month. at 5:00 tonight there will be a press conference. liz will cover it. i bet we find out where and when the summit is going to be. liz: we'll be all over that 5:00 hour on "the evening edit." stuart: rackable progress. thanks, liz. neil, it is yours. neil: we're trying to find out what the president meant when he said the chinese were trying to interfere with the 2018 election six weeks from now. a lot of people are taking at face value, china's trend in the middle of the trade war back and forth target states big victories for donald trump. agricultural states. midwestern rust belt states. or was he talking about something more ominous. the marketses are worried about that. there is another russian incrimination here? too soon to tell. we take it face value it this was more of a trade issue and china is targeting those states, those jobs, economies most

affected by the back and forth trade war. we'll see, those issues and agricultural items much the focus of back and forth with china continue to be under pressure. a lot of grains and related materials sell off on the fear this thing with china at least could drag on a while. you have separately some of the drama that could unfold tomorrow when we see bret cough -- kavanaugh and his accuser christine blasey ford takes the stand. the focus is how they will be going about it and how long they will be going about it. chad pergram has the latest from capitol hill. >> right now the math is the math is the math. the whether they get through the hearing whether they get confirmation vote on the floor which we expect to come about next tuesday, next wednesday. there will be a committee vote on friday. you don't have to have successful vote to get out of committee. four senators in particular

looking for on the floor. that would be susan collins of maine, keeping very close counsel about. lisa murkowski of alaska, jeff flake, of arizona, member of the judiciary committee, bob corker republican of tennessee. keep in mind corker sometimes can be unpredictable in his votes. remember last year they were dealing with tax reform. he was initially opposed. then he voted yes. he had concerns about deficits. when he voted on omnibus in march he voted against that bill on deficits. corker might be someone to watch who is in play. we don't know how long the hearing will go on tomorrow. there will be unlimited opening statements from christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh in two separate pal -- panels. outside counsel for the republicans have questions in five minute segments. there is a halftime break between christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. neil: democratic senators in

particular who might not want to question dr. ford but certainly interrogate the judge when it is his turn to speak. this could easily get out of control? >> look what happened during the hearings before, democrats were criticized for some of their guerrilla tactics, trying to blow up the hearing, parliamentary questions. they have to watch their ps and qs to be careful about this. this is all about the optics. i talked to both chuck schumer and also to mitch mcconnell yesterday asking them whether or not they thought this nomination would get through. i talked to schumer, he said quote, i believe there is a chance once the facts come out that judge kavanaugh will be, would not be approved is what he said. that is because they think that they can try to drum up something in this hearing tomorrow. when i asked mcconnell he said quote, i'm confident we're going to win and he will be confirmed in the near future. again the timeline we expect senate has to be in session over the weekend so they can run some of the procedural hurdles.

if they are able to cut off a filibuster on monday, 51 votes needed to cut off filibuster on supreme court nominees what we call the "nuclear option," we would expect a confirmation vote on tuesday. i tell you, neil, this is right on the edge. i keep saying the math, is the math, is the math. neil: it just got more complicated, more complicated, more complicated. they have talked in background to deborah ramirez the second woman who alleges activities that go to college when they were both in college. she and the judge were both at yale. this other woman materialized through michael avenatti who says back in high school the judge and mark judge, his friend at the time were part of a group of boys who spiked drinks and led to girls being taken advantage of, they called it a gang rape, that the judge was not participant in. there is more of this type of stuff that i'm sure democrats

will want to get more details on and maybe get more inquiries on. where would that go? >> you can imagine committee democrats trying to raise those issues during the hearing tomorrow. because you only have five minutes tranches of time, they would be burning time with kavanaugh or with christine blasey ford. now again -- neil: chad, sorry to interrupt you, it is going to be just focus on ford tomorrow, her accusations, her comments, none of these others? >> now there is committee activity behind-the-scenes looking at some of the information michael avenatti provided. we heard that in the past half hour. democrats could raise that you can say and raise any question in a hearing. you can make points of order, you could drag this out a little bit. just depends what the democrat want to do. go back to the tactics in the hearing couple weeks ago, chuck grassley the chair indicated he tried to work would ford's counsel to make this as hospitable as possible.

he expressed earlier to fox he thinks she is coming. they will try not to make this into a media circus. his words. neil: good luck on that, my friend. always good getting clarification from you. getting details what judge kavanaugh will testify to, what comments will be. he expects to tell the senate judiciary committee he never did anything remotely resembling the allegations by doctor ford. he category and unequivocally any of the allegations made by dr. ford. called other claims of sexual misconduct in the meantime, to be last minuters. >> pure and simple. he will not be intimidated withdrawing his nomination. he never sexually assaulted anyone and has no idea where all of this came from. onward and upward, to the "wall street journal's" james freeman, new york city council minority whip joe borelli, finally susan li.

susan leaving the other accusers aside, because the committees would want time to get to talk to them, apparently not the public venue scheduled for tomorrow how do you think this is going to go, what should we be watching? >> mitch mcconnell said it best, should be adherence to fairness and presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. that is pretty much what the senators should look for in the hearings tomorrow, really throughout the rest of the week and the vote. neil: joe, wondering how would a democratic senator on that panel, pass up opportunity to throw out these other allegations? >> you will not see that the democratic senators will play for the cameras and -- neil: you would see that? >> i'm saying they would bring up as many sordid details from the other accusations without any corroborating evidence whatsoever. if the message and topic stays on kavanaugh's alleged behavior not his probable actual

behavior, then they would. neil: mr. froman, we're looking at all of this and looking at a timetable pretty aggressive to get a vote out of committee by friday, something this weekend, and a full senate vote early this week, maybe tuesday, doable? >> it is doable. i think we should add it only appears aggressive because these allegations have come so late in the process. just to remind people, dianne feinstein, democratic california senator, sat on the ford allegation for weeks and weeks and weeks. whether because she doubted it or she wanted to save it for this last minute surprise on the nominee. this has not been a rushed process. neil: you have to worry about many so of the republicans on that committee who could go variety of way, jeff flake, lisa murkowski, susan collins, leaving democrats aside up for re-election in big trump win states, i want to go past that, susan, would the markets have any reaction, if suddenly this nomination, wouldn't say a sure

thing but likely thing becomes a not happening thing? >> i think markets are pricing in probably it is likely to be in the favor of judge kavanaugh. neil: he will survive? >> he will survive all this. neil: let me flip it around if they're wrong? >> you're looking at market moves today with third accuser with third accuser no impact. neil: you're right. >> we're focusing on fundamentals and what federal reserve will do in two hours time. neil: markets are under the believe, worst-case scenario judge doesn't make it which is a leap, no one is saying that the president appoints someone equally conservative, the president will get his way. >> suppose they call amy coney barrett out of the bullpen? average length of time for nomination to confirmmation is 10 weeks. it puts. latest polling, connelly, down, in cast kill down, nelson down. it is not advantageous play

where conservative is not nominated. neil: working on assumption republican hold the senate. >> i'm working on assumption kavanaugh gets confirmed but yeah i'm working on kavanaugh -- neil: i agree with what susan is saying this is not among the factors wall street looks at, trade, more to the point, getting very tough with china, staying tough, even incriminate the chinese, they might try to muck up the midterms. that is more than issue than this, do you agree? >> i think on the a short-term trading basis this isn't as big as some other things. i think markets generally over the long term, they like the rule of law. this is a judge who is saying i like the rule of law, i like the constitution as written, i don't like making up new interpretations and new ideas not in the text and not in precedent. long term markets like stability, adherence to the constitution that a kavanaugh

represents but i wouldn't expect huge market moves either way on a particular -- neil: rush limbaugh, i hope i got it right, correct me, susan, if i don't, among those they fail to get the guy on supreme court they will get blown out in the midterms. i have a flip view of that. if it doesn't happen, it will galvanize such republican anger, prompt more republicans to show up at the polls. >> i agree. approval rating highest in eight years for republican party. neil: for republicans, right. >> so i do believe you're right, if they don't get the judge through, it will probably galvanize the republican base and they probably need it especially in the midterms. neil: joe, a lot has been said and written about suburban female voters and women voters that they don't like the way republicans have been going through this process. i haven't seen polls that bear that out, forgive me, i'm not up on that, is that a sense that some republicans fear that we're losing women discuss as we lost

them in the anita hill allegations at the time against clarence thomas and cost them dearly in follow-up elections. >> an article broke in bloomberg alleging same thing you just said. i think greater peril for republicans -- neil: why are you quoting bloomberg, by the way? >> the great early peril for republican party looks like their leadership was not up for the fight over judge kavanewsky and electorate, why are we even bothering to elect republicans if we have opportunity to put a conservative in and we're not fighting it out. neil: what trumps all, no pun intended? the economy? >> i think the economy is huge. look at roughly, 20, 25 point improvement last two years, right track, wrong track. questions that voters, direction of the country. i think that says a lot. economic numbers are good. i think what is unfortunate here, what trumps all in this confirmation process is, who is going to be better on tv tomorrow? we're down to that.

this is a high-risk mission i think for both parties in a way. neil: yeah. she does a credible job, all bets could be off, right? people will believe what they are going to believe. that can't change. >> reminder of 1992 and what happened there with anita hill and clarence thomas. it is not a legal proceeding, right? what do we get out of it? optics and persona and who do you believe more at end of the day? do you vote on that? i'm not sure you should. >> just to add, republicans have a challenge among suburban women but there is media assumption that, and sort of all suburban women think accusations should be believed without further evidence and i don't know if that is a leap you can make politically. so we'll see. i suspect people have different views on this and, might like to see some sort corroborating evidence on some of these cases. neil: guys, thank you all, very, very much. we'll have a couple other

developments to all these fine people's point, we do have other news going on here. this is the big unknown, big variable, that and what the president will do with rod rosenstein all that might be intimated with rumors going back and forth certainly ahead of the president's planned press conference less than five hours from now. waiting for a something little more pressing, a little of it earlier, federal reserve decision on interest rates, widely expected to hike interest rates up another quarter of a percent. i believe that would bring it around two .25, to 2 1/2% range. the question beyond that what the fed is thinking and all this happens together at the same time. more after this.

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.

>> i don't know if you endorse somebody or not i endorsed him and i will endorse him again. he is a great gentleman and a crate man and a person who is great leader for japan. we have other things to discuss. more than anything else we'll be discussing trade. neil: all right. that was the president earlier today talking about shinzo abe, the japanese prime minister who was elected in a landslide, not a landslide but comfortable march begin certainly. but he has been a thorn in the president's side of late about tit-for-tat with trade in japan.

they were roped in allegations that the japanese are not doing their part to be more trade friendly. so those two are trying to bury the hatchet, deal with differences, prevent an out right trade war between our two countries. hard to say where that is going. hard to say where things are going with china. we're getting indications no progress there. at united nations the president raised, raised a lot of eyebrows as well, accusation that the chinese are trying to muck up the midterm election less than six weeks away. a lot of people took that at face value, does he mean russian involvement thing to rig the vote or try to get a different result or was he talking about how china is carefully targeting states and industries and businesses that were vital to the president when he won election in the first place? in other words to go after his base. we assume that is what he meant. the markets have pretty much not moved on his comment or we might have a new russia interfering

with elections coming up. whatever the case let's get the read from the u.n. with kristina partsinevelos. do we know what he meant on that front? reporter: you're talking regarding china right now or going switching back to canada? neil: to china? >> reporter: oh, to china right now, what i heard within the last two hours, he just actually drove by moments ago, and still slamming china saying it has to do, trade imbalance is not acceptable. i will get to that in a second. i wanted to bring it back to canada. that is a topical news story given the fact that prime minister trudeau has said that although they are still negotiate the nafta deal his tone has definitely changed. he said a few hours ago in a meeting room in the united nations behind me said they will not be rushed into a trade deal. the reason being, of course, what you're talking about, neil, has to involve tariffs. listen in to prime minister trudeau. >> that involves obviously

feeling confident about the path forward as we move forward, if we do on a nafta 2.0 and the, the freer and, and lack of punitive tariffs that we consider are unjust. reporter: there is no meeting right now scheduled between the united states and canada and, neil, yesterday you asked me about canadian journalists and what everybody is saying on that side, right now, some of the canadian media, some of the friend down south or up north, they are saying they believe trudeau was snubbed at a u.n. luncheon. the reason being the prime minister stood behind the president. the president did acknowledge a tap on his shoulder. they shook hands. the president did not stand up. trudeau had to address the press because he was practicing his speech. i'm sure you have lots more to say about china and the trade as well as the abe meeting for later today. neil: all right, kristina, thank

you very, very much. chuck grassley talking to reporters right now about the planned hearing between dr. ford and other women come out of the woodwork. let's listen. >> we've done so many times since "washington post" story and dr. ford's name came out we had accusation after accusation, accusation, very few of them are corroborated. our lawyers, if we can make the contact, get on it right away. so obviously with this one we have a contact and our lawyers are on it right now. our staff investigators. and i won't have anything because i can't say anything until they get done. [shouting questions] >> thank you. neil: i think i heard the tail end, the business -- gist is to focus on christine blasey ford who argued back when they were in high school, judge kavanaugh attacked her and sexual assault

deemed at time she said. he denied it. it might have happened to her but wasn't involved in it. that will be a focus of the hearing tomorrow. there will be a female counsel, chosen by the republican majority to question dr. ford back and forth but, these other women, who have since been mentioned including deborah ramirez and this michael avenatti client julie swetnick are not included in that. does not mean for example, democratic senators could not ask the judge about that, question him, get his reaction or comments or whatever accusations dr. ford made. you see how some are fearing this could become a circus, especialliry with the back and forth. we'll monitor it the hearing is still on. the dr. ford still scheduled to testify. where it goes from there, anyone's guess, they hope to get committee vote by friday and full senate vote by tuesday. to john layfield right now on

all of these developments. first on this, john, we'll talk about trade, where it is going and variable to me and i will talk about it, all these unknowns, with you as a pretty shrewd investor in your own right weigh this kind of stuff into your thinking? it is short term i grant but the feeling seems to be the markets took as a given. >> i think it is despicable these politicians on both sides turned this into a political event. i don't know why like anita hill, took three days. takes about 10 now. as far as the markets i don't think this will have if i effect whether the justice is confirmed or not confirmed. neil: markets are verifying everything you just said, my friend. you could be right. they ignored all the

developments including what does or does not happen to rod rosenstein the deputy attorney general, whether he is fired or not. everything comes back to trade as possible economic impact that could roil folks at the corner of wall and broad. do you think it will especially now canada may not get a deal with us and we might have nafta without canada? >> i don't think president can really do that. a lot of people reporting we have a deal with mexico. that is 100% false. we worked out a lot of problems with the trade agreement with mexico we agreed on. the trade authorization was to do trilateral deal. not sure the president can legally do this you would have to drop out of nafta first. that takes six months and redo a trilateral deal. i think that happens after midterms. i think that is what trudeau is thinking. i think that is what the chinese are thinking, i think they're

killing the clock until midterms where there is a more favorable political climate they believe for them. neil: if for example, this is precursor what we might or might not get more to the point with the chinese, and president did as we say the chinese will try to inter fear in the midterms pause they don't -- because they don't want anyone around a president pushing the kind of trade policies he has, would be in therapy invested interest to stop him, any republican i guess by extension, is it your sense that that is going to be a big issue? >> yes. i think it is. i think the chinese are killing the clock just like prime minister trudeau is to get to after the midterms. neil, i don't believe we're even playing the same game. the u.s. is thinking about midterms. china is thinking about 25 years from now being world dominance. one belt, one road initiative, acquisition of the port in greece, open up to the eu to them of the ft reporting london

wants to become the number one foreign trader with the renminbi as they are with the eu. this takes the one belt, one road initiative to london. they are not focused on the tariffs, go from 6 1/2% gdp to 6% gdp their economy is hurting. i don't think the tariffs matter to them. i think they're a nuisance. i think this process will take a long, long time. both are entrenched. both sides overestimated their position. neil: i might be like a dog with a bone on this. i want to make sure my interpretation is one i think the president meant, when he talked about the chinese trying to interfere in the midterms, through the trade policy, stiffing farmers, going after them, halting purchases of their goods to drive the price down, he was not talking about something sinister what the russian involvement was in 2016? >> he didn't clarify that. i assume it is trade policy there is no doubt like the trade war, you can't say we'll lob all kinds of missiles and bullets

to, don't you do anything back to us. they will do whatever hurts the president the most by going after the farmers. that is what the president is acknowledged hurting us. he gave $12 billion in supplemental aid because of tariffs. it is a tax on the american consumer. china knows this. they are going after republican stalwart states and counties to try to affected midterms. there is no doubt about that. that is what you do in a trade war. neil: john, thank you very much, my friend. guidance for the markets and guidance is where the markets have a funny way of showing it, up 58 points here. this is not exactly worth at this after fox alert but chuck schumer is on the wires, that it is best to delay the hearing as things stand. the republicans need to suspend hearings with judge kavanaugh's hearing and the president must order the fbi to open up a new investigation. i strongly believe judge kavanaugh should withdraw from

consideration. we don't even have the remote proof that these latest allegations are accurate or corroborated. he seems to think they are. and he seems to think that the man who was picked to go on the supreme court should step down whether they are or are not. chuck schumer says, kavanaugh should go. we shall see. to break free from conventional thinking. we are a different kind of financial company. we are athene, and we are driven to do more.

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. get your first (guard)iption free i've seen things unnatural things. these people they don't sleep... like ever. they reveal in extremes and defy limitations. these pursuits may seem unnecessary. but the scariest thing i can imagine is a world where this, doesn't exist.

stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

neil: we told you earlier today about charges of a third woman now, julie swetnick, a client of michael after naughty, that judge cough gnaw and mark judge were among high school students who famously spiked drinks in high school with girls in a room, led girls to be taken advantage of, charges of gang rapes and the like, incredible stuff, not even citing the judge at time, mr. kavanaugh was part of that group participating. he was among those spiking drinks. we were waiting for a statement

from judge kavanaugh on all of this. this is it, short and to the point. this is ridiculous from the twilight zone. i don't know who this is and this never happened. again and again we go. we're following that. whether this comes up in a hearing tomorrow, that will feature dr. christine blasey ford anyone's guess. they want to focus on just her charges dating back to high school. different set of facts there, but then you have to wonder about the inquisitor, especially democrats on the panel who wanted to put this off, some including chuck schumer, you know what, this guy sudden step down period, referring to judge kavanaugh. whether they bring the additional women up, talking about deborah ramirez, said something similar about antics in college when they were in yale together. meantime we're focusing on more market-moving developments including oil moving to four year highs, interest rates, better than seven year highs. the two are lately tied at the hip. they could reflect a improving

economy. to oil analyst stephen schork, are they connected? how do you see it? >> absolutely, neil. this notion out there floated a couple years ago when oil prices crashed, this was somehow good for the economy, quote, gave you a tax break, that is baloney. industrial commodity prices such as oil, steel, rebar, copper, crash when the economy is poor. we had a nice redown over the last two years in all industrial commodities and this is a reflex of a stronger economy. economies drive commodity prices, neil. commodity prices do not drive economies. weak commodity prices equal weak economies. strong commodity prices are reflection of a strong economy. neil: is that a strong global economy, stephen, or just unique to the united states? how do you describe it? >> well the united states is in absolute unique position, given the growth that you've seen in our oil infrastructure, in fact

the united states has comparative advantage of with some of the cheapest energy out there for our manufacturing sector. hence why lack of growth in the sector during the previous administration is a real head scratcher, given that we had an advantage given that. now what we're looking at here, neil, over this past summer, demand for crude oil here in the united states has never been stronger. at the beginning of the summer, on top of that we lost access to significant amount of canadian crude oil because of an outage at a processing plant up in calgary. in april the state of texas was exporting more crude oil then we were importing yet by august, global crude oil supplies neil, were never greater. opec supply of crude oil is nine-month high thanks to strong out put from saudi arabia, nigeria, so forth, which overcame significant loss of iranian and venezuelan crude oil. the market is in balance. there is bifurcation the u.s. is

pretty much the leader in economic growth yet the world is still in balance. hence why opec is turning a deaf ear to trump's demand they somehow lower oil prices going into the midterms. neil: what did you make of that? very unusual, especially in that setting to go after these opec nations, some of whom, saudi arabia for example, comes to mind, saying we've been trying to work to help you out and this is the thanks we get? what do you think? >> i think absolutely. saudis they see the market in balance because it is in balance. neil: it is in their interest to make sure it is stablized. they don't profit? >> absolutely. they lose long term market share. every dollar higher tick in oil prices is dollar therefore lower in alternative fuel substitute -- neil: why does the president do it? you think it might be a strategy to this to compel these

countries russia, not an opec member, to cool it? >> 18 septembers ago president clinton released 30 million barrels of oil, announced a 30 million-barrel oil release jet fuel prices were up to 95 cents a gallon. he did that on the presumption trying to help gore in the election in november. so remove that 18 septembers now, trump taking that playbook, we already have an 11 million-barrel release that comes out in october. therefore, trump in my book has another 19 million barrels to play with. even though i think opec, saudi arabia is making the correct decision, taking a wait-and-see especially when we don't even know from the fallout from the global economy from this trade war started by trump. so they're sitting taking appropriate action sitting on the sidelines but trump has 19 million barrels to play with between now and first tuesday in november. neil: biggest thing he has going for him, isn't that, it is the economy, right? >> that's just it.

so we're at a point now where we have rising energy prices but to my point earlier, energy prices are a reflection of stronger economy. neil: got it. >> we have not seen the impact on the economy because of oil prices. oil prices are not expensive. they are back where they belong. what we have gotten used to over last two years, oil prices are artificially low we think that is normal. no, that is abnormal. oil prices are normal now. neil: you are interesting. stephen schork, the schork report editor. he knows the markets inside and out. to stephen's point we're getting equalibrium to oil prices and a lot of people could say that about interest rates. oil better than four year highs, that is just kind of get closer to the norm. when it comes to interest rate, far, far from the norm even now. why the markets are liking what they're seeing, even as they're seeing stuff like that go up in

price. if your insurance won't replace your car, what good is it? you'd be better off just taking your money and throwing it right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ just a second, we also have the mendez mediation. brian is going to take the lead just follow his- hello. uh, no i need it right now. yeah... success is a numbers game. and you're not going to win if you keep telling yourself to wait. the more often that you choose courage, the more likely you'll succeed. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change.

neil: all right, welcome back. boy, when rains it pours, a third woman now, julie swetnick, the latest michael mike avenatti client. that he and his friend mike judge were known so spike punch in high school. didn't say whether the judge was one taking advantage of them. it did add to the drama ahead of the christine blasey ford hearing tomorrow which we're told none of these other accusers, including deborah ramirez are coming up or supposed to come up. we got a comment from judge kavanaugh on the latest one. this is ridiculous from "the twilight zone." i don't know who this is and this never happened. but concern the pile-on is going to require a stronger response. charlie gasparino talking to a lot of folks on this and back and forth, what are you hearing? >> judge kavanaugh has been

around. know as lot of people in the lobbiest community. has a lot of friend between wall street and washington. i tapped into some of those friends and associates speaking with him right now. here is what they're saying. let's first point out, donald trump, the president of the united states had a couple words to say to associates about mr., judge kavanaugh's appearance on fox news with martha maccallum. what the president told associates is that he believed that kavanaugh didn't do a great job. that he provided way too much detail about his sex life as young man and teenager. he was virgin until his 20s. it was way over the top. president thinks by giving that much detail you're almost, asking for people to come out and refute you. i think he makes a good point about that. at least what president told associates. now it is really interesting, kavanaugh is being advised by these people, associates, lobbyists, people he has known for years in the washington corporate america circuit and here is what they're telling

him. they are telling him he was way too robotic on martha maccallum's show. he was repetitive. he was stiff, and he didn't show enough outrage when martha asked him about the various, various charges against him. they believe he has got to pull a page out of clarence thomas book and, not go after his accusers but go after the accused and be extremely forceful and tough about it. whether he can do that or to the is different story. clarence thomas was a street fighter. he still kind of is. he had it in him, going toe-to-toe, clarence thomas doesn't do a lot of media generally, when you saw those hearings, back in '91 or right? it was a amazing the way he went after the democrats on that committee. he didn't go after anita hill. he went after them. neil: remember charges first came to light, her testimony, a lot of thought this guy was finished. >> toast. neil: he turned it around.

>> turned it around. neil: the flip side, republicans lost a lot of seats down the road and lot of women came to power galvanized by this but he did survive. >> he survived. kavanaugh according to people advising him. he will have to do that. he will have to show a degree of emotion and outrage that he did not show in the martha maccallum interview. neil: what if it is not in his temperment? other accusations takes them at face value, doesn't accept them, can't believe, he will be asked about the other women, whether it comes up. >> right. neil: republican counsel or not, i'm sure democratic senators will ask him. >> they will ask him about teenage drinking, ask him about all sorts of stuff. this will be really messy tomorrow for him. there is no doubt about it. it was messy for clarence thomas to deny stuff that he had to deny. in some ways this is, somewhat worse because in a sense being accused of attempted rape here.

neil: that's right. avenatti case. >> first case, dr. ford, he held her down allegedly. neil: never came to that. >> but it is attempted. what i'm saying, i can tell you what they're telling him. who knows what the magic bullet -- neil: if he doesn't. >> he is toast. neil: he will lose any one of these, jeff flake's name, lisa murkowski, susan collins are on the fence. >> i don't think he could do, what they're telling him you can't do before the senate tomorrow what you did before martha maccallum. you can't robotically answer these questions, like i never -- literally repeated the same phrase again and again. showed almost know emotion, until one or two points he looked like he was going to cry. i wanted him to do that, because he is so upset what is going on. what they're telling him you have to show emotion. the president is telling people that he thinks he made a huge mistake by providing details of his life as a kid. so people can go out and refute

it. neil: check the past. >> we'll see what happens. if he comes out guns blazing tomorrow, if he pulls a page out of clarence thomas, you know they got to him, they convinced him to do it. neil: charlie gasparino, thank you very much. keep an eye on this. any follow-up comments from senators we told you about chuck schumer, hearing should be delayed. better part of valor should be for judge kavanaugh to step down. more after this.

neil: all right, judge kavanaugh calls it like "the twilight zone." the president going still further to explain emergence of this third accuser, julie swetnick, a client of michael avenatti, you're all familiar with. avenatti is third-rate lawyer good at making false acueizations on me and like he is doing on judge brett kavanaugh. he is looking for attention and doesn't want people to look at his past record and relationships, a total low-life. enter "washington free beacon" liz harring son. i set you up on that to get a sense where this is all going tomorrow? >> you have to kind of give the president some credit here. this guy, you have to consider the source here with this third allegation which is porn star lawyer who clearly has axe to

grind with the president and took took upon days, changing his story he would release the information. coincidentally after kavanaugh releases his calendar, he finds an accuser whose calendar lines up, beach week and there is gang rape. so i think you do need to look at the source on this allegations, this third allegation. a lot of people will, so over the top, i just, hard to believe. neil: but you know, liz, i cannot believe, even though the focus is tomorrow's hearing will be on christine blasey ford and her allegation goes back to high school, at least the democratic senators when it comes time to question judge kavanaugh they are going to raise these, right? they would be crazy not to, if you look at the sheer politics of it? >> right. i mean i think that is when the democrats playbook from the beginning. they had the first allegation since july. then they had the second allegation who, according to ronan farrow, the democrats were

looking for, gave that to the new yorker. and now you have this third one which i think, yeah, the democrats are going to throw everything at this, and they're going to, it is, they're going to bring up everything that kavanaugh said in that interview. they will attack him for saying he never blacked out being drunk. they are going to get very personal. honestly wasn't enough i guess to just accuse brett kavanaugh being an attempted rapist. now they have to accuse him of being a gang rapist. neil: now they have to say just on the charge alone he should step down. that is coming from chuck schumer. the hearing should be delayed. the better part of valor would be for the the to step aside. what do you think of that? >> a horrible precedent to set, if that is the standard just being accused, that you throw it out, for the record, no corroborating evidence. with dr. ford more people come on the record, penalty of perjury swine sworn statements to the senate committee

kavanaugh wasn't there. this didn't happen. you have no corroborating evidence in that case. you certainly don't have any evidence in, you know a drinking party in a yale dorm room for the second one and, i mean how are we going to get corroborating evidence of this so-called gang train rape thing? i don't know how you prove that, or disprove that either. so there is going to be no evidence. but just on the basis that you throw these allegations you throw them all at him, you have to step down which is their playbook from the beginning. they don't want the seat to be filled. they want it delayed after at election. look, i don't think the republicans should let them get away with it. neil: we'll see tomorrow. have a lot to say where this all goes. thank you very much, liz. waiting on the fed too, 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: allegations but some little time. the timing is raising republican hackles and some are wondering why now. a third woman coming forward through the services of michael avenatti and it's hard to sort all this out. what we do know is adding to confusion before the big hearing the judge and accusations data back to my school and let's get the read on all of this and how the white house is responding. blake berman is layer there.

certainly, it will delay the hearings but chuck schumer going to far as they know the judge should shut down. how is the white house handling all of this? reporter: we even heard from president trump a little while ago that michael avenatti is the attorney who is resenting the third accuser, julie. she has leveled explicit allegations against brett cannot dating back to their high school years. among them she says the following quote, i witnessed efforts by mark judge brett kavanaugh and others to target particular girls so they could be taken advantage of. she also says she was gang raped at a party and what she says brett kavanaugh was present. cavanaugh released a statement a little while ago saying that reads in his entirety the following - i mentioned michael avenatti and that he represents julie swetnick. he's written to sudden fame after he's also the attorney for

stormy daniels. president trump has taken notice of the connection and within about the last ten minutes or so he has treated out the following reactions "-right-double-quote - cavanaugh will head to the capital right now and testify before the senate judiciary committee so too will christine ford and the first accuser against kavanaugh who back in the house we're said she was sexually assaulted. she said by kavanaugh and we now gone some of his prepared testimony refuting all of this tomorrow. kavanaugh will say of a point in that hearing the following -

neil, you bring up the process here. tomorrow morning 10:00 a.m. we hear from kavanaugh and doctor four. chuck grassley who runs the senate judiciary committee wants a committee vote friday and after that presumably the full senate sometime in the immediate days will take up a vote on kavanaugh but these new allegations against kavanaugh once again raise a host of questions about this nomination and about the process. neil: blake, thank you. a lot of pressure on the southside council working for the republicans to ask the doctor for these questions. her name is rachel mitchell, few people know much about her but she is well respected in the legal community. she's been a sex prosecutor and been known to be fair. should be a tool for the republican majority and expect that to make that clear. what can make - how can rachel

mitchell handle things? let's get a read from emily campagna. damned if she doesn't do, damned if she does fit what you know about her and how fair it will she be? what is your sense? >> as you mentioned her reputation is solid in the legal community. i want to point out the major victory she's known for is among the catholic abused priest scandal. she scored 111 year sentence for a priest that was convicted in her early years when she was with the sex crime unit in arizona. briefly, up till now that's been her most notorious when but that was phenomenal in the details go into that case and the level of preparation and levelheadedness she exhibited in the courtroom was notable. she's a wise choice in terms of the gop selecting someone that her reputation precedes her in terms of the levelheadedness and just a good choice for this.

neil: emily, i'm just curious. the senators and republicans are not bound to let her do all the questioning son to give up against will let her do the questioning and certainly doctor four, i would think. in light of these other women coming forward that democratic senators when it comes time to talk to the judge will ask about those in this could easily get out of control, couldn't it? >> it seems like it could. fortunately, for us as a constituents and the one to whom this really matters that each senator is bound by five minutes. ultimately hopefully that constraint will set in and the senators on the gop will likely see the time for her and the question democrats will likely not. in light of this morning's breaking news a third accuser that come out with a sworn affidavit for many for calling for this year tomorrow and she be postponed or that the third

accuser to testify as well tomorrow in addition democrat senators calling for the fact that the vote should be rescheduled or postponed indefinitely as we continue to wait for more to come forward. obviously on the other side the country do that is that is unfair so how long do you wait and how long has judge cannot wait for things to come out of the quote unquote would work before a vote can take place? i do believe that adherence to the structure most of portly. ultimately, it's us to whom this benefits. neil: have republicans seated to the demand of the avenatti charges brought by christina ford the other to come to report debra ramirez and this julie swetnick but you can see the argument that we have to have multiple investigations. how can they go on or will they go on despite all of this because of the fear that this could keep up and up?

>> exactly. when is there an end and a call for and end to the structure. in regard to the fbi investigations one can be reopened at any time. secondly, those investigations do not necessarily depending on the type of investigation does not necessarily to a specific conclusion but that would be up to the senators to draw the conclusion from the allegations that have service. the argument that in the six prior how were none of these uncovered and how are michael avenatti servicing and the allegations did not inquire of. then there is the advice and counsel constitutional power that covers has to do this on their own so i would that be even the need for the investigation and the timing consideration where multiple could be either before or after

hearings. multiple things the plate here and ultimately it's incumbent upon our elected officials take the reins, decide the procedure and make an end to it. and set the vote so this can be stopped on one way or the other. neil: you raise a good point. if the fbi were to reopen or go into all these issues all of these came to light in recent years or there was no way for standard fbi in education that covered the high school and into early college years of brett kavanaugh to about this to light anyway unless it was a file report or someone had actually spoken out publicly prior. there's no indication that was the case. neil: correct. there is no federal crimes alleged yet that we know of or more specifically for viewers that the incidence alleged to have happened would have been under local state jurisdiction and local police reports and/or local authorities that investigate and that would bring charges if they were credible.

you are correct. that is separately the fbi to section over this within that investigatory capacity as a background because of this nominee for the supreme court. there are two different tracks but obviously the hilton called board of education that is or fbi that is there power to do so. neil: emily, thank you. good catching up with you. >> thank you. neil: to emily's point publicans still want to get a boat out of committee by maybe friday and maybe a full senate vote by tuesday. is that possible in light of the new allegations when you have chuck schumer and blumenthal and other saying everything should be put on hold and cool things down here. chuck schumer going as far as to say the judge to consider stepping down. it's gone into the crazy territory. josh holmes is a mitch mcconnell chief of staff josh, the senators made it clear at least there things stood yesterday that the vote was on and that the vote will go on out of committee presumably friday in

the clock ticks to get a full senate vote. is that doable? >> i think it is. it's important to remind your viewers about why this process is so bizarre and we've gotten into the land of despicable. the allegations that have been brought appear in the last ten days there is a process for. the judiciary committee and all committees that have the advice and consent form within the senate have a process that they deal with this kind of thing. there are two purposes for it. one is to protect the victim. the alleged victim in this case and their identity should be protected by having a private hearing and basically flushing out these facts ahead of time so that they are not subjected to the pinnacle scrutiny we see the far. second is to check the integrity of the nominee. if they get to the bottom and find out there's no verified there yet inexorably smeared the nominee beyond repair. what you've seen from senate democrats by sitting on these allegations until the hearings

are over it's an intentional move to smear the character of brett kavanaugh beyond any repair and in a short time people to kill his nomination. this is the land of the bizarre at this point. neil: i tried to read what i can of this latest accusation with swetnick and avenatti says everything was cooperated. the same argument used with earlier debra ramirez who argued about what happened in college when she and the judge were at yale together but failing to remember key points so that really was not cooperated. christina ford made argument that much of her accusations have been cooperated and i might be missing something but cooperation means unequivocal confirmation from outside parties and could verify what you are saying and not any of these cases is that the case. why are we here at this point

where a judge could be on the brink of having to step down? >> if you look at just the facts and take the veracity of the claims by the women and whether or not these events took place but let's just say and set that aside. here are the facts we know. the four people who the alleged victims have put forward to the committee to say they can cooperate what happened to her the night at the hands of judge kavanaugh all for have committed testimony to the judiciary committee under penalty of felony saying they have absolutely no memory of it. a woman who is close friends with that she doesn't not remember even meeting judge kavanaugh. now were in a situation we basically have an explosive allegation with no fax that occurred underneath any of this for senators to consider a timetable that is just completely ridiculous. we turn this thing into a complete circus. neil: they will turn it around just to say that the timetable

is too aggressive and that we have to spread the timetable out and get them so that might mean we need some of the senators who are on the fence like lisa murkowski and maybe susan collins and possibly jeff flake who will say we need more from these women so we need your time. how realistic is that and what would he do? >> there are two pieces to this. it's important to get under the hood and look at what the liberal activist groups are trying to do here. trying to use these allegations as an opportunity to push this nomination to the point that beyond the election and perhaps they can win the election and perhaps they can retake the senate and perhaps they can deny doesn't trump the pic altogether. he saw yesterday in the near times that the guy was a former hillary operative leading the opposition said it. he said what we like to do is be back the nomination, with back the senate and deny the nomination altogether. the point is the timetable matters here. it allows republicans to fill

the seat and judge kavanaugh has had a longer time that he has been considered in any of president obama's picks up to this point. is the plenty of time to process all of this but they chosen to do this in the most political dynamite way at the end to explode the process and smear judge kavanaugh. it's a really unfortunate thing, not only for judge, but the alleged victims in the case. neil: josh, thank you. good catching up with you. >> thank you. neil: josh, we are learning that the hearing will go on tomorrow and there will be no delays. mitch mcconnell is very confident that will happen in the votes can go on a schedule. again, despite two other additional women who purport to say wait a minute. he is not waiting a minute. more. ...for that, and

just a second, we also have the mendez mediation. brian is going to take the lead just follow his- hello. uh, no i need it right now. yeah... success is a numbers game. and you're not going to win if you keep telling yourself to wait. the more often that you choose courage, the more likely you'll succeed. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change.

neil: arizona senator jeff flake who was considered one of those undecided republicans on the nomination of jeff kavanaugh and that was in. >> because we think our ideological struggle is more important than their humanity and because we are so practiced in dehumanizing people that we have also dehumanized ourselves.

whatever else they are or have become to us, whatever grotesque character we made of them or ourselves, before we are democrats or republicans, before we are even americans we are human beings. as president kennedy said we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future, we are all noble. and these witnesses will testify in important hearing tomorrow these unwitting combatants in an undeclared war, these people are not props for us to make our political points, nor are they to be demolished like anita hill as was set on conservative media the other night. nor is one of them a proven sex criminal as has been circulating on the left side of the internet. these are human beings with families and children. people who love them and people

whom they love and live for. each is suffering through a very ugly process that we have created. i will not review the unseemly process that brought us to this point because that is for another time. in any case, it did not start with this particular nomination. here we are. there was an earlier case 27 years ago from which you might have thought we would have learned something but the past couple of weeks makes it clear we have not learned much at all. consequently, there been cries from both sides of these proceedings that each of the witnesses have fallen victim to character assassination. both of these claims are absolutely correct. i will say to these witnesses, these human beings, we owe you both a sincere apology. an apology is inadequate and

it's a start. we can't very well undo the damage that has been done. but we can govern our own behavior as we go through this painful hearing tomorrow and in the days afterwards. we must do that. less we do even more damage. some of the public comments about both of these witnesses have been vile. not unrelated to the comments, each of these witnesses have reportedly been subject to death threats and for that we should be ashamed. the toxic political culture that we've created has affected everything and we have done little to stop it. in fact, we've only indulged it. fanned the flames taken partisan advantage of every turns, deepened the ugly division that exist in our country. these past two years we have tested the limits of how low we can go and my colleagues, i say to you, winning at all costs is too high a cost. we cannot have a human, rather

than a political - if we cannot have a human rather than political response to these witnesses and if we are heat this to the capacity that we have to do real and lasting damage than we should not be here. when doctor ford came forward i felt strongly that her voice needed to be heard. that is why i informed chairman grassley that the judiciary committee could not and should not proceed to a vote until she had the opportunity to make your voice heard. and to until such time as the claims were fully aired and carefully considered and her credibility gauged. this is a lifetime appointment. this is said to be a deliberate body and in the interest of due diligence and fairness it seems to me to be the only thing to do. not everyone felt this way. one man somewhere in the country called my office in arizona and left a message saying he was

tired of me interrupting my president. and for that, of allowing doctor ford to be heard for this offense me and my family would be taken out. i mention this with reluctance but only to say that we have lit a match, my colleagues. the question is do we appreciate how close the powder keg is? tomorrow we will have a hearing and many members of his body for both parties have already made up their minds on the record, in advance of the hearing. they will presumably hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. what one is tempted to ask is why even bother having a heari hearing? i do not know how well i will assess the ability of the witnesses. these human beings on the gray matters that will be testify to. i have not yet heard a word of their testimony and because i have not i am not psychic i'm

not gifted with clairvoyance and given these limitations i will have to listen to the testimony before i make up my mind about the testimony. what i do know is that i don't believe the doctor ford is part of some vast conspiracy from start to finish to smear judge kavanaugh as has been alleged by some of the right and i do know that i do not believe the judge kavanaugh is some kind of serial sexual predator as some have alleged on the left. i must also say that separate and apart from this nomination and the facts that pertain to it i do not believe the claim of sexual assault is invalid because a 15 -year-old girl did not amply report the assault to authorities. as president of the united states said two days ago. how uninformed and uncaring do we have to be to say things like

that? much less, believe them. do we have any idea what kind of message that sends especially to young women. how many times do we have to marginalize and ignore women before we learned that important lesson? and now, if i must say a word or two about the human beings first on the judiciary committee, and then in the full senate will have to weigh the testimony that we were here tomorrow and come to some kind of decision on this nomination. the dish committee is scheduled to vote under china's nomination on friday. i hope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote. but those of us on the committee have to be prepared for the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. in legal terms, the outcome might not be just positive.

well, we can only vote yes or no. i hope that we, in the body, will acknowledge that we don't have all the answers and we are in perfect humans. we will make imperfect decisions. this money mental decision will no doubt but that description. up or down, yes or no, however this boat goes i am confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt and this doubt is the only thing that i am confident about this process. i say to all my colleagues, for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. we must listen. we must do our best. speak the truth in good faith. that is our only duty. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. neil: you been listening to senator jeff flake, the senator

from arizona raising concern about a quick quote out of committee on friday after listening to what will be a give-and-take about charges and responses. first, the charges by doctor ford who will be questioned and later on judge brett kavanaugh responding to all of that. jeff flake taking out both parties for going too far in making this almost a circus -like event saying we have lit a match but do we appreciate how close the powder keg is? he went on to say that winning at all costs is sometimes too high. again, referring to the accusation that could be very tough for the accuser and the accused and might leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and did not get to dress the other women who have come forward but that it's been unfair to both doctor ford and judge kavanaugh.

let's get a read from editorial director. alina, he did not get into the other charges but he seemed to intimate here that whether we rush this or not this will be an affair for all of us. is he right about that? >> i agree with that. this thing has been a total surprise. just about over a week ago brett kavanaugh was expected to be confirmed in what was seemingly an easy quick process but now that we have three accusers who are saying who are alleging sexual assault or sexual misconduct and it's thrown everything into this messy process and he mentioned we should have learned from what happened with anita hill back in the 1990s and yet we are seeing the same messy process play out again. neil: i don't know what would be concluded tomorrow but i don't

think that would change a single vote depending on how the judge responds and what the democrats on the panel will be inclined to ask the judge about these two women who have come forward with similar accusations but i'll be at different. where is this going? is the vote still doable on friday? >> i think it is. what you heard jeff flake do right now was a pre- bottle. he's offering expeditions why he will vote yes on brett kavanaugh he was essentially saying look, i'm going to purchase signal and say it's a messy process and we should hear from both sides but at the end of day this will be steeped in doubt no matter how this goes and we will probably have an inclusive outcome at the end of the day tomorrow. this means to me that jeff flake is voting yes on this and you want people to know he's doing so with a heavy heart because he does not like how this process went. additionally, one of things i thought was interesting but there was a characteristic jeff

flake expedition of everything which is to say that both sides are equally guilty of sincere. i don't think that is right. the republican party has bent over backwards in order to make sure they don't appear coldhearted and that they do appear empathetic and they want to hear christine ford's explanations. democrats have been pretty transparent about how they see this as a power play and any attempt to stop brett kavanaugh is what they will throw into this process no matter where it comes from or what it looks like. i think jeff flake is being a little too generous with this notion that both sides have been equally guilty. neil: thank you. in this country the time giving jeff flake's comments here, again, if he is right about that and jeff flake is reluctant yes vote then you wonder about lisa murkowski and susan collins, two other senators who might share the same angst but ultimately vote the same way. no way of knowing tomorrow's hearing will be telling. when you rent from national...

it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

neil: is more than just judge stuff coming going on. more than the end to the vision of rod russell sign with the plan press conference today and federal reserve today. tech executives are facing questions of privacy on capitol hill and they're not going away. peter bolton has later there. >> the question is no longer if but how nature tech companies such as apple and google can support lawmakers to craft national privacy laws. it's already a big step the acknowledgment that it has to be done but the challenge going forward is how to design consumer privacy laws that cover the majority of these tech companies while also acknowledging that each tech company has different data collection practices. here is one exchange that sheds light on the task ahead. >> the question is more authority and legal tools to protect consumer privacy. >> senator, we do think accountability is something that

needs to be put in place to ensure the protection of consumers. we think there's a variety of ways to get it that we want to make sure the word balancing appropriations while allowing the freedoms to innovate. >> in the room along with lawmakers were executives from at&t, amazon, google, twitter, apple and charter and they released a data privacy framework in the past few weeks but the one big criticism is that in that room there are no consumers and no consumer advocate groups invited to speak on safeguarding the consumer data. that seems like a big omission and the only government reps in these big a billion-dollar tech executives. that rely on consumer data for a large part of their revenue. neil: thank you. the president is also focusing on china. he saying china may be trying to rig the election that as the russians were doing in 2016 or at least interfering in it. he uses examples and a tweet the

china explain propaganda ads among the des moines register made to look like news. because we are - the farmers will make a fortune when this is over. he attaches to that the image from the des moines register with the china watch insert that says - the president is arguing that it has found its way into trump strong states including iowa, the des moines register. you can see in one of things they raise is the latest example that the trade undermines the benefits of trade and making augments that the president will cost constituents and local readers a lot. to market watcher and whether the president is onto something or onto something but what you think? >> well, it's not to be

unexpected. i'm not even sure it's china manipulating it but it's tariffs. we saw his approval rating well in advance of this in the midwest because of the fact that that's the farm base and got to be a lot more expensive shipping and soybeans to china right now. you got to expect there will be something with a push back. neil: we talked about china trying to screw around in our election and i am paraphrasing here but he's not liking it to the step russia was doing. he saying they are using the full arsenal of targeted trade issues in states that the president one big and that is how they're doing it. >> yeah, and it sound like it could be effective. again, tariffs have consequenc consequences. consumers don't like to pay more for goods and farmers and businesses like to ship the product to other countries.

if that gets me belated there will be some type of pushback and that issuing up in his approval ratings because there's a disconnect. the economy is doing as well but his approval ratings should be off the chart but we know that's not the case. something else is influencing his approval rating. neil: the fact that the canadians are getting frozen out with the ongoing problems we had with mexico that we might not have an agreement and it seems weird we were not have nafta without canada but how realistic is that? how much is a market moving event for you? i lycée it is not the market right now. >> as we no, treat itself and all the angst around it is that impacting us equities it would show up in the emerging markets. going back to canada i still think at the end of this process and it has been an ugly process they will fall into a line. clearly us-mexico made on his progress and i suspect canada

will do that. you're not seen much in the movement canadian dollars so markets are anticipating that at the end of the process we will have some type of new nafta agreement. neil: all right. zach, thank you. i apologize for truncating this with breaking news. i want to let you know speaking there is more coming from capitol hill on prominent republic and senators on the back and forth and jeff flake remarked he just made. this process is embarrassing, senator orrin hatch and john cornyn were asked about these latest of elements particularly on the rachel mitchell will play in the outside attorney brought in to query doctor ford. these other issues are to come up it's up to the council referring to her. he also thinks when it comes to senators asking questions or whether in the case of the senator he would ask questions. not at this time. senator cornyn meanwhile was asked about his new allegations

coming from two additional and i presume they'll get questions on that front. hopefully, referring to the outside counsel, will cover all the obvious topics. bottom line, they don't know. anything that happened and at tomorrow's hearing probably wi will.

so, i have this recurring dream. 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: there is another big development is getting lost in this but it shouldn't. president wayne in on road rosenstein's future but they're having a sit down at white hou house, powwow to decide what the deputy attorney general meant when he decided that he was concerned whether the president was irrational and whether he'd invoked the 25th amendment. it's all goes back to the charges made back in 2017. then there's the issue of whether rod rosenstein with that with -e voya. helping you to and through retirement.

neil: rod may feel like it is time to go. speculating and i don't have inside knowledge but certainly the friday story from the new york times alleging those things had some effect on the process. >> you know, what is interesting - by the way, you're one of the few guys where if you don't no, you don't know. you are an expert by the way. >> i'm an expert at not knowing. neil: no, i admire that. it's supposed to be a complime compliment. let me ask you a little bit about a what if it's in there

but if rosenstein is ticked off and he does want to tender his resignation and he's had enough and said best case scenario maybe he stays on task past election and then he fired - what you say? >> there's a lot more in that room a lot more knowledge in the room about where the mueller probe is. that's an interesting point whether if it's a resignation, is it immediate or something when he says i'm meeting at the end of the year and these are very different kettle of fish. if he says he's leaving at the end of the year that signals me wants to see the pope through in the probe will be finished this year. if he says he's leaving tomorrow and whatever the circumstance it sounds like it significant enough in rod's mind he will leave even with the probe outstanding. there's also a common mistake which is people tend to think that a product rosenstein leaves, this probe evaporates into thin air which is not the case all. neil: let me ask this, is there a difference in how this and he

would be treated or even as her placement chosen should he resign or be fired? >> my understanding is that when it comes to the probe you have to have a senate confirmed official within the chain of command at the doj take control of that investigation and because rachel brand is gone from the associate attorney general position without anyone refilling it that all falls on the solicitor general. that is until such time as a new deputy attorney general would be confirmed by the senate. neil: in the beginning when these comments were allegedly made - i know you doubt the veracity of the report and many do - but let's take it at face value. he did joke about getting a wire and we've known that many people did tape the president including the closest confidant but leaving that aside the 20th amendment is something that would honestly hurt the president. we are told since that time they have gotten closer or had a more

mutual respect - i don't know how true that is but what you make of that? that's why the present would think twice about getting rid of the guy. he is prone to like him. >> i hope it's on a couple of levels. the president should keep them on and i hate to say it but rod may hate me saying that but i like to see him stay on through the end of this probe. the president might do it for a couple reasons. one, it's politically a bad move to fire the head of the probe right before the midterms but on a meritorious level i'd like to see him stay on because he's the right guy for the job. i didn't think that even as the president is the result of their from time to time that he might have a begrudging expect rod because rod has shown he's got a thick skin that is not a politician and not being used to be an accused that politicians are being thrown around. he is taking it in stride and with dignity and flashes of humor from time to time. i don't think he's laughing about that new york times

allegation but he's probably earned a little respect from the president. i'm hoping that combines on some level and let them stay on, at least for a few more months. neil: we are now hearing from the groups of the house freedom caucus, he stood up to them. >> you, rod is taking fire from all sides but i chalk that up to the fact that people don't know what he's doing and the reason they don't know what is doing is because the prosecutor, not a politician but he doesn't share all leaks and surrogates that washington would do. neil: interesting. good seeing you. thank you. >> you do, thank you, neil. neil: respecting apparels of decision expected to hike interest rates that bring it up to two and a quarter so were a long way from zero and a long way from you guys been done in the market seemingly and is waiting that we had consensus and it's okay with it. 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. neil: the president is with deputy prime minister abe and their unique relationship. president trump: things are working out very well. i want to congratulate prime minister abe for a smashing election when just last week. that was a tremendous win and we actually celebrated asking trump tower his birthday and a lot of good things are happening for him. we have a lot of good things happening between our countries so prime minister - thank you very much and i've.

[speaking in foreign language] [speaking in foreign language] >> we enjoy the great view from the trump tower and had a wonderful discussion over that wonderful dinner that you presented for us.

[speaking in foreign language] you kindly celebrated my birthday and have celebrated my recent victory in the credential question on mike party. [speaking in foreign language] right after my victory in the presidential election of my own party, mr. president kindly tweeted and congratulated my victory and also your daughter, ivanka trump tweeted about my victory which i do appreciate. [speaking in foreign language] >> on sunday over dinner we did have a very candid discussion on the wide range of matters including north korea or

bilateral economic ties and the issues in asia. [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in foreign language] >> at today's summit meeting i first wanted to discuss the issue of north korea of respected policies to north korea. based on your meeting with president moon the day before yesterday and also based on my meeting with president moon yesterday. i then would like to confirm our

robust collation on this. on top of that, i understand that this morning the minister and ambassador had a productive discussion and voting upon the wonderful that the ministers have had this morning i would like to discuss a few ways to reinforce the economic ties between japan and the united states. i look forward to having a very constructive discussion. [speaking in foreign language] >> once again, i would like to commend the fact that there is now a major transformational change about to take place in our approach as well as how we deal with north korea and the situation surrounding north korea. in the aftermath of the historic summit meeting that you had with chairman kim jung-un in singapore.

president trump: i will say that we are going down what we agree today to start trade negotiations between the united states and japan. this was something that for various reasons over the years japan was unwilling to do and now they are willing to do. we are happy about that. sure we will come to a set of very satisfactory conclusion. [speaking in foreign language] [speaking in japanese]

president trump: i think we will come to a conclusion and will be something exciting. japan is very smart, great negotiators. up until now they've done very well and will continue to do very well. we'll have a really great relationship, better than ever before on trade. i think it will be better for japan and better for the united states. it can only get better for the united states. it cannot get worse after what happened over the years. [speaking in japanese] [speaking in japanese]

>> and prime minister abe, i think i can speak for him, saying that he is very hopeful and really thinks there is a very good chance doing something with north korea. i know he wants to be helpful to them in economic development and chairman kim see as great future for north korea and i really know japan wants to help them towards that future economically and we all want to help and frankly i think also that president moon in south korea, they want to be very much involved. so north korea really has a great future. i believe we're doing very well. i think we're doing much better than anybody would know. i just, i just showed a letter that i received just yesterday, from chairman kim which is a

extraordinary letter. i received other letters also from chairman kim. he wants to see things happen for north korea that are great, that can make it a great economic power and they have the potential to be that. we look forward to our second summit. neil: monitoring the president of the united states. he is with the japanese prime minister. he held a letter he got from kim from north korea and things are going a lot better than you hear from the media. trish regan to take you to the crucial fed decision. trish: happening in a couple seconds. thanks, neil. breaking now we are seconds away from the very much anticipated fed decision. the fed is expected to raise interest rates for the third time this year. we also expect to hear from fed chair jerome powell in just a short while from now, about an update on the overall health of our economy as well as any news he can give us, any direction about future rate hikes. it all comes as president trump

touts the strength of our booming economy. gdp better than 4%. president trump says we're getting bigger, we're getting richer. we're getting stronger. and he believes there is more to come what is the fed thinking about all of it? we're going to edward lawrence in deseat of ed. reporter: the federal reserve races the benchmark rate, fed fund rate 2.25%. the fed sees still four more rate hikes this year in their forecast, however removed the language from the fomc that monetary policy remains accommodative said there could be a pause. forecast of four rate hikes this year. the fed sees another three rate hikes according to the forecast in 2019. 2020 seeing one rate hike. they see longer term fed fund rate at 3%. the decision to raise rate was unanimous. the fed signals they may be closer to short term neutral rate at this point. the federal r