in the case of canada the prime minister are satisfied with the deal. they are good for canada, mexico. good for all three. this is good for all three. that is good. just that fact makes it good for us. this is good for all three. this is a much different deal than nafta. this is much more of a reciprocal deal for the united states which is really good. yeah, go ahead, peter. reporter: are you okay on kavanaugh briefly? >> no. we'll do the kavanaugh questions. i mean, you talk about being treated harshly. we'll do that in a couple, let's finish up trade, a lot of people want to run over to the "wall street journal" and start writing. [inaudible] >> i can't hear you is it. >> mexican journalist? >> go ahead, sure. reporter: you keep the tariffs on steel and aluminum and mexico and canada -- >> until such time we can do something different like quotas, perhaps.

so that our industry is protected. we are not going to allow our steel industry to disappear. it was almost gone. i'll tell you what, if our country kept going the way it is going, within two years you wouldn't have a steel industry. we have to have a steel industry and we have to have aluminum. certain industries are important. we will work on, that wasn't a part of this, bob, you may want to say a couple word about that. we were literal talking about that one hour ago. >> thank you, mr. president, i would say first of all they're two separate things as far as the two are concerned. there are grave interests of both countries. we're engaged in talks to preserve the effect of our program and still take care of their needs. hopefully we'll be able to work that out but we are in communication with them. >> and take care of needs of our steel companies. i don't want plants closing. they're hiring thousands of workers all over the country.

i'm not giving that up. reporter: do you have assurances from president lopez obrador he will keep his word? >> we have a good understanding, really good. yes, sir, please. reporter: mr. president, hope reiterate on the tariffs, what specifically would it take for canada or mexico to be exempt from these tariffs? secondly, did you consider dairy the deal breaker? when it came to canada. >> yes, dairy was the deal breaker. for our farmers it is substantially opened up much more. i know they can't open it completely. they have farmers also. they can't be overrun. i tell them that look i understand you have limits but they could do much better. we opened it up to our farmers. so the folks up in wisconsin, i tell you what, i went to wisconsin, i went to iowa. joni knows better than anybody, right? scott walker, who i think is a fantastic governor talks about

it all the time, about our farmers were not treated properly by canada. now they will be treated with respect. they are going to be treated fairly. or as i say in that reciprocal way. very important. yes, sir, go ahead. reporter: thanks, mr. president. seems there was give-and-take on both sides for this deal. i wonder what in your view would be your biggest concession to canada and why you decided to make that concession? number two, dive into more thoughts on with justin trudeau. you talk about tensions. throughout this process what you learned about him, what the state of the relationship is with him had today and going forward? >> well i think my biggest concession would be making the deal because we are the one that people come and want to take from, i'm talking about every country. that gives us airstream does

advantage in negotiation. we never used it with past administration. look at almost every country in the world we have trade deficits. we lose with everybody. so i think my biggest concession was making the deal because we could have done it a different way but it would have been nasty and it wouldn't have been nice and i don't want to have that. we have a great relationship with canada. i think now it will be better than ever. the only problem with justin he loves his people and he fighting hard for his people. i think we, you know we've always had actually a very good relationship. it got a little bit testy in the past couple months that was over this agreement and i understand that but, no, i think, justin's a good person who is doing a good job. he felt very committed to his people. that's what he did. again, this is good for everybody. this is good for canada. good for mexico also. yes, yes, please.

please. go ahead. reporter: thank you, mr. president. as you mentioned you're going to be signing this agreement and your counterpart will be signing the agreement within the next six at this days. then it is up to congress. >> right. reporter: you're confident. i get that. you're a confident guy. >> not at all confident. you tell me, are you guys going to sign isn't i think they will. reporter: if congress controlled by democrats. >> it could happen. they might be willing to they one of the great deals for people and workers, they may be willing to do that for political -- people, political purposes because frankly you know, they will have 2020 in mind. so far i dream about 2020 when i look -- they have 2020 in mind. they want to, they want to do as well as they can. trying to reject even great deals, this is a great deal for our country, great for other countries but it's a great deal for our countries and our

workers. i can't tell you whether or not they will obstruct. whether or not they will resist. their whole campaign is resist. resist i see their signs. they don't know what they are resisting. what are you resisting? let me think about that? they can't ask. they had somebody on this weekend, what are you resisting? they were unable to answer the question. so you know i can't tell you about delay, obstruct, resist because right after this election and i think we'll do well although history is not on our side. i guess in history generally whoever has the white house doesn't do well in midterms but the one difference we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. i think that is a big difference. that is one of our problems too. people that went out and voted for me, and they would be voting for me if i was on the ticket. i'm not on the ticket. congress is on the ticket. i try to tell my people that is the same thing as me in a sense. think of it as the same thing as me. but i think we're going to do

well. i actually think. i mean we have senate races that weren't even in play six months ago. when i started looking at it closely, i won't mention names but there were senators that were not in play. they were not -- you know exactly what i'm talking about, numerous of them. they were not in play. in other words let's not go here, not go to this state, four or five states, they're like even races n one case they're up two points. who knows what happens. as you know a lot of repression polls, or polls that are not very accurate. i see polls i know are false having to do with certain of the races but we had areas, we had congressional seats too where i know it is going to be a positive outcome but you look at what's going on and it doesn't seem to be broadcast that way but i certainly had that with my election. they were telling me i was in trouble in certain states that i end up winning, like in a

landslide. i knew i was going to win them in a landslide but they wouldn't report it that way. you know why? fake news. right behind you -- reporter: do you believe that the trade agreement will be a major issue in the midterms elections? >> it shouldn't be. it's a good agreement. these people, why don't you just exand nafta? they have no idea about business. just extend nafta. we're losing $100 billion a year in deficits, at least, at least to mexico under nafta. but just look at the results. substantial amount to canada although a lot of people say it is pretty much even. we lose a substantial amount. so you know, i think it is a very hard thing to defend. that's all right. look, i understand the world of politics i think as well as anybody. i haven't been doing it that long because i have actually had been, i've been doing it on the other side and i do understand. you know they can take the greatest thing ever done and try and make it sound as bad as

possible. this one is tough. people are coming out for this one and saying, that's incredible whoo we've been able to do. yes, behind you, please. reporter: thank you, mr. president. now that you answered several questions on trade -- >> don't do that. don't, excuse me. do i have a question on trade? one or two more questions on trade. reporter: you answered several questions on trade. >> that is not nice. excuse me. don't do. do you have a question on trade? >> you answered several questions -- >> you have do a question on trade. >> my question on judge kavanaugh. >> yes, please. >> fbi should interview anybody that is appropriate? does that include julie swetnick. >> can you give me your question, please? >> give me your question? >> give her the mic, please. >> reporter: thank you very much. was border security or funding for the wall ask youd during the negotiation? who will pay for the wall? >> yes we're getting 1.6 billion for the wall.

1.6, 1.6. we have about 3.2 billion in the wall. we're doing a lot of work, people don't realize. i don't want to talk about, i can build quickly at one time which is what i want. we've been building last year-and-a-half 3.2 billion, one six, one six. we have another one six. i have a big decision to make after the election whether or not we go forward. you know what? , border security to the people of our country, very important. the wall is a big factor in border security and i really believe that the people of our country, they want the wall and they want border security. they don't want open borders like the democrats don't want to have. they don't want crime pouring into our country. they don't want ms-13 pouring into our country. they don't want that i really think, i have a very big decision to make sometime right after the election very quickly. you know what comes new after election? do i want to do it before the election? personally yes, but i don't want to do that for a different reason. i have very fine people running

in close races it may affect them, may not. it may be good for them. i happen to think it will be good for them. the our people want security. the women of our country, they want security. they don't want to have thousands of people pouring across the border. i'll tell you what, they want to have i.c.e. i.c.e. walks into ms-13 and these gangs and they treat them like it is just another day in the office. they're rough and they're tough and they love our country. i'm treating i.c.e. good and i'm treating our law enforcement good. the democrats don't want to take care of our law enforcement. the democrats don't want to take care of our military. we will have a decision to make sometime after, very close to after the election is over, that will be on border security and the wall. but border security. the wall is a big factor. okay, you want -- reporter: was part of the conversation and negotiation? >> it was. with mexico we talked about it. it was a big part. certain things and certain understanding are had.

at the same time we don't want to mix it up too much. this is a very big deal and very good deal for everybody. but border security and security generally is a very big factor. we also have drugs. sometimes, some people would say it's a very similar thing. but, we talked about drugs with mexico. that is a very, very big factor. we have a lot of good understanding. we'll be discussing that with them. reporter: thank you, mr. president. >> it was a factor absolutely with the deal. okay, let's go, get off trade. you people are falling asleep with trade. to me it is most exciting thing you can talk about, right, joni? right. [applause] let's go. >> thank you, mr. president in a tweet this weekend you said it incorrect to say you're limiting the scope of the fbi investigation into judge kavanaugh. but your own statement on friday made it very clear you said this investigation must be limited in scope. so which is it? >> i didn't say on friday. what i said let the senate decide whatever they want to do

is okay with me. and also the fbi. i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. at the same time just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really, you know, you look at his life, until this happened, what a change he has gone through. what his family has gone through. the trauma, for a man that has never had any accusation, any, he never had a bad statement about him. i mean, i think he was number one in his class at yale. he was number one in his law school at yale. and then, what he has gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. so i want the fbi -- this is now their seventh investigation. not like they're just starting. i want them to do a very comprehensive investigation. whatever that means according to

the senators and the republicans and the republican majority. i want them to do that. i want it to be comprehensive. i this it is a good thing for judge kavanaugh, i think it is a good thing. not a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. with that said i would like it to go quickly, the reason i like it to go quickly, so simple, because it is unfair to him at this point. what his wife is going through, what his beautiful children is going through is not describable. is not describable. it is not fair. i think it is far to do it to me, i've been going from day one, long before i got to office you've been doing it. almost became, i think for me it is like a part of my job description to handle this crap but as far as, as far as, this is man not from his world. you know what, if they are not

going to want him, i think that would be a shame, i'm with him all the way, i mean, a charge made or said to have occurred 36 years ago and nothing happened since. and look, i feel badly for all parties. i feel badly for everybody. i feel badly for our country. this is so bad for our country but i will tell you i watched those senators on the democrat side and i thought it was a disgrace. partially because i know them. i know them too well. you know what? they are not angels. reporter: are you saying your white house put no limitations -- >> no, my white house is doing whatever the senators want. you don't understand what i'm saying. you do understand. you just don't want to report it that way. just so you understand, my white house will do whatever the senators want. i'm open to whatever they want. the one thing i want is speed. now, they started i believe on friday.

could have even been a little bit earlier than that. they started. they have worked round-the-clock on saturday, sunday, they're working right now. i mean they're covering a lot of territory. this is the seventh investigation of judge kavanaugh. number seven. this isn't number one. they started on friday. they worked all weekend. they have gone late into the evenings. the fbi is really working hard. and they're putting in a lot of hours. so hopefully they can come up with what everybody is looking for. no, i'm guided by the senate. i want to make the senate happy because ultimately they're making the judgment. i'm not making the judgment. i already made my judgment. the senate is making a judgment on judge kavanaugh. that is a very important thing to do. yes, go ahead, peter. go ahead. reporter: just for clarity, just for clarity so it is clear, in fact it is up to you to instruct

the fbi? >> it is up to me. but i'm instructing them as i feel what the senate wants. the senate is making this decision. and i'm instructing them as per what the senate is looking for. >> just for clarity, will you instruct the white house counsel, don mcgahn to give the fbi free rain to interview whoever they feel is necessary? >> i have so instructed him. and i did it again over 9 weekend because i see the was, i don't want to use the word in this case misleading, a much more complex subject than anybody would understand and most people understand but essentially i have done that. but i did also say within the bounds of what the senate wands. we don't want to go on to use an expression, often used by me, we don't want to go on a witch-hunt, do we? >> just to be clear should the fbi interview all three of brett kavanaugh's accusers? >> wouldn't bother me at all. now it depend. i don't know all three of the accusers. certainly i imagine they're

going to interview two. the third one i don't know much about, but it wouldn't bother me at all. i've been, i heard that the third one has, i have no idea if this is true, has very little credibility. if there is any credibility, interview the third one. but i want you, to interview, i want it to be done quickly because it is unfair to the family and to the judge. it is unfair, so unfair to his kids and his wife. >> how about for the accusers? has this process been fair to them? >> certainly we gave the doctor a tremendous time, which is great. see spoke well but you know there are some questions that haven't been answered like what year was it. what day was it? where was it? do you know the location? do you know the house? a lot of different things. people are saying what is going on? with all of that, you cannot say that we've done anything but be

respectful. and i, and i do. i respect her position very much. i respect her position very much. i believe, and again, this is republican senators and this is the senate, i believe they have been very respectful to the doctor, dr. ford. >> isn't that why the fbi should interview all of them to exonerate brett kavanaugh? >> i think the fbi should interview anybody that they want within reason. but you have to say within reason. they should interview, but they should also be guided and i'm being guided by what the senators are looking for because they have to make the choice. go ahead. now you can go. >> should brett kavanaugh be interviewed by the fbi? >> i think so. i think it is fine if they do. i don't know. that is up to them. i think that he spoke very conclusively and very well. i think it has been very rough period of time, i guaranty he never had a period of time like this. when he was chosen everybody said, this will go so quickly.

look, people thought 10 years ago that brett kavanaugh was going to be a supreme court justice, because of his intellect. because of his career, because of the fact that there are no games. now they talk about alcohol. they talk about all of the things that you hear. frankly, you take a look at, they're bringing up subjects, we wouldn't know about this over the last 20 years, 30 years of his career. you know what happened? they're going back to high school? and they're saying, he drank a lot one evening in high school? you know, i tell you what. i happen to know some united states senators. one who is on the other side who is pretty aggressive. i've seen that person in very bad situations. okay? i've seen that person in very, very bad situations. somewhat compromising. you know, i think it is very unfair to bring up things like

this. however, whatever the senators want is okay with me. they're going to be making a decision, whatever they want is okay with me. go ahead. that is enough, peter. reporter: for clarity, sir? >> this crap, you referred i've been dealing with this crap for years? >> i think the press has treated me unbelieverly unfairly. when i won, the good thing now the press finally gets it. now they will finally treat me fairly. they got worse. they're worse now than ever. they're loco. that's okay. you put up with it. go ahead. i use that word because of the fact that we made a deal with mexico. no, no. please sit down. go ahead. you're going to be next. >> i incident know. i thought -- >> go ahead. reporter: two questions about judge kavanaugh. there are concerns that he may have lied or mischaracterized his drinking while testifying. if they find he did, do you

think that bars him from being your supreme court nominee? >> i watched him, i was surprised how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer. and he has had a little bit of difficulty. i mean, he talked about things that happened when he drank. i mean, this is not a man that said alcohol was, that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. i thought he was actually going back so many years, i thought he was excellent. the interesting thing, nobody asked him about what happened in the last 25 or 30 years during his professional career. there were no bad reports. i mean there are bad reports on everybody in here. most of the people sitting down, except for mike pence by the way. [laughter] if we find one on him i think that is going to be, that will be the greatest shock of all time. no, there are bad reports on everybody. i'm looking at people, i'm sort of, look at some of these people

asking the questions. okay. look at blumenthal. he lied about vietnam. he didn't just say hey i went to vietnam. for 15 years he said he was a war hero. he fought in danang. province. that is his name, dnang richard, he never went to vietnam. we need honesty and integrity. he lied when he was the attorney general of connecticut. he lied. i don't mean a little bit. then when he got out he dropped out of the race he won anyway because democrats always win in connecticut. he won close, probably closest ever. here is guy lied, up there talking like he is holier than thou. take a look at his record. when he got out and when he apologized he was crying, the tears were all over the place. and now he acts like how dare you. take a look at the judge, who

has led an exemplary life. i mean you going back to high school because he had beer? i think the judge has been pretty amazing about describing his situation with alcohol and with beer. i mean take a look at cory booker. he ran newark, new jersey into the ground. he was a horrible mayor. and he made statements that when he was in high school or college, what he was doing. he actually made the statements. and now he is talking about judge kavanaugh. and i could go through a whole list of them. okay. look at dianne feinstein. telling me about time. diane feinstein knew about this two months earlier. if she want ad really thorough investigation, we had all the time in the world. she didn't have to wait until after the hearing was closed, essentially. she should have said listen, i have a problem. i have this report. i would like the fbi to look at it while we're doing the

hearings. we had two months. no, she didn't do that. she waited until we were closed. and then they probably leaked it but you know, who am i to say. but she probably leaked it based on her very bad body language the other day. more importantly in a sense, for her to have waited that period of time and now for you democrats, i guess i'm including you too, media, right, i consider you a part of the democrat party for you, for the democrats, to be talking about we want more time for the fbi. if you wanted more time for the fbi, why didn't diane feinstein bring this up? now you know that she showed this is to other democrats. she is not the only one. she showed it to other democrats. more than just her knew about this big confidential thing. it was confidential until the hearing was over. after the hearing was over they went public. why didn't they do it during the hearing? we could have had all the time

in the world. you know why? because they're dishonest people. okay, yes, please. >> you didn't answer my question, mr. president. you didn't answer my question to the president. if he did lie -- >> i don't think he did. here is what, i'm just saying, i'm not a drinker. i can honestly say i never had a beer in my life, okay. reporter: right. >> one of my only good traits. i don't drink. whenever they're looking, never had a glass of alcohol. i never had alcohol. for whatever reason. can you imagine if i had, what a mess i would be? i would be the world's worst. but i never drank, okay? but i can tell you, i watched that hearing. and i watched a man saying that he did have difficulty as a young man with drink. the one question i didn't ask is, how about the last 20 years. have you had difficulty last 20 years. nobody said anything bad about him, many, years. they go back to high school. i graduated from high school and

i, while i did not drink i saw a lot of people drinking. they drink beer and would go crazy. they were in high school. they were 16, 17 years old, i saw a lot of it. does that mean that they can't do something that they want to do with their life? so it's a very tough thing. i really believe that he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot, and so i don't know whether there would be a big discrepancy port. >> reporter: to wrap up. >> you've understand enough. you really had enough. go ahead, please. reporter: judge kavanaugh said he was targeted by democrats? has he made the process overly political? how can you assure the american people he will deliver impartial decisions? >> you have to ask him had that question. he has been treated horribly a good man with a great family. i think he has been treated horribly. lindsey graham i thought was terrific the other day.

he brought up one point that is now being discussed by a lot of people, and that is who is going to want to run for office, be in office, take an appointment, not just supreme court, many positions. i have right now 360 people that aren't being approved. they're very qualified. nobody says they're not qualified. but senator schumer is not approving them because of resist and obstruct. it is much longer than ever in the history of our country. like i think double the time almost. it is far more people than anybody in the history of our country. most of those people are routine approvals. these are people that gave up jobs. they gave up their life to come and serve our country and schumer and his group won't approve them. they're slow-walking them. everything is going at 30 hours, meaning they take them out 30 hours. person that is going to be approved. it is a disgrace. so when the judge brings up whether it is politics or not, i don't know, you have to ask him

had. i can say this he has been really, treated really, really horrible. reporter: are you concerned? >> i'm not concerned. i'm concerned that we get great, great people on the u.s. supreme court. that is what i'm concerned. i want to have great people. i don't want to have to call people for any court and have them say, sir, it is such a great honor, but no thank you. i just can't do it. i just can't do it that will be a sad day for our country. we're going to come close to that because i know people now that say, i don't know how he does it. i don't know why he would have taken it. known knew a thing like this could have happened. when justice, now justice gorsuch got approved, it was rough but it was nothing like what they're doing to this man and what they're coming up with. in many cases fabricating. many stories were pulled back and certain stories were pulled back that were horrible. what they're doing to this man and his family is very, very sad and very bad for our nation.

yes. reporter: mr. president, you said some senators are not angels and you have seen some of them -- >> i would say some of them. reporter: compromising situations and can you tell us who and what exactly situations? >> no i will save it for a book and write it. i'm not giving it to you, please, go ahead. reporter: mr. president, if the fbi finds other witnesses who can corroborate with the account of any of the accusers would that be enough -- >> i would certainly look at that. i'm open, i'm open. i think he is a fine man. i think he is a great scholar. i so believed him he said what he did he focused on being number one at yale. being number one at high school. so focused on law. i can so understand that. so important the way he said that, it made an impact on me. he was so focused on being number one at yale. and i believe he was number one at yale. but, i understood that very

well. reporter: i want to ask about something else you brought up today, the las vegas shootings. >> yes. reporter: frustration more hasn't been done that past year and more about bump stocks. >> you're wrong about that, in order to eliminate, terminate bump stocks we have to go through a procedure. we're in the final stage of that procedure. lawyers were telling me, over next couple weeks, you just can't write it up. rules and regulations in this country are really tough even for something like that. we're knocking out bump stocks. i told the nra. bump stocks are gone but to do it you have to go to public hearings way we've had. you have to go through all sorts of regulatory control systems. and we are in the final couple of weeks. is our attorney around someplace, please? he said we're in the fine, we're in the final two or three weeks, and i will be able to write out

bump stocks. it's a process, statutorily takes a year to do it properly. reporter: any other actions you're planning to help prevent -- >> we're working with congress on both sides. we are working on a lot of different things. that was a horrible thing. but we're working on both sides of that question. and bump stock is almost gone. but again to do it so it is meaningful, the lawyer just said it, we've gone through a whole procedure. if you look, you could call derek, who you know very well and he has gone through the full procedure. we've done it absolutely by the book and in a very short period of time, bump stocks will be ruled out, okay? reporter: thank you. >> yes. you've had one. yes, ma'am. go ahead, please. please, please. sit down. reporter: mr. president a final trade question, since the steel and aluminum tariffs won't be coming down from canada and mexico can you talk about whether there is discussion

ending retaliatory tariffs against -- >> they're not retaliatory -- they're really trying to get very bad things from happening. they were dumbing in our country, and it was china and various others, were dumping massive. as of dead steel, it is called dead steel. it is also imperfect steel. inside that steel was a lot of bad things that make for a weaker steel. so when we're building bridges and you have mud steel or other quantities of other material in that steel it's a very bad thing, it is very unsafe. it is not just economic. it -- we have, miners have been very thankful what i've done. you saw that the other night in west virginia. we have metallegic coal. this is not for heating and cooling and electric.

this is used to make steel. those mines are opening up and we're making steel. the price will end up being less, because we don't have the shipping problems, when you ship it from places so far away you'll see. we'll have hundreds of new plants opened up in our country and competing against each other and outsiders won't be able to compete. so you understand what was going to happen, they were going to knock out every steel plant we had and double and triple the price and we couldn't have done anything about it. that is a very dangerous thing and we've employed a lot of people and billions of dollars is now flowing into our treasury. okay, yeah in the back, please. please. reporter: staying here on trade, the stock market has liked the announcement today. when we walked in here the dow was up 250 points or so there are some who are worried because of the threat of future tariffs it could potentially stifle an economy that is hot, a stock market that is hot, but yet today you have once again said, hey as it relates to china more tariffs could be coming down the

line. are you worried that potentially you are somewhat suppressing this economy from running further? >> i'm using them to negotiate. hopefully we can make a great deal with china a fair deal and a reciprocal deal and a great deal and fair deal. we have a lot of catching up to do with china. when they drain us for $500 billion a year, which is probably the real number, and that is not including the theft of intellectual property and other things and a lot of people say it is hard to value but a lot of people say that could be $300 billion a year, that is a tremendous, you just can't let that happen. no, we're using tariffs very successfully to negotiate. if we're unable to make a fair deal, then we'll use tariffs. mexico, if you see mexico and canada we're way beyond the deal. the nice thing about the deal with them it is not a specific product, it's a products across

the line whether it is dairy, a lot of products, you see the list of products, there are many, many products and they're all included. so across the board. reporter: mr. president on china. one more on trade. reporter: go ahead. mr. president, if the fbi does find something and brett kavanaugh folds, is there a plan b? >> i don't want to talk about plan b i hope that he gets approved. i hope that the report comes out like i think it should, like it will, i hope, i hope. i'm waiting just like you. certainly if they find something i will take that into consideration, absolutely. i have a very open mind. the person that takes that position will be there a long time. i have a very open mind. i think he is outstanding person. i think he has been treated horribly. even if you are going to bring up some subjects that were

brought up they didn't have to treat him viciously and violently as he treated them. reporter: on trade -- >> thank you all very much. thank you very much, everybody. neil: watching a very combative president trump using opportunity to make announcement on a deal with canada. also to respond to questions about where this fbi investigation stands on brett kavanaugh. we are getting separate reports that the interviewing process of that investigation could be wrapped up as soon as tomorrow. we don't know how likely that is but, senior sources are telling our chad pergram and others that among the people they're reaching out to, once that happened would be susan collins and lisa murkowski, two republican senators from maine and alaska respectively. also jeff flake the man who initiated the process and delay, final senate vote until fbi investigation could ensue of the

allegations of for ford and deborah ramirez. despite criticisms of democrats that he stifled or limited investigation, he said nothing of the sort. he is open to investigating or having the fbi investigate charges by julie swetnick. she is the michael avenatti client claims a number of issues and attacks on her by then brett kavanaugh, when they were students at yale. beyond that, what we do know is that the president is saying i'm going to leave this in the hands of the fbi and senate calls the shots even though technically the president calls the shots on what the senate recommends. he says he has not interfered. he has no intention of interfering with the investigation. he says the fbi's hands should not be tied and will not be tied but many democrats say that is not the case. markets right now, they have us teasing records once again. this is a sweeping victory for the president. if he gets everything that has

been spelled out in this deal, no matter what you think of him this is across the board stunning achievement. if it heralds something of that sort with china, markets advancing to degree they have. this ripped up the old nafta accord, first done under president clinton. now coming under the usmca, the u.s. mexico canada agreement. calls among other things, by year 2020, the car must have 3/4 had of components manufactured in canada, mexico, u.s., not any foreign country, versus 62 1/2% today. by 2020, 30% of the work should be done by workers making $16 an hour. 40% by 2023. right now the average is closer to 20%. further it commits canadian companies to companies, accept more drug companies doing business north of the border in

canada and increases intellectual property protections here this is stunning achievement likely not face much pushback in congress because it affords the same protections of nafta, but as one analyst said, stronger with more guaranties. that could be decided by democratic congress. remember, tariffs remain in effect until this is ultimately approved in all three countries. it is sort of a defacto given in canada and mexico. more than an uphill battle in our country but it is a

stunning, sweeping trade agreement that the markets looked over very, very critically here decided a trend that could be their friend on top of deals already made with the likes of south korea, european union, a host of other countries. japan included. so let's get the read on that. market reaction to all of this. nuveen asset management chief strategist bob doll. bob, is the reaction markets are giving this justified? >> it's a bigger reaction than i thought. i sumos people thought canada would get done. it is sweeping as you said. this is good for the u.s. it is good for canada and mexico. i think it is good for the world. your last statement is the key one of the it is the context, mexico, canada, the your pines, japan, what's left? china. this gives the president a little more leverage.

this is difficult one for china and will take more time than people think. canada, looked like it would take a while. but the folks stayed up late and got the deal done. neil: president made a remark to blake burman on this, going to chinese to, get a deal with china, hopefully they will never have to be implemented, the threat of their implemented obviously does weigh on markets if it turns out but clearly he cornered china. china is a box right now because we made ostensibly, generally verbal deals with everyone else. what do you think? >> i think with these deals making progress and getting is to be dotted and ts to be crossed is it possible the senate corrals support from other countries to go to china to try to get something done there? >> that would be powerful. us acting alone with china on the other side, this will take

some time but this opens the door for the possibility and for markets. fewer tariffs, less taxes, more business gets done. neil: quickly, talking about markets going on the fourth quarter, while it is not the worst month of the markets come out traditionally the month it was or we do remember october 19 87, we remember october 1929. we remember about octobers. this one starting off on a good foot. what do you think? >> i'm worried about every month when we start out, neil. i'm not worried about the history of october. what will earnings look like. what about the conversations about forward guidance look like. we know earnings growth is slowing but assumes from kind of plus 25 to plus 20 which is

still fantastic news. what do companies say about cost pressures. transportation pressures. any tariff issues. this is what we have to lean carefully into what we go from here but earnings news should be good, neil. neil: we talk about our markets compared to other markets abroad not doing nearly so well, the latest stats going into this trading day, we're trading 16% premium, in some cases anywhere from a 12 to 16% premium over foreign markets, particularly those in asia, that have tumbled badly because of the trade fears and even some in europe that just sort of meandered along. normally that kind of a performance gap can only be corrected and can't be sustained until either market on top cops down or markets on the bottom come up.

what do you think? >> i think having diversification outside of the u.s. makes sense, comma, but, as an u.s. investor i would be still overweight the u.s. think about it. we have stronger economic growth which is leading to stronger earnings growth. that comes from primarily the tax bill or the roll back or absence much new regulations. that is a powerful combination other countries can't talk about. neil: bob doll, thank you very much, my friend, good seeing. >> you thanks, neil. neil: back to the white house. blake burman he did ask the question about what's next. that is the biggie. one trade relationship that could be thorniest to get through that is china. the president said he didn't think it would come to blows so to speak, but what is your sentiment? reporter: i want to follow up with him, neil, how long does this runway go with china? is this potentially months, even years there could be back and forth and this threat of tariffs with china? this white house is not

committed to a date, whether or not how long this could potentially go. the president clearly talks about the market, and economy running up, no doubt about it. one thing some would say is, which i asked him, if there wasn't this threat of tariffs hovering over it, how much further could it have run at this point? in any event at white house it was a pretty big celebration for this president on one of his signature campaign events. the president officially agreeing to a new deal, nafta 2.0, u.s. mexico canada agreement, whatever you want to call it. going forward there is big political question hanging over this because now this goes to congress, specifically the nexts from here on out. president said in theory he doesn't think this should have any trouble up on capitol hill but reality is no one knows if the democrats are going to be the ones controlling the house and even if they are or are not,

how much support this would get from republicans and democrats. the democrats acknowledged it's a very big open-ended question. watch. >> they might be willing to throw one of the great deals for people and workers. they may be willing to do that for political -- people, political purposes because frankly you know, they will have 2020 in mind. so i dream at 2020 when i look at what is going. they have 2020 in mind, they want to do as well as they can. so trying to reject even great deals, like this is a great deal for our country. reporter: neil, we love the secret service around here. they protect us. they protect the president. they respectively asked us to leave. we will follow the wishes. send it back to you. they hosted us here in the rose garden quite some time. neil: thank you very much friend. thank you at white house. when they shoe them away we'll not get into that. fbi investigation underway right now, the president had a few things to say about it including

not so much these reports we're getting that it could wrap up very soon as early as tomorrow. but he is not weighing in or trying to ininfluence one way or the other. left open the possibility, this third woman, julie swetnick, michael avenatti client, they want to ask her a question. the there were reports in the press not saying that. democrats are saying white house is orchestrating a limited and focused investigation. chad pergram, on the investigation of some sort could wrap up as soon as tomorrow. what is going on? >> i spoke with a senior republican senate source who indicated they might be able to get this wrapped up tomorrow. the question how soon can they attempt to move this on the floor? now the senate technically started debate on friday. they will resume that on the kavanaugh nomination today. but then there is this faa reauthorization bill in the queue. the question is does

mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader move not to end debate, file cloture is the term on capitol hill, on wednesday? does he move before the fbi investigation is wrapped up. if he does so does that interrupt the agreement with jeff flake, susan collins and lisa murkowski? one republican source said they have to talk with them if they're okay forging ahead. republican leadership in the senate has to be very careful right now not being perceived as rushing this. they said they want adweek. keep in mind there was a lot of criticism from jeff flake over the conservatives who said he is not delaying process. but brett kavanaugh would not have votes, potential of having votes not for jeff flake. they're sitting at 49 yes votes, getting to susan collins, merck mixer, joe manchin of west virginia, heidi heitkamp, could see ceiling going high as 53. it is four-day process, when mitch mcconnell moves to end

debate, called filing cloture, we don't expect that to be wednesday if not later in the week, neil. neil: is there a risk not letting this investigation and interview process go to friday if for not other crass reason then to provide cover to republicans who are getting criticism they're rushing everything? >> that is absolutely the concern because this was an effort to mollify those republicans and frankly some democrats they would dot the is and cross the ts to make sure they covered every jot and title. they can't pull the trigger to move early in the senate debate because you roll the senate blocks. once that happens it is off to the races. why no earlier than wednesday, probably later in the week. that is why this confirmation vote on brett kavanaugh could drift into the weekend or maybe even early next week. neil: a real procedural question, i always appreciate these educational moments, one has it that the president was saying just now in this rose

garden press conference that you know, he approved the fbi investigation but it is the senate's call. he left open if they want to interview this third woman, julie swetnick, have at it. is that true? in other words the president has to be one to initiate the fbi investigation but what they do, how they go about it, not his call, he is not interfering what do you think. >> absolutely. it is up to the senate when they want to forge ahead on this. that is a little bit of a political question here. then you get into a parliamentary question how much time it consumes. that is why thattry up very rat of flake who says he is a yes and maybe susan collins, lisa murkowski, that they feel he is rushing this, move to end debate before the fbi done due diligence. we don't know what susan collins and lisa murkowski think, do they need to talk to swetnick? what are the parameters of that investigation? i would point you back specifically what jeff flake said at the judiciary committee

meeting friday afternoon. he said up to a week and not more. depends when the fbi formally started friday, saturday? nobody is really clear. what does that really mean. one thing i learned here in the senate for years and years, neil, timing up here is not exactly swiss. when they say seven days, that probably means nine or 10. when they say 10 days, that probably means 15. i do know once mcconnell starts that process, that is four days. you can't turn off the clocks. that is four days right there. neil: chad pergram, thank you very much. on capitol hill following this closely. with us senior advise to president ronald reagan ed rollins. ed, if they have the key interviews wrapped up tomorrow, the immediate criticism would be whoa, whoa, you're moving too fast. >> the critical thing is what in the interviews. you can talk to four, five, 10 people, very quickly, what have they said become as vehicle for democrats? democrats will not roll over and play dead. this is about power. obviously they exerted all the

power they had last week. flake on "60 minutes,", flake basically forward to put pressure on him. he is hero for woman. neil: i get impression he is not guaranteed yes. >> he is not guaranteed yes. the two women senators have not committed. they had on objections. you have a fbi document every member of senate will have a copy of. what happens in an fbi investigation which i looked at a lot of them, it is raw data. he was a drunk or was this, was that. i doubt these people are interviewing him will only say wonderful guy which he is, straight-a student and didn't do things he said. there whether it is incriminating document democrats want or a lot of garbage put into the documents. it is never cleansed. they use that document to beat him to death, rear people up.

i hope at the end day we get him through. this is very fine mine put through but there is no guarranty. neil: when the allegations came out from michael avenatti about the woman he would reveal, julie swetnick, many democrats were concerned this one on rival networks ready to pounce on potential bad news on the president were a little speech us on this. i'm wondering now, given the possibility that the fbi doesn't or will not interview her whether that will use -- we can't accept what the fbi did or republicans on fence or democrats on the fence might have excuse to reject nomination? >> you're absolutely right. the difference this is no longer in committee. this is full floor. several days of debates and hearings. outrageous things will be said. the line is drawn, they have to

stop the hearing and stop this nominee. republicans have to get this guy through. the critical thing is this big, big consequences. republicans will be furious across this country if a man of this impeccable character and credentials get rejected by power plays of the democrats. neil: can i ask you a weird question. you were a great presidential worked for one of the greatest ronald reagan, we'll get to your questions about trade, i will talk about trade, trade, trade. we'll get back to kavanaugh. but, did ronald reagan of do something like that any want to talk about this, this, this, tax cuts, whatever we'll get to the questions on, iran-contra or whatever? >> reagan was very disciplined about his message. we had a premise, like last week we would not talk about kavanaugh or trade, we talk about the united nations would lay that out for a week. this week we would start trade. spend entire week doing trade.

the problem with administration, they chase rabbits all the time down the rabbit holes this is president who basically has a train of thought that basically goes all over the place. i thought it was very disciplined in this particular hearing but the key thing that americans are most concerned about today, they don't understand the mexican, canadian trade agreement which you and i both know is very significant issue. neil: right. >> they can't to talk about kavanaugh, this woman, like took the entire political system and poured gasoline over it, is dr. ford the match that lights it. neil: we'll see. ed rollins, thank you very, very much. more details on the trade accord with canada. it is sweeping, unprecedented. it going to make history if it gets passed

it's a privilege for them to do business with us, and i'm not talking about mexico, canada. i'm talking about everybody. everybody. it's a privilege for china to do business with us. it's a privilege for the european union, who has treated us very badly, but that's coming along, to do business with us. japan, every country, it's a privilege for them to come in and attack the piggy bank. neil: that was the president just a few moments ago talking about his deal with canada that will include them in what is no longer nafta anymore, but something called the usmca, the

u.s./mexico/canada agreement. if everything comes to fruition as promised and i know that's a leap because some agreements sort of fall apart by the time they get to congress and get voted out of congress, then there's the little wrinkle of the midterm elections. remember, this is going to be submitted to congress likely after the change of the midterms and whether that means the democratic majority in the house and/or senate, all bets are off, but having said that, these are some sweeping changes i want to get into with the "wall street journal" global economics editor. if the promise can be met, that is, more north america production, more specifically u.s. production that sticks on this side of the world versus getting stuff from another side of the world, that's a big victory. if it can also mean higher pay for workers in mexico, for them. so on paper, potentially, huge boom that the markets seem to be pouncing on. is the pounce justified? >> well, yeah, i think trade has been a big weight on the market

all year, and whenever investors see signs that the trade battle that the united states is engaged in might be disappearing and getting worked out, i think you will see morale rallies lik this. this deal is a really interesting test right now for democrats. this is a very labor-friendly deal. neil: absolutely. absolutely. >> in addition to demanding more high wage labor going into cars here in the u.s., it encourages more union-friendly rules in mexico so the big test for democrats is are they going to put their money where their mouth is. are they actually going to work with the president on this in getting this passed next year, particularly if they control the house. neil: you got to wonder, he might run into more opposition from republicans than democrats, but leaving that aside, i would like to get your take on how he wants to and seems to be trying to do, isolate china. >> right. neil: you talked about, and the

president has talked about all these other deals, verbal or otherwise, he's got with the european union, of course with south korea, notably japan, very close to something on that front, now this with canada and mexico. obviously the one country sticking out here is the one that the president argues sticks it the most to us, china. where do you think that's going? >> well, i think a lot of people in the trade arena have been arguing for a long time that the president should have focused all of his energy on china from the get-go. he promised in the campaign that he was going to rewrite nafta so that was a campaign promise that he had to make and had the try to keep. neil: maybe to get china to come to the table -- i didn't want to jump on you -- the strategy was to get the other guys to come to the table and i will force the deal on china. what do you think? >> i think that strategy seems to be playing out. we now have a north american economic zone that looks more

powerful coming out of this and that potentially isolates the chinese. he's trying to do a deal with japan. you know, the other really interesting facet of this is we had a trade deal called tpp, trans-pacific partnership, with japan and other asian economies that the obama administration was trying to use to isolate china. the president threw that out. he thought it was disadvantageous to the united states. do we try to revive that in some way. there are some interesting pieces in this u.s./mexico/canada deal that could be worked to some kind of new asia arrangement like currency protection. i wonder if this is potentially a benchmark for the kind of deals the president will try to do with other asian trading partners, again to try to isolate the chinese. neil: very, very interesting. good seeing you, my friend. thank you very, very much. that is the big one and obviously, we are a long way from getting any commitment on the part of china to so much as blink.

but the effect is obvious. i had a chance to talk over the weekend with the white house policy director, peter navarro, dismissing fears that the battle with china alone will lead to higher prices. take a look. are you worried, though, that this holiday season, american consumers could look at higher prices? maybe they can absorb that and are perfectly happy to. consumer confidence is at decades-long highs so maybe you get through it but are you worried about it? >> here's the lesson of low prices which are the creation of unfair trade practices, dumping by countries like china. low prices have a high cost. it's lost factories, lost jobs, lost intellectual property and technology, and we cannot afford to lose any more of that. i think the stock market is accurately reflecting the fact that the tough trade actions that the president is taking has a very, very modest and

negligible macro economic effect. neil: for now, he thinks it will be minimal, it could be there, but it will not be a big economic issue one way or the other. that is getting really tough with the chinese. really, the lone country, lone region, if you will, standing apart from trade deals scored or at least proposed on virtually every other country on every other continent. to susan li, moody's capital market chief economist john lonsky. is he right that we can deal with this this holiday season, it isn't going to be crazy, prices going through the roof? >> i'm not very worried about it but in the event that companies, retailers, feel forced to go ahead and hike prices because of these tariffs, i think it means lower sales and otherwise. let's not forget that of late, we have seen home sales drop and motor vehicle sales drop in part because of higher prices. consumers are showing resistance to higher prices and i think that's going to continue. neil: one of the things i

suggest, not that the administration takes notes from me, they clearly don't, but i can't tell you the number of people, maybe you have seen it in your reporting, too, that think the governments pay these tariffs. >> consumers do. neil: i don't know if they properly are prepped for that this holiday season. >> i don't think they actually felt it yet, to be honest, because consumer confidence is at 18-year highs if you look at the numbers from target and kohl's, the numbers go on and on. neil: walmart put out a warning. >> that's right, they said prices may go up 5%, not 10% to -- you were going to say? >> let's not forget, the moving three-month average, auto sales peaked in november 2017 -- >> coming off a 17 million auto sales record clip. >> once they decided to cut back on the sales incentive programs in detroit, it adversely affected sales. home sales i think, they have been moving lower, higher -- >> that's because inventory

isn't in the market and prices have been going up. >> there's plenty of new homes for sale, okay. >> 10% of the market. 90% of the market is existing home sales. >> i think there's going to be -- when the fed talks about the containment of inflation expectations, what the fed is talking about is the consumer is looking for price growth no greater than roughly 2%. when the american consumer sees prices growing by significantly more than 2%, know what the consumer does? they don't buy. they go ahead and say -- >> we haven't seen that. >> i think you have seen it with autos. >> i have seen an incredible earnings quarter from the likes of target, from kohl's, walmart. in fact, target's ceo says this is the best foot traffic he's seen in 13 years. >> that's because prices are still contained. in the event they take off in holiday season -- neil: kudos to both of you. some, you might be surprised, find my discussions on this rather cerebral and dull.

but susan, one of the things that's come up, interested to get your point as well, is that everything has to go together just right and i think it was some chinese official over the weekend telling the "financial times" forget about us being isolated. we spent centuries growing as a power being isolated. i think -- >> i don't think that's necessarily true, either. neil: we are used to the isolation thing. >> i think they built their empire on trade as well, whether it's gun powder, whether it's beef, i think they recognize the history of trade and how lucrative that is for an economy. neil: trade with other countries. >> they could, that is true, but this is the largest country in the world, largest market in the world. this is where they sell half a trillion dollars worth of goods every year. i think they recognize where they need to go. neil: what if this drags on? the one holdout, but the big one, if china is just a holdout for awhile? >> it hurts china more than the united states. let's not forget for the year-to-date the shanghai

composite is down 14% or 15%. u.s. equities are up 9% to 10%. big difference. china is seeing some of the slowest manufacturing growth they have seen in years. they are hurting because exports aren't growing rapidly enough. at the same time, because of tighter credit conditions, domestic spending's not doing all that well. neil: as soon as an agreement is made, even a verbal one with japan, even a verbal one, commitment or promise with south korea, the markets do turn around. >> the south korean markets? yeah, they do. because they think the overhang has been cleared. same thing with canada. four-month highs after a framework agreement. hasn't even passed yet. neil: what did canada get out of this deal? >> they got dispute panels in place, there's a way to still argue and arbitrate in this deal. they have access to the largest market in the world, right, also protection on their autos so they won't be tariffed at all regardless. there are sideline agreements between the two.

neil: know what's weird, i want to get your thoughts on this, more like a psychological one, but the fact that the president, remember the stories, he wasn't talking to trudeau when he was last week in new york, he skipped an opportunity to speak to him. the canadians say that didn't happen. trudeau will have an uphill re-election battle. >> i think it's a win for him because of that. neil: but is it your sense he caved or the president got the better of him? the pattern with this president is he rips the leaders of these countries beforehand, then gets the deal, it's a great country, we love the canadians. >> he may have won because things could have been worse. who knows, he may benefit from this. they now have a minimum wage in effect for auto workers and that's going to be a greater benefit to canada. neil: minimum wage, $16. >> that's right. neil: who knows. >> it's a strange trade agreement in that really, it was as if it was designed by a democratic president, because of

the fact you have more regulation of the auto industry, you have this hiking of wages in the auto industry. neil: they are going to be able to get traction in canada and everything else. >> protection of i.p., additional services, pharmaceutical companies. i don't really think it was that democratic. i thought it was very republican in that there's protection of industry. neil: -- what is worker, union-friendly constituents, that might be more of a battle? >> i think in the end if you look at the details, i would say labor unions should be happy with this. >> there's a higher probability a democrat congress that's going to vote in favor of this package than a republican. share prices of ford and general motors are significantly higher. neil: we will have more

republican than democratic support or barack obama with tpp, more republican than democratic support. maybe opposite. who knows. still early. guys, thank you both very, very much. all right, stock is soaring on all this but is this run-up really justified? we will explore.

what would it look like... ...if we listened more? could the right voice, the right set of words, bring us all just a little closer, get us to open up, even push us further? it could. if we took the time to listen. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible.

and listen for a change.

neil: well, eventually brett kavanaugh might get to the nation's highest court but he isn't there now and isn't there by the start of their new term which began today, october 1. the supreme court beginning that with eight justices, four and four, four largely deemed liberal justices, four conservative justices. remember it was supposed to be brett kavanaugh to break the tie in favor of conservatives. where is this all going? let's get a read on opening day with ed lawrence at the supreme court. reporter: you know, first, a senior republican senate official is telling fox news that the fbi investigation could be wrapped up as early as tuesday in judge brett kavanaugh. today the u.s. supreme court started their 2018 term. one justice short. the case heard today was about land rights, it was the

u.s.-designated 1600 acres in louisiana for the frog which doesn't actually live on the property but the government says it could. the owner of the property would like to develop the land so they ended up here at the supreme court. it's customary that justices who do not hear oral arguments, do not decide on the final case so if judge brett kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court, he would likely not hear this case. the fbi investigation is currently tracking down current credible allegations against kavanaugh. legal experts say if this report comes out the same way that the judiciary committee ended up, it would be easier for senators like jeff flake, lisa murkowski, susan collins and joe manchin to vote to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. the president saying the fbi does have the latitude to do a full investigation. >> i want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the senators and the republicans

and the republican majority. i want them to do that. i want it to be comprehensive. i actually think it's a good thing for judge kavanaugh. i think it's actually a good thing, not a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. now, with that being said, i would like it to go quickly. reporter: the debate over judge brett kavanaugh in the senate continues this afternoon. we are all waiting to see when senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will end or file to end the debate on this. that starts roughly a four-day clock to the confirmation process. neil: thank you very, very much. edward outside the supreme court. what a great time to go to former fbi assistant director. ron, so many questions, so little time. maybe you can bring me up to speed. the president is arguing here that it's fair game, whatever the senate wants to get into through the fbi, that's fine. he isn't controlling or limiting anything. when asked specifically about allegations from a third accuser, this julie swetnick, he was fine with that. do we know that to be the case,

because so far, the reports, they could be very, very wrong, i grant you, are that she has not been included, her allegations have not been included. >> yeah, that's the reporting, neil. so the president's understanding of the word comprehensive background investigation may differ from what the white house counsel's office is telling the fbi. i do think it's important to note this is not an fbi criminal investigation where the fbi determines the direction or national security investigation. this is something different. this is where the fbi is really a service provider for the white house. they do these background investigations for the client, that's the white house, and i think here, because this is so extraordinary, this is outside the normal parameters. this is jumping back 36 years to talk about an alleged sexual assault, maybe alcohol involved so very, very different. i think the white house is defining the terms and the fbi has set about its mission to try

to fulfill the need. neil: all right. if this were in these early reports, to wrap up tomorrow, in other words, all key people have been interviewed, that would seem to indicate that does not include brett kavanaugh nor dr. ford. i could be wrong and they could be doing that as we speak for all i know, or maybe just relying on their committee testimony before those senators on judiciary, but what do you make of that? wouldn't that raise still more hackles on the part of those who say wait a minute, they are rushing this and there's no way we can support this, talking specifically about the democrats, or even some, you know, leading republicans who are concerned how this looks. >> yeah, i think at a minimum, anything the fbi does at this point i believe is very unlikely to change the minds of any of those committee democrats and perhaps all democrats, save one, short of, you know, candidate kavanaugh admitting his involvement in something and pulling back the nomination. i don't think they are going to

be satisfied. neil: you said save one. are you talking about joe manchin? >> yes. yes. many of those have already telegraphed their intentions here. some of themmin the first day of the nomination have telegraphed their intent to try to stall or defeat the nomination. so are we really trying to please those folks who still have an open mind? my hope is the fbi can do that, but really, the challenge is a great one. when you are talking about going back 36 years to find substantive evidence, something that is going to be very, very difficult to do. the only thing in my mind that will change this dramatically is miss ford recants her testimony or judge kavanaugh says i did it and i pull back my nomination. neil: would there be any way to prove perjury if someone lied? in other words, if a witness emerges who says oh, yeah, you have seen classmates of the judge who said yeah, he would get really nasty drunk and all,

you don't know who to believe in all this stuff, but all of a sudden, what they are trying to say is his drinking issue was more of an issue than he ever let on. to the president's point a few moments ago, he was saying all right, the guy drank when he was in high school and college, no sin, i understand the democrats are trying to say if it got to the point where he blacked out and could have done some of the things that he's been charged with, it's a whole other matter, but would any of that move minds? what do you think? >> well, you know, to me it's a matter of proof. first, again, we are not in a criminal trial. we don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. we don't have to prove by a preponderance. so there is a lot of opinion here, as you know. our own experience tells us that person a can have two beers and be overserved, another person can drink two six-packs and walk away from it easily. i think with all that opinion that's here, to prove something conclusively to the satisfaction of all is an impossibility. so how do we prove to those who

still have an open mind. their work is cut out for them. neil: the one thing that also comes up is through the eyes of the beholder. the judge had said when i was a kid, i drank to excess, of course, he never made the leap to such an excess that he could have done some of the things of which he's been charged. the democrats would say ah-ha, someone said it was more reckless than you let on earlier and use that as an excuse to say he lied. i don't know where this goes. >> i don't see it going to all those -- to allege perjury, to allege false statements is easy. whether a competent prosecutor, serious-minded prosecutor would ever think about charges short of somebody, multiple witnesses saying that person deliberately misled and here's how i know, because they told me, to have really substantive proof, i don't see it going down that road. i see it devolving into more fingerpointing and plenty of

reason why potential witnesses would never want to come forward. neil: real quickly, we are getting news in that a number of democratic senators are urging, in fact, all the major democratic senators, that this woman, this third woman and her allegations, this michael avenatti client, julie swetnick, that she be talked to as well. the president seemed, when queried on this a few minutes ago, seemed to be open to it. so is it likely she will be interviewed? because democrats last week at this time were very leery of at least her allegations. they were a little more specious than a couple of the others. what do you think? >> yeah, i think what the democrats want and what they get may be two different things. i do think who is carrying the water here are the senate republicans, probably a small group of them, and the white house counsel's office, to say here's where we want the fbi to go, here is where we don't want them to go. if this gets much worse, maybe they are contemplating pulling the nomination. if it doesn't get worse, pushing

forward. but i don't know that the house democrats or senate democrats right now have a very loud say in the matter. neil: all right. ron, thank you very, very much. we will update you on these democrats. they seem to be all the obvious ones, richard blumenthal of connecticut, dianne feinstein, patrick leahy, sheldon whitehouse, cory booker, kamala harris, amy klobuchar. they are the ones saying you have to include everyone who has made an accusation including julie swetnick. we will see what happens on that front. we should say as well again, there are separate reports that interviews could wrap up as soon as tomorrow. that would be obviously well, well, well ahead of the friday deadline. how would people weigh that? the ones to watch are the ones who are on the senate so republican senator susan collins, lisa murkowski, even jeff flake and democrats joe manchin of west virginia and heidi heitkamp of north dakota. any one or combination of those could prove crucial in seeing whether brett kavanaugh goes

from being a judge to supreme court justice. more after this. i am an independent financial advisor. when i meet a new client, i start by asking questions like: did you understand all the fees you were paying? was your broker a fiduciary? were you satisfied with the attention you were getting? then i explain that being independent gives our firm the freedom to give our clients the attention they deserve. we can put a plan together that makes sense for them. independence lets us do that. charles schwab is proud to support more independent financial advisors and their clients than anyone else. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

new family connections, every day.llion that's more ways to discover new relatives. people who share your dna. and maybe a whole lot more. order your kit at ancestrydna.com their medicare options... before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon?

yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about.

do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

neil: look at that. tesla shares right now surging, up better than 16% on news that elon musk can stay on as ceo after this s.e.c. settlement. there are a lot of other provisos in all of this, charlie gasparino has broken more news on this than anyone else. why is this stock running up to this degree? why? >> it's above 300 now. it's been in this range where on friday i think it was as low as 260 because of the -- when the s.e.c. filed the charges which they were at least intending at that point to throw him out of the company, give him a lifetime ban. the s.e.c. always approached this in a very sort of tepid way. i will tell you why. it sounded tough but they really did not want to blow him out of the company. they believe he's existential to the company and they don't want

to destroy potentially a good company. neil: he hired mark cuban's lawyer. >> that's the story we broke. he hired two gentlemen who recommended mark cuban, signaling he was ready to go toe-to-toe and fight them. really, it was all over that tweet, he said he had funding secured. he believed it would be at 420. he actually did not totally have it secured. he had some interest. there was a way to fight that back, i think the s.e.c. also concluded, where they couldn't have given him a lifetime ban. so both parties come to the table, they cut a deal. this feels very favorable to musk. pays marginal amounts of money, $20 million to him is 20 cents to you and me. neil: and tesla pays. >> tesla pays another $20 million. they need cash, but that's not $20 billion. it's $20 million. then there's a bunch of small provisos. a chairman, who cares about that, maybe independent board members. neil: they have to look for a chairman. >> still, this is an elon musk

company. he proved it over the weekend. he didn't tweet but put out a company e-mail about profitability again which he probably shouldn't be putting out because he keeps missing his profitability targets. i will say this. this is short-term good for the company, what i said, i think i sent a note to you. look for the stock to go up. long-term -- neil: we wanted you on saturday and you said no. >> i did not say no. neil: that's interesting. i will look into it. >> no one said a word to me. neil: really. hurt my feelings. i was here and i thought hey -- >> i would have came in. no one asked me. neil: don't worry. i'm not vindictive. >> this is a company with a lot of problems. we should point out they still don't make money, their production prognosis is always off. you think about it, they produce a fraction of the cars that gm produces, right? the major -- a fraction. neil: someone asked is a gas vote anti-electric?

>> i'm looking at the numbers. i want it to work. it would be great if it worked. neil: the fear was the stock was cascading, it might be working for others, maybe not tesla. >> here's the problem. he also faces competition from -- it's hidden. plus you have to deal with him. he's an he rat can gerratic guy. the smoking of the pot. here's one thing we broke late friday that the department of defense is still examining his pot smoking on that joe rogan podcast because he's got a security clearance for spacex, that rocket company he's got. neil: someone told me wherever the show was coming from, it's legal. >> it's legal there but not on the federal level. i don't know if legal is the right word. apparently pot is one of the banned substances for a security clearance. neil: they don't want him to go. the market was very happy to e see -- >> i think it would have been better if he went for the market. here's why. neil: which one? >> for tesla's stock.

here's why. i think that company needs to survive on its own with, you know, with the product that it has and the production that it has, not with the celebrity halo that it has. neil: but he is the halo. >> that's why it's a better company, if you think about it. it's a company that, you know, the ceo doesn't define it. neil: especially if you are -- >> steve jobs was so much part of apple but he didn't define the whole company. neil: in the early days. then they felt his vision was wrong. >> but he came back. think about it. he left, apple was still profitable, highly profitable. maybe not as innovative but it has good guys like tim cook runs it. you have to look at investing like this. do you really want to put your money in a cult of personality. i think -- neil: many companies are that way. >> the s.e.c. thing, i would say for the average investor, short-term good.

but be wary long-term on this. neil: thank you, my friend. charlie, i won't see you on saturdays. >> i would have shown. no one asked me. i'm offended, no one ever asks me to come on your show anymore. neil: you know me. i don't hold a grudge. >> your people, do they not like me? neil: i guess no. you don't like them. wish we had time, folks. i will shoo him out of here. nah. not gonna happen. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening

and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call and ask about saving $1000 on your walk-in bath, or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info.

but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? it's my great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand new deal to terminate and replace nafta. the agreement will govern nearly $1.2 trillion in trade which makes it the biggest trade deal in the united states history. once approved by congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up to date and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country. with the most advanced

protections for workers ever developed. neil: some might look at that as presidential hyperbole but the markets are buying it. very impressed with this so-called u.s./mexico/canada agreement that gets the canadians to the table literally at the last second. deirdre bolton on why they like it. reporter: take a look at the stocks that are really moving. i will take you through categories. eight out of the ten on the s&p 500 up across the board. you have all these trade-sensitive stocks. if we go by group, it is tech, not surprisingly, industrial and also some of the consumer related names. we will pull up some boards for you. you will see ford and gm moving higher, boeing, caterpillar on the move, harley davidson as well. if you look at some of the semiconductor companies, amd, micron, broadcom moving higher. speaking with traders on the floor, it seems to be that because the u.s. was able to reach a deal with canada, able to reach a deal earlier this

year of course with mexico and then even earlier with the eu, this just goes toward the idea that perhaps we can make some progress as well between the u.s. and china. overall sentiments very strong. some of those are standout movers and we have been watching in particular anything related to dairy, anything related to auto, as those seem to be the two big compromise points that both canada and the u.s. were able to make. neil? neil: thank you very much. car companies can gain more traction in canada now. so many issues to pick apart here. let's go to connell mcshane. >> a lot of talk, lot of people have been saying earlier today this is the new nafta similar to the old nafta but if we look at some of the details, there really are key differences. let's start with autos. this new rule, vehicles will need 75% north american content, that's a big deal. it's a sizeable jump from the

old just nafta i guess we should call it, 62.5% with the old number, goes up to 75%. win for the unions, win for the workers, obviously, who are represented by those unions. group of auto dealers as well put out a statement earlier saying they liked it, says it removes uncertainty. we looked at ford and gm stock price being up today and up more than the market which is interesting. ford put a statement out of its own saying it's quote, very encouraged by the new deal. one thing to consider on this, we will see how it plays out over time but it may put more pressure on foreign auto makers who operate here. global auto makers had a statement earlier that said the cost associated with this, the soft cost of complying with that new rule getting up to 75%, that might be something of a challenge. now, the other question people have been saying hey, what's in it for canada and mexico. we are told that there's some sort of a side agreement, side letters that allow those countries mostly to dodge the auto tariffs president trump had threatened, so canada and mexico

still can send in the same number of vehicles across the border and do so tariff-free. dairy was also mentioned and that's the big one, because that was said to be the huge sticking point. president trump talked about it for months, he was very, very vocal about the tariffs imposed by canada to try to protect its dairy industry and even today in the rose garden he said that was indeed a deal breaker. here's the thing. a lot of that stays in place. much of that system stays but the u.s. will end up getting more market share. that was kind of the compromise in all this. really has to do with what they call class seven dairy products, skim milk, powders, some types of baby formulas have been mentioned. i believe president trump mentioned ice cream in his list today when he was speaking in the rose garden. bottom line is more market share should help u.s. farmers. finally, one thing to watch here on this canada wanted to end the tariff on steel, 25% tariff on steel. that is not happening as part of all this. it's supposed to be on a separate track. it will be negotiated separately

so that does not happen. important to point that out. certainly not hurting the market reaction to all this. markets like it. a number of businesses, they like the idea it removes the uncertainty. they can plan for the future better now that this is in place. people have pointed out it kind of gives north america this united front that this is over and presumably now you can go after china more aggressively because we are together on this. we will see. the markets love it today. neil: they do indeed. to that point, connell, canada's foreign minister freeland saying we have the wind in our sails, we will continue to work on steel and aluminum tariffs. they are on a separate track from the trade talks which apparently they are and confirmed as connell put it with the u.s. trade representative lighthizer, saying they will discuss that after we take a few days to catch our breath. go ahead, catch your breath.

each day our planet awakens with signs of opportunity. but with opportunity comes risk. and to manage this risk, the world turns to cme group.

we help farmers lock in future prices, banks manage interest rate changes and airlines hedge fuel costs. all so they can manage their risks and move forward. it's simply a matter of following the signs. they all lead here. cme group - how the world advances.

neil: ever ask yourself what is it about california, the trump administration is now suing the golden state after it passed its own strict net neutrality, other things it's doing that have caught a lot of people's attention, including hillary vaughn with the details on all of the above. hey, hillary. reporter: hey, neil. governor jerry brown is trying to enforce net neutrality rules that the trump administration got rid of, and now attorney

general jeff sessions is calling the move extreme illegal and a way the state is trying to frustrate federal law. he also says it's wasting the doj's time by forcing their hand to file this lawsuit to begin with. but california attorney general becera says without the net neutrality law a handful of companies dictate what users can see and at what speed, a tool internet providers use to manage traffic flow in order to be able to offer free data plans to consumers. governor jerry brown also signing a bill into law he admits might also not hold up in court. brown signing a law that makes california the first state to require corporations, board of directors, to include women. the new law requires publicly traded corporations that are headquartered here in california to include at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of next year. neil? neil: hillary, thank you very much. back to the fbi and that probe, the one we are told could be wrapped up by tomorrow, how will

senators react if that is indeed the case, if they fear there's a rush going on here, people being left out of this. the president says none of that seems to be the case and he put no limits on fbi authorities. let's get the read from former bush 43 speechwriter. what do you make of that, there's talk this could -- the interview process could wrap up tomorrow? >> it could come very quickly and then we will have a conclusion as to what they were able to find out and what has been from the very beginning a story that has lacked significant details. neil: what i'm wondering, though, is maybe you can do a lot, talk to all the key principals as soon as they got the green light, the fbi did just that and you know, from friday and through the weekend, that's all they have been doing, but an early wrapup could spur talk wait a minute, they're not being thorough, they're leaving

out people, a number of democrats sent a letter along to say this julie swetnick, the third accuser, should be included in these talks. so it could get a chilly reception. >> we know that's going to be said regardless. the anita hill investigation happened very quickly, as i recall it was about three days, and part of what we have to remember is that the investigation doesn't necessarily have to wait for a green light. they may have a list of how they would go about it. they know their business. but i know we are going to be hearing that regardless, if they took a week we would be hearing there's more to investigate, because that's what the tactic is, is to delay and possibly give more time for more negative things to be alleged. neil: i think it comes down to some of these laboring senators, much has been said of susan collins and lisa murkowski, the two republican senators from maine and alaska manchin and he

both on the fence, up for re-election in states the president won handily. jeff flake not a guaranteed yes vote given his appearance on "60 minutes" and what i have been hearing out of him. what is your sense on who has to be wooed? >> i think susan collins is looking pretty good. we have discussed previously that she was being threatened that if she voted for his nomination prior to any of these allegations coming out, she was threatened that there would be a huge amount of money donated to anyone to run against her. she came out very strongly against that. so i think she's looking to be very fair-minded. i think they all are. we know lisa murkowski, similarly, neither of these women want to be told that because they are women they have to look at this a certain way. they want to look at the evidence and they will do that. neil: i don't know the mechanics of this. there is a benefit of wrapping up all interviews tomorrow, where you could clear the way for a friday vote. i don't know if that's true. whereas if you have all interviews done by friday, it would be pushed into next week and maybe later still. do you know anything about that?

the importance of this tomorrow? >> well, what's important is that the supreme court starts its term and that's coming up and this is all hanging in the balance. there's going to be a new nominee which the white house hopes there's not, but assuming the investigation yields what we think which is nothing, that this isn't credible, we have to remember the prosecutor released a report, we haven't heard a lot about it, but she said i would never bring charges in this case based on the inconsistency of accounts, then they want to vote very quickly because the supreme court is starting this week. in terms of votes, yes, typically members go out of town, they will leave town on a friday and be in their states for the weekend. leadership can decide to keep people in and try to do a saturday vote but that would look really bad. yes, doing it earlier in the week means you have a vote maybe on thursday or friday, then hopefully settle this question. neil: you know, we understand from mitch mcconnell's office he wants a vote one way or the other. obviously he would prefer to do

it when he has a pretty good idea of where the heads are at and whether the judge has the votes but even if he doesn't, he feels it's important to put everyone on record, where you stand. what do you think of that approach? >> i think it's great. we heard from judge kavanaugh as well that he said i will never quit. he said even if you vote and i don't get confirmed, that's fine, it's not what he hopes for, but he's not going to withdraw his name from the nomination. i think that's very important really for the future of the supreme court and judicial nominations because if he were to withdraw, it would show that all that someone has to do is to have their reputation be destroyed, never really settle the question of the allegations, and they will just withdraw and that's terrible. what judge kavanaugh has been through has already been terrible and i would say the same about christine blasey ford, when we remember her attorneys apparently didn't tell her she didn't have to go on camera and be dragged through all of this. so it's disappointing how politicized it is, but i think it is important, i agree with mcconnell, there needs to be a vote. neil: all right. we shall see.

we will know one way or the other by the end of this week whether that comes to pass. thank you very, very much. let's take a look at what's happening on the corner of wall and broad. stocks up appreciably because of this canadian deal which could set the stage for doing what the president originally intended, isolate china. that's part of the deal he had with cobbling a deal together with mexico, with south korea and japan, to eventually get china to feel that it was alienated and isolated and better do something fast. we shall see.

. . .

neil: wall street we're doing a-okay. see in cheryl casone can keep the rally going. i suspect she can. cheryl: all about the positive attitude neil. i'm cheryl casone a lot breaking now. kneel talked about it. really nice rally on wall street this afternoon president trump struck a last minute deal with canada. called the united states mexico canada trade deal. we'll talk about it. hello, everybody. i'm