. how good he has done for the united states. that is where he wants focus to be, it seems, he has the list of accomplishments. and that is what he is proud of. that is where he thinks attention should be. neil: i know you don't do one of these barbara walters psychological interviews, not meant to besmirch her, did you get a sense of him, he was taking any responsibilities, too strong a word, any of the blame for what is going on? maybe his style? maybe his demeanor? maybe a better way to get what you want without always being

rambunctious bull in the china shop, however you want to frame that? >> yeah. neil: this is something that he helped create, and a palace revolt, that he might have have triggered? >> was care i cannily trump. he saw props in the media. he sees problems with media constantly attacks him. he picked out people identified phony republicans brought on television to regularly attack him. classic enemies he might pick out. something interesting that happens fits within the mold what you're talking about, we asked him about colin kaepernick and nike in this exchange. i kind of expected him to go after nike princely, only, saying nike was doing horrible things. he did. he said nike was sending a terrible message, but simultaneously, he also said, that is one of the things that makes this country great. a company can make a decision like this, even though a bunch of people disagree with them. struck me as one of the unique moments for donald trump. because he often doesn't take that tact, you know that of

course. neil: that is very interesting. good stuff, my friend. thank you very much. >> nice to talk to you. neil: meantime, regulation, thought of regulation has been enough to weigh on social media companies. doesn't facebook now know it, officially in bear market territory? what happens after this. for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ used for batteries frome teexpired oil wells. mgx's new - pilot plant aims to produce lithium-carbonate one hundred times faster than from conventional lithium brine. mgx minerals

brbut how will his dentured to thicope with... mgx minerals a steak. luckily for brad, this isn't a worry because he's discovered super poligrip. it holds his denture tight and helps give him 65% more chewing power. leaving brad to dig in and enjoy the tastiest of t-bones. super poligrip, helping you enjoy the foods you love. has your best interests in mind? well if you don't, you're not alone. but me tell ya', for the past couple of years i've had the great pleasure of catching up with dozens of people 50 and over who are actually customers of the aarp auto and home insurance program from the hartford. and i've gotta tell you, if there's one thing i've heard time and time again, it's that people really trust the hartford.

i guess that's why they've been voted one of the world's most ethical companies 10 times. - the thing that impressed me the most about the hartford was the customer service. everybody i've ever talked to it's like i always get through to someone and they're always helpful. - [matt] that kind of caring, it's pretty rare these days. and that's one of the reasons why the hartford has the only national auto and home insurance program endorsed by aarp for more than 30 years. and if you're not an aarp member, the hartford can help you join in minutes. - [woman] to get your non-obligation quote call the hartford at or go to and see how much you could save. - you know when i'm choosing an insurance company it's comforting to know that the hartford has been delivering amazing service and value for their customers for over 200 years. - the hartford really took care of me. after the repairs were done they even came and picked the loaner car up, i didn't have to do anything. i mean they couldn't have been more accommodating. the hartford is with me every step of the way.

- you know it's really inspiring to see people living out their dreams. backed by the confidence of having the hartford by their side, and they even have lifetime renewability. that's the hartford's promise not to drop you even if you've been in an accident. so, let the caring agents at the hartford help you find the perfect coverage. - [woman] join the millions of customers 50 and over who trust the hartford. call the hartford at to get a non-obligation quote or go to

>> welcome back to "cavuto: coast to coast." taking a look at social media stocks, which yesterday dropped, as you had jack dorsey and sheryl sandberg testifying to congress as the social media stocks continue to remain under intense scrutiny and possible regulation going forward. as we see today, the nasdaq dropped over 1% yesterday, as these stocks drop, they are continuing to the downside, facebook which is down 3%, twitter down 5%, snap down 3.7%.

facebook now looking at a 20% mark. it is in fact down more than 20% from its highs in july. so we are seeing that this week. alone this week, facebook is down 7 1/2%. twitter down almost 12 1/2% this week and snap down 10 1/2%. what is interesting about snap trading at a low of 9.71. it is right near the lows of the session. first time ever, below the $10 mark, yet another all-time low for this particular company. so, they remain under scrutiny. also now, they're looking at these platforms that these social media companies, the department of justice stifling free exchange of ideas. i know, neil, you have spoken so much, you can see the stocks remain to the downside today and for the week. neil, back to you. neil: indeed they do. thank you very much, nicole. does this technical bear market, keeping a bear market high, appreciably from where the stock had been, let's get the read on all of this, ubs senior

vice president jim l-acamp. and which also have ted ogly. ted, much made of a moment and a snapshot for some of these issues, not all, is a downdraft has some wondering whether the great correction or worse has come for these issues. do you buy that? >> well, i don't know if this is the great correction or not, neil. i think what has happened here, people look at it, take the most negative approach to it and assume that you know, they will deep-six all of these all of a sudden but typically a bear markets in these things is like 2000 was. they sort of go down, they rally up, they go down, they rally up. i don't think you're in a crash mode or something like that. neil: jim, how are you playing this? the lou being at it, history on some of these issues, not all of it, selloff, smart investors come in and bid them back up, not all the time, but enough of

the time you kick yourself if you don't head back in. what do you do? >> well look i mean these hearings are a microcosm of all the things going on with these companies. remember we've seen subscriber bases flatten out with companies like facebook or netflix. this isn't like cell phones, you replace the product every three or four years, people buy the new product, you have a new sales cycle. when you have a facebook account, you have a facebook account. so sooner or later, your subscriber base would platen out. then you have privacy issues. then you had all this talk about censorship and whether they were leaning left and censoring out right-leaning people. you had a lot of people weren't too happy about this i think there is a lot of things going on. remember young people are very fickle. so, just ask myspace, if you don't believe me. some of these things might go into some sort of obsolescence. i think the space will be there, just a matter if they're the

growth company they used to be. if you look at subscriber base, you see things already are changing there. neil: ted, not as if people leery of these social media companies have no other choices in the technology sphere. they can park money in amazon and microsoft and those similarly high performers though down today have not had nearly the falloff some of these others have. how do you play this? >> well, we don't come into these stocks. neil: that's interesting. >> they have been leaders in the market. we own some of them now in reduced position what is we used to have, i will tell but when you take five or six stocks or half the market return this year you have to start looking at that. it is very reminiscent of find nine for me. if you look at the top 10 stocks of '99. neil: the difference there, a lot of companies running up fast and furious in the internet boom

didn't have any earnings or backed them up in the run-up. you could argue, jim, have all these been priced in or priced out? >> look at all of these stocks, as bifurcating group. look if these stocks flatten out, if the subscriber growth rates flatten out with things like facebook and snap, all these other, twitter, social media. that doesn't mean we're not evolving technology. semiconductor stocks a lot are hitting new highs even while nasdaq sells off. we're seeing with a group if you bought anything related to tech, now that is changing. it is bifurcating, you will have winners and losers, that is healthy for the market. what we do, if we're looking for growth companies, we look at companies still exhibiting signs of growth and there is a tremendous amount of technology companies, look at some of the leading semiconductor stocks right now that are still showing the growth. so if you're looking for growth

you go there. if you look for value you will go other places. right now might be some of these social media stocks are in between these areas and they're very tough to play. neil: so real quickly by growth in the semiconductor you're talking amds, those kind of issues, is that it? >> yeah. there are a lot of in that group. charts of nvidia, amd, several others in the semiconductor group, a lot of them are at or near all-time highs even while nasdaq is selling off. neil: ted, your quick take on that? >> we don't necessarily look for that. i think people don't realize the tariffs with china are probably going to really affect eventually affect free cash flow margins of a lot of tech companies as well. it hasn't worked its way in yet. but we see that happening over time. neil: gentlemen, i want to thank you both. we're keeping on top of the tesla investigation and what they're looking at to resolve all of the problems.

easier said than done. our charlie gasparino is all over it after this.

♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait.

♪

neil: all right. there are recalls and then there are big recalls. ford recalling pack better than two million f-150 pickup trucks. jeff flock has the latest. what is the problem here? reporter: when ford's f-150 sneezes, ford as a company gets a cold. it is huge for them. the problem is seatbelts. i learned something in this that i did not know, when you get into a crash, your seatbelt, the thing that, pretensioner it is called which holds you back, so you don't fly through the windshield, has a small explosive charge in it that causes it to grab you. i didn't know that. this small explosive charge apparently in some cases in ford f-150 pickups causes sparks, potentially fires. they have had reports of almost two dozen fires. in some cases ignited whole

truck on fire, not rapidly, no injuries or deaths, the sparks set off fire in the carpet or eventually engulfed the vehicle or insulation inside the body of the vehicle. two million, you say, model years 2015 to 2018. this is a huge seller for ford. they sold almost a million of these vehicles last year. for 40 straight years, we repeated it this many times, bears repeating, the best-selling vehicle in the u.s. so ford, you look at the stock, it has had a tough year anyway, down about, i would say 25%, 24, 25% year-to-date. today down a little bit more than the market i think, last i checked. so another problem for them. but this should be a fairly easy fix. you bring it in, they repair it, and your car doesn't go on fire. there you go. neil: probably a good thing to avoid. all right, thank you very, very much, my friend, jeff flock. meantime donald trump and elon musk, what do they have in

common? if they have pressure or problems from within their respective organizations, one of course is the white house and the other is a electric car company but again issues charlie gasparino is getting into with elon musk. where he stands with an on going investigation. >> sec investigation into his tweet, funding secured, for privatization. also past statements that he made that the company made about the production schedule of the tesla 3, their, i guess lower-oscar. neil: right. >> and we're getting this from people close, who have direct knowledge of the sec investigation. now we should point out this thing is not done. it could take six months. it could take a while. they have to look at documents, from what i understand, they are doing that now and interview the board and key executive members and in the end interview musk. i'm getting this from people with knowledge of what the sec is thinking, securities & exchange commission, their enforcement, they're saying inquiry is likely to be settled. that the sec does not

apparently, is signaling in some way right now, it is not looking for some sort of protracted legal thing, a la, what they went through with mark cuban. mark cuban actually contested something with them and went to court and won. they're not looking to go to court, to an administrative court judge. they're looking somehow to reach a settlement with him. which makes me think, if you gameplan this thing, that is the thinking i'm getting from people close to the inquiry, you know, they are not going to ban him forever. they will reach some common goal. neil: ban him from the company? >> where they reach, that is my surmise. i don't know. i could just tell you that looks like they will reach a deal, where you settle the case. neither side, the star get, meaning musk and tesla, neither admits or denies wrongdoing, moving on. you get a pound of flesh, you get something. that is what it looks like as of now. it doesn't, the sec is, from

what i understand, loathe to have this go to court where they might have have to roll the dice before a judge. mark cuban got hit with insider trading violation. he contested the court case and he won. okay? it was not a clear-cut case. now musk, it may be more clear-cut when they get into the documents and everything, but from what i'm hearing as of now, this is in the early stages, six months away, it could be six months away, or maybe longer, they're, they're talking settlement as opposed to -- neil: how is his board doing with all of this? >> we should point out james murdoch is on the board. what is his title? one of the top executives here at 21st century fox. listen, the board is under a degree of pressure this way. he had been putting out sort of marginally, marginal statements or controversial statements about the company's production

for a long time. you're going to see, i think if the sec does its due diligence, it will ask the board, why did you step in, when he was saying that the tesla model 3 would do x and didn't meet that target. neil: even on the private funding issue. he didn't bounce that off the board. they have not, to your point, as we've seen, remember the papa john's thing, he was forced out then the arrows were out but there is nothing like that, so far. >> don't see it so far because you never know. this guy goes off on twitter. he recently had an email exchange with buzzfeed over that cave diver. neil: i know. >> by the way i don't want to go through that whole thing. neil: i'm glad you don't. >> google it. neil: real quickly on the les moonves situation, 100 million-dollar payout? >> i think, that number was floated by cnbc, may be true, may not. my sources are telling me it's fluid. he probably wants more. the real crux of the story is

this. cbs board as we exclusively reported hired an executive search firm weeks ago, looking for potential or at least consulted with executive search firm weeks ago to talk about a replacement for moonves. that makes you think joe ianniello is nominal number two, thefy will be interim from what we understand, may not be the long-term ceo. they may go for someone else. we don't know that when you hire an executive search firm looking more than people internally. they know they have joe ianniello, the coo in-house. neil: but safe to say he is gone? >> moonves is done. imminently toast by everything i have said. the real question is this and here's another thing that we exclusively reported early on fox, as part of this departure package with the cbs board, there are working with shari redstone, the controlling shareholder for national amusements to get restrictions on her what she can do with cbs. they want to prevent her

essentially merging viacom with cbs. they also from what i understand want to sell moonves to another player. neil: which is what moonves -- he wins even if he goes out? >> if he gets stock, which a lot of people talk about him getting stock, he wins big time. so you know, neil, that that isy thing. if shari redstone cannot step in, exert control, merge viacom with cbs, cb. is will sell itself to at&t or whomever, if at&t can -- i just throughthrew the name out there. i don't know that for a fact. they're obviously emersed in the time warner business challenged by the federal government as we speak. that is their gameplan, to keep her away from the company, in the sense somewhat on their own and sell it. neil: interesting. you were ahead of this, so much stuff. thank you, my friend. >> anytime. neil: meantime, senator cory booker wants to release a lot of these brett kavanaugh documents. so doing, he could risk

technically breaking rules of the senate and have his heinie thrown out of there. he has three democrats support what he is doing. that could be four democrats could be flung out of the senate for doing so. what will happen after this? hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom, the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you,

today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

you know your family, we know senior living. on the go and want to rent a movie? showtime. or buy the hottest shows. even here? we've got you covered. now they are all yours. to take on the go. on any screen. bingo! alright! and watch whatever you buy. wherever you are. head to xfinity.com/stream to start watching. simple to rent, easy to buy, awesome to go.

neil: all right. there are a lot of documents the democrats want to get from brett kavanaugh from days he worked with president bush. the trouble is, a lot of those documents you can't get, some are marked confidential. some the committee seen on their own. lo and behold new jersey senator cory booker, wanted to release, did release parts, several of them, that caused a big storm. that you broke senate rules there, you could be kicked out for doing so. but it is not quite that simple. edward lawrence outside of the hearing. where this is all going? is he in trouble? is senator booker in trouble, could actually get kicked out for doing this? reporter: the bottom line is no, with new information we just learned. senator booker made a big deal about releasing emails from judge brett kavanaugh for the time he worked with george w. bush. now the emails, according to booker showed that kavanaugh favors racial profiling in some cases but, according to the email, it was designated,

committee confidential yesterday. this morning that designation was removed. senator booker was notified of that, still, listen. >> i knowingly violated the rules that were put forth and i'm told the committee confidential rules have no consequences. so, sir, i come from a long line, as you will of us do as americans, understand, what that kind of civil disobedience is, i understand the consequences. i am right now before, before your process is finished, i am going to release the email about racial profiling. i understand that that, penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate. >> running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we, we are privy to. no senator deserves to sit on this committee or serve in the senate, in my view, if they decide to be a law unto

themselves. reporter: now in response to senator cornyn there, senator cory booker, outside of the committee room said that the process to release the emails is a sham. >> this senator has been around for a long time. he is in leadership. i think he was just like, most bullies are, a lot of talk and no action. reporter: so bottom line, cory booker knew he was not breaking senate rules because that confidential tag had been removed. still the email is titled racial profiling. it says favors a race-neutral system, but in order to get the race-neutral system, would need a racial profiling system in the interim to get there. the written was written for context in january of 2002. months after the september 11 attacks, there was conversations in the email that al qaeda would try to attack the u.s. again. no senator has been kicked out of the senate for 156 years. this seem as little bit of

showmanship and grandstanding. neil: edward, thank you very much. read of attorney and judicial crisis spokesman gail crowder. what are the bounds on this? >> when you're thinking about these documents and senator booker coming out and basically misleading the public and having a dramatic moment where he says, i am "spartacus," this is my i am "spartacus" moment, you understand hearings are going so well. he comes across independent, mainstream judge, the liberal senate democrats are angry and frustrated it is not going their way. so i think they're trying to continue to do what they did on opening day of this hearing and try to throw road blocks into the confirmation of judge kavanaugh when we see many democrats and republicans senators who represent more, mainstream, types of districts are saying that they can't see

anything that disqualifies judge kavanaugh from being confirmed to the supreme court vacancy from supreme court justice anthony kennedy. neil: so you see nothing that will get in the way of that? as things stand now, i guess this wraps up technically tomorrow, or how do you see it going? >> right. well the judiciary committee hearings should wrap up tomorrow. senator grassley said, if there continues to be delays or obstructions he is willing to go into saturday and sunday, which is refreshing statement by senator grassley. it puts pressure on democrats to make sure they adhere to rules of senate. it signals to the american people, the senators are willing to work on this, because they understand what an important role the senate has in advise and consent for nominations to the supreme court. so it will go to the full senate. there will be a vote. you can be sure that americans will be watching, particularly in time for their votes in the midterm elections. neil: you know, switching gears, if you will indulge me, gail, i

respect you, want to get your thoughts hon this anonymous editorial in "the new york times," whatever you think of the president it is an unusual precedent. i'm wondering legally what the implications are, especially going forward here? what do you think? >> well certainly sets up more show of separation of powers and you look at, you know, whether the president has the ability to force the revelation of who this person is, but ultimately, comes down to the honor of this person, who has shown themselves to be a coward. to continue to get the benefits of this type of position which has a lot of privileges, yet to undercut the president and, most importantly, the will of the american voters, who decided that president trump should be the chief executive. so you can be sure that there will be a lot of legal wrangling about this, and it sets up this very dramatic issue between, what we see as the invested class in washington, d.c. --

neil: you see it as treasonous. the president termed it as treasonous. others who no fans of this president, well it certainly smells of treason. what do you think? >> well there is a difference between president trump saying something is treasonous and meaning that it is on a moral level treasonous. neil: right. >> and the legal argument of whether it is treasonous. i don't think that president trump is known for worrying about legal niceties when he is trying to make a emotional point to the american people, that this is treasonous behavior. so if there are legal issues. when president trump is saying probably more of a rhetorical device. neil: gail, i want to get your thoughts. the dow down 37 points. more after this.

neil: you know, i'm blipping around, i get in very early and i'm watching all the news networks, business networks, lot of tv. anyway, i'm hearing things like constitutional crisis, you know, bork in the history of our country, we're on the brink of cataclysmic constitutional event that is going to whipsaw the world. then i'm looking at the markets. barely budging. i'm thinking to myself you know, self, whether you're right or left, is this all just a little bit too dramatic? because it was really roiling folks, then obviously we would

see a panic sell-off, the likes of which we have not seen in percentage terms since the watergate affair, right? some of the crises that occurred back then. that was then, this is not now. so what is the market telling us? we will explore that in a little bit here. first, down to how the white house is reacting to this anonymous editorial by a senior trump administration official whose identity they are desperately trying to find. blake burman is at the white house. reporter: it is a full-on assault from this white house today and those closest to the president as it relates to this op-ed, the author of the op-ed, the anonymous senior administration official along with a full-on assault of the "new york times." this is a statement the press secretary sarah sanders posted to her twitter feed a little while ago. she wrote the following. quote, the media's wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great americans who proudly serve our

country and work for president trump. stop. if you want to know who this gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing "new york times." she then posts their phone number and goes on to say they, speaking of the "times," are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act. we got a rare statement as well just a little while ago from the first lady, melania trump, and she echoed those sentiments from the president and press secretary that this person is gutless. here's what she said. she said quote, to the writer of this op-ed, you are not protecting this country. you are sabotaging it with your cowardly action. here was the speaker of the house, paul ryan, earlier today as he was asked about this up on capitol hill. >> a person who works in the administration serves at the pleasure of the president. it's a person who obviously is living in dishonesty. it doesn't help the president, so if you're not interested in helping the president, you shouldn't work for the president, as far as i'm

concerned. reporter: that's been the point of the administration as well. yesterday at one point, the president posted on twitter that this was treason. the top democrat in the house, nancy pelosi, said today as it relates to treason, she said it's a quote, manifestation of his instability, end quote, speaking of the president, and she said more broadly that this is a reflection of where the republican party stands right now under president trump. >> what was said in there is a reflection of what we hear from many republicans around the country, not in congress, that the party of lincoln cannot survive as the party of trump. reporter: throughout the morning, throughout the day, we have seen denials from the highest levels of this government that they had anything to do with the penning of this letter. for example, the communications director for the vice president put out a statement today, the secretary of state mike pompeo was asked about this when he was in india. he denied it. so, too, denials from the treasury secretary steve mnuchin

and head of the department of homeland security as well. neil: thank you very much, blake burman. paul ryan is saying he doesn't see a role for congress in investigating who this anonymous official might be. let's go to the national review senior editor jonah goldberg, daily mail white house reporter francesca chambers. the read seems to be we're not happy "new york times" did this, certainly not happy, coming from the white house, that this official did so in a capacity still serving the administration, but no one else is going to touch this, no one else is going to try to deal with punishments meted out like the pentagon papers, for example, so end of story or what? >> well, i don't think president trump is ever an end of story when it comes to the so-called liars, leakers and in this case,

someone who he says could potentially be a traitor. it was clear today at the white house that they believe something should be done about it but the question is what. how do you find who this person is if you're the white house. there are of course some clues potentially in the op-ed as to who that could be, but those could also be things put there on purpose to lead the white house and journalists off the scent so while they continue looking, there is a question of how long it will take and whether the white house will ever figure out who this person is. neil: you know, i mentioned the pentagon papers, of course was a "new york times" release, all of these documents showing -- dating back to the johnson administration, actually the kennedy administration, authorities in power had lied about american involvement in the vietnam war, even disguised what were higher casualty counts but that is very, very different than something like this, is it not? >> extremely different. the pentagon papers touched on actual national security. deep throat touched on a

criminal conspiracy in the watergate trial. this is not treason and i think it was reckless for donald trump to say it was, but it was clearly a betrayal, personal betrayal and that's probably how he meant it. i think there is going to be probably a search within the white house or the administration. i wouldn't be surprised if john kelly put on his tommy lee jones costume and did a hard target search of every outhouse, boat house, roadhouse, you know, in a five-mile perimeter. neil: you think they will eventually find this individual? you can't keep a secret long in that town. >> i think so. i think the best analogy, either to the pentagon papers or watergate, is the book "anonymous" or "primary colors" written under the byline anonymous and the washington press corps became obsessed with finding out who the author was. i think we will see a similar frenzy. this is just catnip. neil: very good comparison. i will take that insight as my

own. touche to you. >> i'm a critic of president trump on a lot of things but i cannot see any legitimate reason other than maybe self-interest for the author to have done this. if you are part of a criminal -- not criminal, if you are part of a secret cabal trying to guide the president, last thing you want to do is expose the existence of the secret cabal. this will make the president more erratic. it undermines a lot of people in the white house. i think it was just a bad idea for whoever did this to do it. neil: i was also thinking of how it would be for "new york times" reporters in the cross-hairs because they are trying to find out who the heck this is, only our editorial folks know, so we are competing to get to the bottom of this with our own newspaper. >> certainly reporters are trying desperately to find out who this person might be, but i want to speak to a point jonah raised and note the white house doesn't know who some of the other people are who have made these explosive claims to bob

woodward and michael wolff. in some cases they have shipped out some of the leakers who spoke to folks for books and articles but at the same time, some of the stories we keep hearing, keep reoccurring in these books and some of them we know to be current officials who are saying these things. so the white house again might have a difficult time trying to nail down not just the person in the op-ed but looking broadly at the white house and all of the people saying things about the president. neil: you raise a very good point. to that, the notion this story, this kind of story, has come up, nothing to the degree of this where an anonymous top-ranking official we are told says something like this in the "new york times" but it has been a problem for this administration and just keeping loyalty and keeping people from taping conversations. it's been a mess. >> it has been. look, it is an interesting thing. no one is saying that the substance of what this person wrote is untrue, because it

jibes too much with things speaker ryan has said, how he prevented calamitous things from happening. it jibes too much with what's in the woodward book. instead we are preoccupied with the reality show aspect of it but there's nothing actually shocking in the substance of what this person wrote. the shocking part is that this person wrote it. neil: very well put. yeah. it is very, very weird. again, it doesn't warrant a fox alert that these issues have come up throughout the last year and a half or so. let's get the read on this and what could potentially happen from here. this is not the first president who during controversial periods has had to deal with sort of palace revolt. we certainly saw that in prior administrations. the former assistant secretary of state under bush 43, robert

charles. secretary, always good to have you. i was thinking in the early days of the civil war, for example, there was a lot of rumor mongering and wringing of those who served abraham lincoln who didn't like the direction of the war and were oftentimes blaming him. certainly we saw that in the latter year or so of the nixon administration as well. you go to jimmy carter and his administration during the days of hyper inflation and the iranian hostage deal. but this seems to be a separate drama. how do you rank this? >> yeah, i guess i look at this white house event as a relatively modest event. it's a matter of degree. it's certainly outrageous in its own right. a president deserves the loyalty of the people around him. i guess i would look at it and say this person as a matter of honor simply ought to resign. if you can't work for a president or frankly, any cabinet member, and as a matter of conscience you feel that way,

then you need to resign. i think they have every right to find and fire him. or her. neil: what if there are others like him which seems intimated in this piece? it actually says he's not the problem, either he got rid of them and by the way, they seem to say it's a he so i will take it at face value, that there are plenty more like that and the president has that to worry about, and that is something the woodward book, to a lesser degree, the wolff book reported on in the past. omarosa in her days. what are we to make of that and why this is happening in this administration? >> i think it's rather ironic because it validates the very premise that president trump both ran on and has articulated a number of times which is that the deep state is all around him, that the federal government has grown into its own self-propelling organization and that it doesn't always serve the american people. i would flip, i would also say it's convenient that this happens at this moment when really, most of the attention ought to be on a great supreme

court nominee, in my view we are watching a bit of a circus up there in the senate right now. the idea that you have taken a really extraordinary process which is usually very dignified, the advise and consent constitutional process, and turned it into an act of theater is really discouraging and i think it disserves the american people, the senate and the supreme court. i also find it ironic that someone like senator booker can violate the rules of the senate in the process of trying to tell the world that he subscribes to and is evaluating a man who will enforce the rule of law or adjudicate the rule of law, i think that's just ironic. i also think it's ironic they look at this candidate who is really -- ought to win by 53, 54, 55, ought to win by 99 votes but you know, reality is they look at this particular candidate and they say they don't have enough to evaluate on, they only have 300 opinions. you look back at the nominee kagan, who is now on the court, and there was not one opinion to

evaluate because she had never been a judge before. i find the big game in town really is not this letter to the "new york times." the big factor people should focus on and the average american is looking for a dignified, honorable process of advice and consent for a nominee to the supreme court who is truly a standout. his credentials, his writing, he's independent, he's impartial and really an exceptional candidate. neil: very good catching up with you. thank you very much. appreciate it. well, for those who think this is going to be the thing that takes donald trump down, remember all the other books, the michael wolff thing, remember all the other controversies, remember all the comments, all the tweets, all of those who thought dating back to that "access hollywood" tape weeks before the presidential election that he was finished and done. no.

you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it helps block six key inflammatory substances. most pills block one. flonase sensimist.

neil: all right. we got some news on wells fargo. the justice department is indeed probing the company's wholesale banking unit. this has been called into question about deals and all the rest. we will expand on this a little more. wells fargo stock, even though this was expected they would go ahead and investigate this just

on the word of that, the stock down 1.5%. something that's been rattling banks well beyond wells fargo has to do with emerging markets and some of the problems they're having right here. the tariff fallout effect on china, everyone else. then you got argentina imploding, venezuela imploding. that brings us to "wall street journal" associate editor, who just returned from madrid safe and sound. we've got some real international issues. >> here we go again with the emerging markets. seems like it's on the cycle of every five to seven years we have this discussion. in this instance, there's macro issues and lesser macro issues. the big macro issue is interest rates are going up in the u.s. we're doing well, dollar is strong, government is willing to pay you a little more if you lend it money. if you are an international player, where you going to put your money? in an economy that's a little more stable, where there's rule of law, and the returns are starting to get better in the

u.s., and where you going to take it from so you can put it in the u.s.? you will take it from the places that you chased when u.s. interest rates were rock bottom and you weren't getting paid to lend the government money. you went to argentina, to indonesia and you know, to turkey and left money there or put money into bonds there. that money's coming out. neil: argentina, been there, done that. >> yes. asia, mexico, tequila effect, russia. we have been through these iterations of this. argentina, as you point out, many times. nl neil: people look at this, how does this affect me? >> whenever this happens, it's not good for the markets. it kind of rattles everything. europe is more exposed to it. where i just came from, spain, lot of the spanish banks have money out to indonesia or

turkey. so when problems really kind of get going there, the banks in spain are wondering whether they will get paid back. that pushes down the entire market. those are the big -- neil: domino effect. >> there's a rebalancing of where the money is going and the world is coming out of emerging markets, coming back into the u.s. because you can get better returns. then there are the lesser macro issues which you were pointing out. you have a trade war or trade spat with the u.s. this week if, in fact, the u.s. puts tariffs on this very large amount of chinese goods that come to the u.s. and the chinese do, as they say they will, respond with their own tariffs, you have a dislocation globally of economic trade. neil: how do you avoid that? the markets tend to [ inaudible ]. the europeans make promises they

will buy more goods and the problem goes away. cooler heads prevail. is that the view you were getting there or no, it's not that simple? >> or not. maybe that doesn't happen. you would think that it would. it's kind of the data points up until now, suggest it might or it doesn't, and it doesn't happen with china. if you are an economy in asia that has really played the china bubble, you have really surfed that incredible growth rate in china and now you are looking at a chain thina that was already organically slowing, possibly as a result of a trade spat with a huge customer, the united states, everything seizes up. your economy, your stocks begin to drop because you will be seen as a victim of this bigger trade war and that's already happening. the markets are kind of getting way out ahead of this and trading down asian stocks, and

you are seeing that in this emerging market tumult as a result of the possibility that what you are describing doesn't happen, that there isn't a resolution. neil: all right. donald trump says that's their problem, not our problem, wind at my back, this economy, these markets, we are getting good deals. all's right with the world. >> yeah. well, if there's global tumult, then all is not right with the world and the unintended consequences, we don't know what those might be yet. if this is on the order of what we saw in 1997, '98, '99 in asia or argentina, there's some similarities, there's a lot of dollar denominated debt these countries have taken on that suddenly the service fees for that are rising because interest rates are going up in the u.s. neil: with every one of these crises, you know, '97, we all discovered we're exposed to this. are we significantly exposed to

this, i guess unless it really spreads, no, but for the time being, what do you think? >> for the time being, no. maybe this is a rebalancing that's going to sort itself out with those countries that have put themselves at greater risk, turkey, argentina, with dollar denominated debt getting more pain, or if this trade problem grows, if the sanctions with russia take an enormous toll on the russian economy, maybe we will see a more serious result from this globally. so far, the u.s. is a bright spot. it's a vibrant economy. there's a reason the dollar is strong, there's a reason interest rates are going up here. that's a good story. they are going up for the right reasons. neil: well put. always good seeing you. those are among some of the reasons the president says he can survive anything his critics and the crooked media are throwing at him. the economy and the markets are his friend and your friends,

too, which is why you don't want to mess with your friend.

i'm willing to stand by my beliefs we should vet this candidate, this should be open airing of the issues. i stand by that and i will accept the consequences of anybody that wants to challenge my right to do so as a united states senator and if one senator wants to try to expel me from the senate for doing the right thing, again, i say bring it. neil: doing the right thing is oftentimes in the eye of the beholder. they do have these things called rules you really can't release classified documents. that was something cory booker wanted to do, a number of democrats thought they would stand with him so a document was released in this case and then the problem went away. but it did get back to a core issue here. what is fair game. to antonin scalia law professor

expected to testify in favor of brett kavanaugh, it does seem like a pretty slippery slope here, if they are going to ignore confidential documents and their release which depending on the party, is considered valuable and something that was going to be cautionary, and they throw that away and there are no implications for doing so, what do you think of that? >> it was a pretty surprising exchange this morning and i'm not an expert on senate procedure or on the presidential records act but i do understand that executive privilege, legislative confidentiality is a matter of striking a balance between a lot of different interests, privacy and in disclosure. it was a striking exchange this morning and with all the talk these days about the need to follow rules, follow norms, preserving our institutions, it's a little bleak to see so much divisive debate within the normally straightforward process of a senate confirmation hearing. neil: what bothered me the most,

again, i'm no lawyer, i'm no constitutional expert, you are, but one of the things that struck me as odd was that this hadn't even been brought up privately with the committee, many of them had a lot of these documents dating back to the days that brett kavanaugh was serving in the bush administration, some documents could be shared, others couldn't. there was a debate over why something was classified. that part, i understood. but that he just leapfrogged all of that and at a committee hearing, said here it is. you know, that's playing with a grenade. >> then to go to his fellow committee members and suggesting if they want to press their case, they should press a case to expel him from the senate. at some point this morning you wondered if we were actually going to get back to talking about the nominee, judge kavanaugh. i think all the talk about process, the fights over disclosure, when we have a nominee who has already been on a lower court for over a decade, hundreds of opinions, a deep record of scholarship, i think

all this shows judge kavanaugh really is a clearly, clearly legitimate candidate for the supreme court, that they can't beat him on his record and so activists outside the court are pushing -- outside the committee are pushing harder and harder to sort of sidetrack the hearing into these political fights. neil: i can understand the frustration with how we classify so many documents, how we make them virtually unable for the public to know. sometimes you wait in the case of some 50 years, you know, before the public can ever find out about them. this is what's happening with documents concerning, for example, the jfk assassination. i know how it can get ridiculous, but it is what it is, and to use a public forum as an opportunity to say well, here you go, i've got it right here, i'm going to reveal it right here, that's pretty dangerous. >> right. a supreme court confirmation hearing, for better or worse, is a unique and scarce opportunity for the american public, united states senators, to think seriously about what it means to

have a constitution and a court in our republican form of government. i wish the senators would spend more time talking about how to interpret a constitution, the role of the court, and less time getting into these other arguments about senate process, about privilege. again, judge kavanaugh has a deep record on the bench. he has a deep record of scholarship. it's impossible to look at the public record and not see that he's a highly qualified candidate nominee for the supreme court. neil: i'm beginning to wonder, it's got to be explosive stuff he has on him and it concerned something that was months after 9/11 about racial quotas and all that. i'm getting into the weeds here but it didn't justify some of the drama so you're scratching your head wondering why are we doing this? >> i took a brief look at the documents just a short time ago and like you, i saw a debate among lawyers about the legal standard governing racial preferences in hiring and other

related matters. but really, nothing nearly as explosive as this morning's hearing suggested. neil: yeah. whether on the right or the left, you have to wonder, guys, let's go slow with this stuff. adam white, thank you very much. very good seeing you. whole foods workers who want to unionize and amazon now owning whole foods, wondering if it started something. after this. y, what are you guysg here? we're voya. we stay with you to and through retirement. so you'll still be here to help me make smart choices? well, with your finances that is. we had nothing to do with that tie. voya. helping you to and through retirement. copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro

contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. 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.

add-on advantage. used for batteries frome teexpired oil wells. mgx's new - pilot plant aims to produce lithium-carbonate one hundred times faster than from conventional lithium brine. mgx minerals for people as experienced as you and me, careful driving just comes naturally. all that experience should be worth something, and it is with the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. switching saved me hundreds. in fact, four out of five aarp members age 50 and over who switched to the hartford from companies like allstate, state farm, and geico got a lower rate with the hartford. - with the hartford not only did i get a better policy and better coverage, but i got a better rate as well.

- of course drivers 50 and over like to save money, but it's great when it comes with coverage and benefits designed for us. that's real value. call the hartford for your free quote. not an aarp member? the hartford helps you join in minutes. here's an insurance company that respects its customers enough to do the right thing. like with new car replacement. if your new car is totaled in an accident, the hartford will pay the full replacement cost for your car. that's pretty cool, huh? - sometimes life happens, and when it does it's important to know that the company you're doing business with has your back. the hartford has my back. - they even prove their loyalty by offering lifetime renewability. that's the hartford's promise not to drop you even if you've had an accident. - it's a great feeling, and a very comfortable feeling, to know that i'm not gonna get dropped for that reason. i feel like i have a partner in the hartford, and that i can trust them when and if i need them. - [announcer] you could save hundreds of dollars

when you switch, and get other incredible benefits like new car replacement, and lifetime renewability. - i would recommend the hartford to friends, relatives, anybody. - and certainly when we needed them, they were right there for us. it was pretty impressive. - [announcer] call the hartford at. to request your free quote. that's. or go to. neil: all right. well, whole foods workers are trying to become fully unionized and might not be such an impossible quest. connell mcshane has been following this. what's the latest? reporter: interesting story from amazon's point of view, the parent company of whole foods. we have obtained an e-mail that's been circulating today about whole foods employees and it does urge them to unionize, saying things in the company have changed for the worse since amazon took over last year.

they talk about in the e-mail layoffs and warn of more to come, saying morale has gone down since john mackey sold the company to jeff bezos and company. we will put the e-mail up for you and i want to pull one section of it out because it gets to what workers might be looking for. says we should demand a labor model that offers a $15 minimum wage, 401(k) matching, paid maternity leave, lower health insurance deductibles, a fair and equitable gain share and bonus system and equal profit sharing amongst other benefits. i was talking to a union official here in new york at the retail, wholesale and department store union, who says they have been talking to whole foods workers for a number of years but things have really picked up lately. they are willing to -- they want to see how this e-mail is received by the rank and file. whole foods for its part did provide us with a statement and in that statement, they say they respect the individual rights of their team members as they call their workers, they say they

already provide competitive wages and benefits. at the beginning, this is an interesting story from amazon's point of view, the parent company. we reached out to amazon, have not heard back. amazon in the past has been able to fend off efforts in other parts of its business where workers have attempted to unionize. we'll see if they can do the same this time around. neil: thank you, connell. meantime, i just want to add another cabinet official is trying to say it's not me who wrote that editorial in the "new york times." secretary wilbur ross, the commerce secretary, tweeting i did not write and am thoroughly appalled by this op-ed. i couldn't be prouder of our work at commerce and of the president of the united states. secretary of state mike pompeo earlier today traveling i believe in india at the time, said it wasn't him, either. there's back and forth over who wrote this and that's sort of the latest parlor intrigue. we had judge andrew napolitano here to talk about the

back-and-forth at the cabinet hearings and the latest on the dust-up with cory booker. i did want to talk, if you don't mind, judge, what is a classified document? what gets something classified? who classifies it? >> the document was marked confidential. it is not classified. a classified document has to reflect national security. there's nothing in these documents that reflect national security. neil: he's saying confidential. >> i have seen the documents. senator booker released it and they put it on the internet. we can all see it. somebody stamped on it with an old-fashioned rubber stamp, committee confidential. no one knows who did that. senator booker is saying just because someone calls it confidential doesn't make it confidential. even if it is, i'm going to risk breaking senate rules by releasing it because i think the public has the right to know. what does the public have the right to know. that in 2003, the nominee, then mr., now judge kavanaugh,

questioned whether or not others thought that roe versus wade was settled law. second issue, the candidate, the nominee, then mr., now judge kavanaugh, in 2003, questioned whether or not the government should have race-neutral policies for identifying potential terrorists by the tsa at airports. talking about the time right after 9/11. question, did he misrepresent his views as a young lawyer in the bush white house when he testified before the committee. that's what this was about. senator booker thought the documents were confidential. senator cornyn, who challenged him, thought the documents were confidential. we now know they weren't confidential. neil: they were hardly explosive. >> no, they weren't explosive at all. we still don't know who declared them confidential, how that stamp got on there, but we now know that it had been agreed the

night before, they didn't tell senator booker and they didn't tell senator cornyn, his adversary in this -- neil: cornyn was saying -- >> you lose your seat in the senate. neil: and you're running for president. >> which is a little extreme. cory booker, i'm spartacus, i'm willing to fall on my sword. turns out there was no sword to fall on. neil: three doesother democratse willing to fall on the same sword. >> i think the democratic argument is a legitimate one. that is, there is a perception in the land, we are talking about documents generated in the bush white house. george w. bush signed off on all those documents, released them all. president trump is the one, and he has the authority under the law, who doesn't want to release them. why would president trump in 2018 keep confidential documents made in the bush white house in 2003, when president bush says you can release them? that's the issue the democrats want -- neil: it's just another excuse democrats have to lengthen this

and drag it out and might never be approved -- >> that's probably his argument. i think the democrats know, a, the consensus is that judge kavanaugh did a superb job in answering -- challenging questions. b, the consensus is, and the numbers are there, that he will be confirmed. c, their last best hope to pick off senator rand paul, senator susan collins, senator lisa murkowski, now appears not to have happened. neil: unless something goes dramatically haywire -- >> it will be i predict 55 votes in the affirmative. i think four democrats in the senate running for re-election in states that president trump carried handily in 2016 will want to say hey, i supported the president on kavanaugh. because these four supported the president on neil gorsuch as well. neil: real quickly, what are your thoughts on this anonymous

editorial? a senior official, could be a cabinet member, and many have likened it to the pentagon papers, saying there was a responsibility to get this out there. i disagree with that, as the pentagon papers was revealing information about administrations dating back to kennedy that had lied about our involvement in the vietnam war, lives were on the line and potentially more so. but this isn't that. your thoughts? >> i'm glad it came out, because i think that the president needs to know that not everybody working for him is loyal to him. neil: countless books and authors -- >> i'm not in favor of the witch hunt that we believe is now going on. donald trump says he's the victim of a witch hunt, has now ordered one in the west wing to find out who this is. but if a person has these feelings of such strength that donald j. trump is a danger to the health of the republic and is unfit for office, somebody who works for him thinks that, he needs to know who that person is. and we wouldn't have known it had this not -- neil: doing it anonymously,

would it have been better if this person made a public statement, i'm leaving because of this, can't stand it anymore? >> you know, that's one way to look at it. it's not anonymous. it's unnamed. the "new york times" knows who this is. we would probably easily recognize the name. neil: i think we will know who this is. >> we will know soon. it might be a process of elimination. you began this segment by ticking off all the deniers. pretty soon, one person will be standing. neil: you could have a lot of people deny. >> i'm being a little sarcastic here. neil: the energy secretary rick perry is the latest. >> i don't blame them for jumping on the denial band wagon. mrs. trump jumped on the denial band wagon as well. look -- neil: very well written. i thought at first you were behind it. >> don't get me in trouble. neil: interesting read. i know we had other things to talk about. i apologize.

i'm always interested when i get you on, got to ask the judge this. >> it's a pleasure to be with you. i want the government to stay the heck out of social media. i really do. we were going to talk about it. neil: that's only on me, judge. i did want to get your thoughts on this. a lot more after this. something the judge said brought the market into positive territory, up 12 points right now. the judge wanted me to remind you, you're welcome, america. when my hot water heater failed, she was pregnant, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.

what ourselves and lyft are trying to do is break apart all the cases of owning a car. you own a car to get to work, you own a car to pick up the kids at school, you own a car to get groceries, et cetera, and we are building out services to solve each of those use cases and ultimately make it unnecessary for you to own a car, and we think there are plenty of companies who can be a part of that revolution. neil: after susan li interviewed him, all the automaker stocks tumbled. what he's saying is don't bother to own a car. just take an uber. susan li is here with more on that interview. we also have republican new york city council minority whip with us. as soon as i heard that, i was okay, there goes the car

industry. his point was there's more to uber than just a quick ride in manhattan or any city, right? >> right. he says uber right now, as big as it is, $70 billion company, they only own and are responsible for only 1% of the miles driven on the road globally. there is an opportunity to grow 20 to 30 times bigger in the future. it's not just cars. n you know that. they will do scooters and bikes in the future. neil: you got into that a little bit. >> they are still on track they say for 2019 ipo. i assume it's because they need to raise cash because they are burning a lot of cash still. they are not profitable so it's a way for investors who have been holding for ten years and also bring in new capital as well. neil: what did he say about the overall economic environment? likes it? what? >> i think business is still strong for them. despite the fact they do have competition in lyft.

they still own 70% of the ride hailing market. for him, i feel like it's still a strong business for uber. no one is questioning the strength of the business. but in terms of where they're going to take it, that's the question. neil: you know, that's one of the things the president has talked about, not necessarily about uber, but the environment here. that is what's working, despite all this back and forth about unnamed officials, editorials in the "new york times" and books that come out that are going to once again raise these critical issues that the white house is bedlam, the backdrop is great market, great economy, great environme environment. >> right. you have a company like uber who is looking to expand, looking to grow into other cities, then you look at a city like new york, which uber should be thriving, should be doing spectacular, and the city is actually seeking to curb their ability. i'm ashamed. i use uber eats to get fast food. i probably shouldn't have done that. it just goes to show you how the

particular markets of this type of company is only growing. it's a shame that the city government here and other cities around the country would want to stifle, you know, the potential to really innovate just to solve a real problem, congestion is a real problem in cities. neil: will it stop the growth in this company? >> it will in new york city. they put a cap on new licenses. uber has a retention rate on drivers in 20%. if they are just stopping to give new licenses they will be an ultimate reduction of drivers. ultimate reduction of drivers, obviously costs go up, company is less convenient. >> in terms of revenue, new york is still the biggest city for uber. yeah. neil: it's also the leader politically. >> we see countless times where we will adopt some aggressive policy here and it will be duplicated all over the country. that's why uber made such a big fight here, because they know that's the direction -- >> but they lost the fight. that's the concern, it will go across the country as cities implement license caps in the future. neil: you're not a fan of mayor

de blasio? >> no, because again, you took a real problem, congestion, and you tried to solve it by not really solving it, just making it more inconvenient, more expensive for real new yorkers who live in the outer boroughs. i have never seen a yellow taxi in staten island my entire life. i get to use uber whenever i want to go out for a beer or go out with my wife to dinner. this is a real option for people. neil: when you did the uber eats thing, that was just for you? >> that's a secret between you, me and uber. neil: i know this environment the president keeps talking about, maybe it came up in your interview, the trend is the trend. whatever you think of your politics, whatever, i'm presiding over this booming economy, this booming market, the media is picking on me but the american people know that at its core the recovery is real, the turnaround is real, all the ceos are seeing it, the companies that are considering going public seeing it. what do you think?

>> uber is investing, spending a lot of money. still burning a lot of cash and that is because business is going strong. in terms of the political aspect of the conversation, i asked dara this question, is there political bias. that's the feeling from president trump and other employees of big tech companies and silicon valley has a liberal bias. he says in a very good answer, i would say, he goes whether you're democrat or republican, your wait times on uber are still the same. it is bipartisan, he says. neil: they just take their sweet time. we'll be there whenever we feel like it. >> they'll tell me to walk. neil: let me ask you about that. it's got to be frustrating, what's going on right now, and i'm wondering, one cabinet official after another is saying not me, not me, not me. what do you think? >> it's another week of some of the messaging they would like to be talking about being stepped on. the book review, the bob woodward book stuff is not part of their control but when you have a white house official

that's doing an op-ed like this, it certainly is the conversation. neil: want to thank you both. great interview. >> thank you. neil: just talking to prime ministers. then she goes i might stop by cavuto. the latest on the jobs report tomorrow, after this.

. . .

♪ neil: all right. those brett kavanaugh meetings are still going on right now. selloff in social media stocks

still going on right now. question as who was behinded unnamed editorial in the "new york times," the back and forth on that still going on right now. a lot of stuff still going on. trish regan take you through the next hour where we might get answers. trish: thank you, neil thank you very much. hunt is on to unmask "the new york times" anonymous op ed where he or she admits to be part of an effort to undermine the president of the united states. i'm trish regan. welcome to "the intelligence report." ♪ trish: white house officials are now being forced to deny writing a "new york times" op ed where anonymous, quote, senior official labels president trump as reckless, impetuous, petty, and ineffective. the person writes, i work for the president but