susan: economy is only 20 trillion, if you think about it. the gains are already half what the economy is worth. you will like this. microsoft, apple hitting all-time highs today. stuart: love it. thank you, susan. time's up. neil, all yours. neil: nine trillion. how much of that is yours, stuart? stuart: just a smidgen. neil: this is the second strong day going into the final quarter of the year. there are all sorts of funny little stats on that, the start of the first week of the first vital quarter goes. it interesting developments that go on for a third day, then it could portend very good things for the fourth quarter, for the year. who knows if any of that stuff is accurate. like chicken entrails and tea leaves. people follow it. i follow it with some interests. we'll see if this continues here. talking about a surge of the markets since donald trump was elected. a 45% surge in the dow alone for

that period. a lot more wealth created here. that is something that reminds folks when he makes these stops, he will be making quite a few in the days and weeks ahead. five weeks today from the midterm elections. will that prove to be a dominant theme. five weeks from now will we have judge kavanaugh sitting as a justice on the supreme court? so many details to work out. senate policy luncheon going on at this hour. mitch mcconnell, chuck schumer are on the senate floor or they were earlier. take a look. >> one thing for sure, the senate will vote on judge kavanaugh here on this floor this week. here on this floor, this week. >> plow right through the recent allegations. fortunately some members on his side of the aisle didn't want to plow right through. they didn't want a to delay unnecessarily one week. give me a break. compared to 10 months? leaving scalia seat open. who are we kidding?

who are we kidding? who is making this a political argument? neil: all righty. let's go to chad pergram with the latest on gop luncheon, what might or might not come of that. what is this whole thing about, do you know, chad? >> two big questions on capitol hill. when does the fbi complete its report, investigation of brett kavanaugh and when does mitch mcconnell file cloture to end debate on the kavanaugh nomination. they said it will take a week. we're told the past couple hours they completed interview with mark judge, the friend of brett kavanaugh. a team with christine blasey ford indicates the fbi has not spoken with their client as yet. but the question right now still comes down to lisa murkowski and susan collins, the two moderate republican senators. they're sitting at 49 votes. they need at least one to get a tie. 51 to move it without mike pence

breaking the tie. mitch mcconnell can't forge ahead until he gets sign-off from collins and murkowski, neil. neil: what about a sign-off from jeff flake? maybe it was me. saw the new hampshire appearance in boston, "60 minutes" appearance, i could be wrong, jeff, i often am, he might not be a yes vote? >> they have to be very careful not jump the gun, move too quickly wait until they get some semblance of the fbi report. you don't know what is in it. maybe it raises questions and triumvirate of flake, murkowski and collins hold on, we have other questions. mcconnell says they keep moving the goalposts, if he doesn't have at least one of those votes, those three, he can't move ahead. i want to decode a little bit what mitch mcconnell is talking about earlier. he said we'll vote this week. that probably implies saturday. if you move to end debate, file cloture, we expect that to happen no earlier than

wednesday, that would be day number one. day two it lays over by senate rules it has to ripen for a day. three three when you vote to end the debate. that requires 51 yeas speculatively friday. if you vote to cut off debate, confirmation vote, that opponents get 30 hours f mitch mcconnell doesn't file cloture to end the debate by tomorrow, it will probably end into next week. it depend when they get the fbi report, whether it satisfies terms of the agreement with flake, murkowski and collins, neil. neil: let me say hypothetically you do a show on saturdays at 10:00 a.m. on the fox news channel, goes to noon? >> yes. neil: is there a remote possibility during aforementioned said show on fox news channel 10:00 a.m. goes to noon eastern time that all of that could come together during

those hours? >> absolutely. it would depend when the procedural vote would happen. by rule, i will get into the weeds here but this is important, by rule the procedural vote ripens one hour after the senate comes in. hypothetically the senate could come in 2007:01 friday morning. the procedural vote could happen at 1:01 friday morning. sometimes this happens. this is not theoretical. we have seen them do this if they want to move things quickly. vote completed by 1:40 in the morning. go 30 hours through saturday. that gets you saturday afternoon. could be in play with debate. also the coin of the realm in senate is unanimous consent. sometimes you get agreement to step things up, this will be it for the week, the weekend, vote early on saturday morning. hypothetically if a show on fox news on 10 okay saturday morning. neil: sure, if there is no vote at that time. i suspect during the hours at 10:00 a.m. to noon, you would have ultimate drama?

>> absolutely. my bet we're here this weekend. i said that to people the other day. we thought we would be here this past weekend, if mcconnell says we'll wrap this up this week, that probably involves saturday. neil: i'm always here this weekend, buddy, as you know. i'm quite familiar with the 10 a.m. show on fox news. thank you for the update. i will give word to my producers. chad, you're the best. fried, very unlikely could be pushed into the weekend. everyone is waiting for the final fbi report and a concern expressed by number of senators we want to read it. that is easier said than done apparently. to a former fbi agent. john what is the procedure. i would imagine everyone on judiciary committee gets to read it or am i right with that? >> everyone on the judiciary committee will get a copy of the report. of course there is no secrets when it comes to the senate. i'm sure that will be shared with other people as well.

neil: okay, so the question in that report is how in depth it is, to get to all witnesses. does it reach out to all accusers. does it get not only to dr. ford and deborah ramirez and julie swetnick, does it reach out to all of them, what do you think? >> fib will interview everybody asked to be interviewed but those people have to make themselves available. if they declined to be interviewed the fbi can't force them, they will be so noted in reports attempts were made yet this person refused to submit to an interview. neil: so, i know senator blumenthal is among those saying there are at least 24 people should be included. i guess by extension he was including any and all directly or indirectly connected with brett kavanaugh, whether they were classmates in high school or college or those allegedly at this party. that could get pretty involved. how involved do you think it

does get? >> well, there is going to be a lot of interviews and it will take some time, but remember, there is, maybe 24 people at the most. there is 12,000 fbi agents. they are putting teams of agents at this problem. so not the same agents will be doing all the interviews. they will be able to turn this around. we've done it many times before. this is just another one of those times. neil: all right. so, you mentioned that they can reach out to interview you, you're perfectly within your rights to decline, right? >> absolutely. no one has to be forced to be interviewed. only when you're subpoenaed, called to a grand jury, thinks like that. neil: that doesn't happen with an fbi investigation? >> well, it can but not in this case. here it's simply a request to go out to conduct additional interviews. remember there is not a criminal investigation here. neil: right. >> this is further information for the security and background investigation that they're expanding on. it is a very narrow window of what's going to be asked and to

whom they are going to ask those questions. neil: so one of the folks interviewed was this p.j. smyth one of the boys identified by dr. ford being at the party where she says she was attacked by brett kavanaugh. another might have already happened, mark judge, either his lawyer or someone on his behalf or mr. judge himself talked to a fbi representative. what do you make of that? >> well, they spoke to an agent for sure and probably nothing more than already confirmed. remember, most of these people previously inter viewed essentially swore to their statements. you don't want to get into a statement where you're telling a different story to the fbi because lying to the fbi can be a federal crime in and of itself. neil: you're fleshing out a story, lying can be in the eye of the beholder, right? they might be expanding what they originally said but how do

you prove they might have been lying? >> well exactly the point i was going to make is the fact that people are going to stick to the parameters of what they said. they may flesh it out and provide more information which is exactly what we're looking for the judiciary committee. but as far as lying, it would be as if they told one story previously and a totally different story now and other statements contradict. i don't expect you're going to see lying from these witnesses. what you're going to see a reiteration of what already has been said. neil: just to understand things, john, you're being very patient with my simplistic approach here. i want to know how the fbi works. we already heard from p.j. smyth's attorney that he said that none of this happened. that he didn't know about the allegations. we already know of, that at least mark judge's standing view would be, that none of that comes back to him. whether he elaborates on that or where he was at the time of this

alleged party. it ultimately will come back to a he said/she said thing. the fbi can't make any conclusions. it will gather comments from those who could or couldn't corroborate, in this case, dr. ford's accusations, right? >> exactly. and the fbi never makes conclusions. think of the fbi as scientists. they go out and bring back the facts. in a criminal case it is up to the court to make a conclusion. here it will be the judiciary committee looking at the evidence the fbi returns. neil: so if you're inclined not to vote for the judge prior to this, you're still not going to vote for him, it won't move the needle? conversely if you're inclined this provides cover you need to do just that? >> at the very least everybody on the judiciary committee should know this has been vetted out as much as it can. they don't need more than a week. the fbi in the oklahoma city bombing discovered who the culprit was in just 36 hours. they're very good at getting facts they need quickly and turning it around.

neil: we shall see. john, thank you very much. former fbi special agent. to "usa today" congressional reporter eliza collins. eliza, i was thinking about who would this move not only on the committee but in the full senate now that we're at rest, among the so-called given republicans was jeff flake. i had a hard time thinking, i raised this with chad, that he is a given yes vote. simply the cover of an extension for an fbi investigation, given the reaction that he has gotten for his move, that he is bold and brave and gutsy, all that, he loses all that if he ends up voting for the guy, and i'm wondering if it is such a inevitable vote that it is going to be yes? >> i think it is not inevitable but what you mentioned earlier, the cover, gives him cover. if you do want to vote for kavanaugh.

we've taken this as far as possible? we put it to professionals. not just going through this. you're absolutely right about flake. he has said he doesn't want the fbi investigation that is just cover. he is kind of in this complicated spot. he did tell us last week after he made the compromise with the democrats and mitch mcconnell, he said i want to vote for kavanaugh. i want to see kavanaugh on the supreme court. i'm a conservative. he is a conservative. i want to make sure we've gone through the full process. assuming nothing huge is coming out of this process, i do think he is inclined to vote for kavanaugh. neil: what is comes down to, eliza, whether brett kavanaugh was honest when he said he never drank to the point that he blacked out. i guess democrats are hoping to find out, if he did, you could have done something heinous as being alleged here in high school, back in college, et cetera. is that what it comes down to? because if they find out you drank more than you said, got trashed more than you admitted

is that a gotcha moment? seems like a leap to me but your thoughts? >> i think it's a gotcha moment he would be lying under oath but it's a leap, right? just because you drink doesn't necessarily mean you assaulted someone. republicans are saying, republicans are pushing back at some of kavanaugh's yale classmates came out, no i drank with him, he is drinking more than he is saying. okay, well he was a college student. just because he drinks -- neil: if he drank more than he said not to the point of blacking out. reason i made distinction here because democrats did. you know, then you can relate -- i was a choir boy but then he can relate to drinking in college. maybe in high school. >> right. neil: but i'm wondering where they go with that. in other words they would have to say another thing he hiked to drink and other parties, to the point of blacking out, would feed the argument, this could have happened even if the judge doesn't remember it? >> right. i think we saw them trying to

make the case even on thursday when they were questioning him. they really weren't questioning him very much about the actual incident. neil: right, right. >> it was a lot of questioning, well, your yearbook says you did this, this, they were trying to make the case he was a party boy and might not have remembered the incident. i'm not sure who that convinces but i do know classmates coming out in both ways, yes he drank more than he led on and no, he is actually telling the truth. it is up to the fbi who they choose to talk to where that all comes down and what that report says i think. we're looking at a few people. i'm not sure saying kavanaugh drank a lot is enough to stop someone like senator flake who does want him on the court. neil: sew gets through if you're right? >> well, we'll have to see. i don't know what will be in the report but the democrats are trying to make the case all along. it seemed not to be doing enough at that point.

depend how the fbi makes it. neil: you're right about that thank you, eliza collins, "usa today," congressional reporter, meanwhile the markets are up, up and away. this is the second strong day of the fourth quarter here. they're showing no abandon in continuing the winning ways. president making it clear in a street to stop, both democrat, is only saying only reason to vote for a democrat if you're tired of winning. there you go. after this.

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

neil: i did want to follow up quickly on the friday vote, the most aggressive goal for mitch mcconnell has on brett kavanaugh to get a senate vote done by then. it might be a little bit of a leap here. chad pergram explained how difficult it might be able to do. already senator feinstein, ranking member of judiciary committee said that would be too soon. we'll see what happens. mitch mcconnell is the boss. he knows the math. he wouldn't proceed until he has pretty good confidence in that math. we're confident to say the second day of the fourth quarter of the second trading day, that portend a good quarter, not all the time, but most of the time, 95% of the time.

we're watching it very, very closely. trade related companies, that could benefit from improved trade with canada and what it could mean for other countries, yeah china, they're all benefiting. you know the usual culprits, they would be caterpillars, boeings and even those on health care side would benefit from having more freedom to move around in the canadian market. u.s. drugmakers have the ability to keep patents longer. seven years now but could go to 10 years. they're benefiting from all of this. the long and short of this, if markets were worried about the fate of the judge they have a funny way of showing it. they seem to think he will get in there. looks if he might not, could this unravel? new york republican congressman lee zeldin. how much is this judge issue, an issue back home when you see your constituents? >> in my district all across the country people are tuned in. last week, i was in d.c. all

week. outside of the capitol, outside of the beltway, how much the average american paying attention to? i went back home on friday. spent weekend at events all over the district, people are fired up. what is interesting. we had a whole lot of people independent-minded women with sons, very upset with the way that this whole thing was handled as well. so the democrats were, they have been fired up since november of 2016 and january of 2017. that hasn't really rescinded. neil: right. >> but the republican base is really upset with the way judge kavanaugh is being treated as well. you're seeing a more partisan electorate as days get closer to the election and more enthusiastic electorate on both sides. neil: i watched independent voters closely. not that the polling is accurate and missed like you said the 2016 phenomenon. they have gone from positive on the judge and wanting to see justice, now negative. i'm wondering if that means anything? i mean the judge's negatives have gone up.

still relatively close, but what do you make of all that? >> i can only speak putting my finger on the pulse in my own district. i can't speak -- neil: where are you? >> east end of long island. first congressional district of new york. i believe the greatest congressional district in america. we have a diverse, a diverse electorate. we have republicans, we have democrats, we have conservatives and liberals and everyone was paying attention to the course of events over the last week. in my district i'm finding independent-minded people are sympathetic way they were berating judge kavanaugh and delaying tactics on part of democrats. a lot of this could be vetted a long time ago. people asking about the yearbook questions, really upset about how, here, you have a, responsible for confirming a judge for lifetime appointment to the united states supreme court, you have that opportunity for the hearing for this very important purpose and that is what you're spending a line of

questioning on. people were paying attention to every question that was asked all day long. i was impressed by just how much the american people were paying attention to it. neil: president is saying backdrop, consistent in his support, standing by the judge, deserves to get through. but with every announcement it is proceeded by talk about the economy yesterday. the deal with canada, get them included in the three-way deal with mexico and ourselves. he tweeted out earlier today, if you want to stop all this, elect a democrat, we'll stop winning. i'm paraphrasing. what do you think of his approach. >> election is five weeks from today and regardless whatever you visualize for the country you want january 2019 you better spend next five weeks fighting for it, and if you don't you may end up with a very different looking country. neil: how would you go,

congressman, you keep their seat, republicans don't keep their majority. how would it change the day-to-day role and how you go about doing things. >> i'm on house financial services committee. maxine waters becomes chairwoman. her her a gavel, her pledge is to take doesn't president. i want to focus on veteran's housing home, a car, small business, capital to start a business. that is the job that we should be focused on. there is oversight role as well. but for maxine waters this is about impeachment. this committee has al green and other members taken the most extreme steps. they want, pledged to oppose, resist, obstruct, impeach anything and everything. neil: three days into the presidency of donald trump impeach him. they didn't wait very long. is it your sense that your economy decides this or anger on the left, maybe residual from the 2016 campaign decides it? >> combination of many different

factors. for some people who would say that the economy is the most important issue to them the economy is actually going so well they're identifying other issues as their top issue. so some people are talking about economy as their top issue and others -- neil: how do you tell republicans you have to get out there again? they're fat and happy? >> results is resistance. you have more available jobs than people to fill them. in my home county unemployment at 1-year 7-year low. 401(k)s are hitting highs. jobless claims at 50 year lows. all the different economic metrics and more. we have the fastest economic growth we've seen in four years. that is continuing to go up. but we also have on the national security front. we're doing better job securing our borders. people are not talking about isis anymore. they're nearly wiped off the map in iraq and syria. we're defeating ms-13 where i'm from.

people are held accountable for doing really bad things to people and trying to destablize people. when you go after ms-13, you go after drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking. there is important issue combat the heroin and opioid abuse epidemic. when you look the last year-and-a-half on issues most important you see progress on one issue to the next. you have to understand consequences with maxine waters as chairwoman, adam schiff of intel. nancy pelosi new speaker of the house. we can't go backwards. voters are catching on to that. neil: we shall see. congressman you're a very busy. corner of wall and broad, this continues. if you thought amazon raising minimum wage $15 would whack that stock and all technology stocks with it, i would have a little bit of a surprise for you after this.

hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. these are affordable, all-in-one plans that help pay for doctor visits, hospital stays and emergency care. but they also include prescription drug coverage. in fact, last year humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $6,900 on average on their prescription

costs. call a licensed humana sales agent or go online to find out if you could save on your prescription drugs. this plan delivers coverage for the three things you may care most about; prescription drug coverage, doctor visits, and hospital stays. plus, potential cost savings on your plan premium. humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call us, or go online to find out if your doctor is part of the humana network. ready to learn more? call the number on your screen for this free, fact-filled decision guide. there's no obligation, just good information. call the toll free number on your screen, now. you'll learn all about a humana medicare advantage plan and how it compares with your plan. with most humana plans, you get coverage for prescription drugs, doctor and hospital visits, and more. all for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. most humana medicare advantage plans even include

dental and vision coverage. and, most humana medicare advantage plans include the silver sneakers fitness program at a local fitness center. so call or go online to find out if your doctor is part of humana's large network of doctors and hospitals. and see if a humana medicare advantage plan is the right plan for you. pick up the phone, and call the number on your screen. the call is free. and licensed humana sales agents are standing by. so call now.

>> what mr. bezos today has done is not only enormously important for amazon's hundreds of thousands of employees, it could well be, and i think it will be, a shot heard 'round the world. neil: well you can credit bernie sanders who is critical of jeff bezos and his billions in not sharing loot with his workers even though the company has an average pay package i believe north of $26,000. by going to $15 as minimum part time, full time, all workers, that was enough to get super liberals off of jeff bezos' back. if you were thinking this would hurt amazon in the market, having to pay that kind of money out, the stock has a funny way of showing it. it is up as we speak here. go to forbes publisher, rich karlgaard and also

deirdre bolton. deirdre, the latter reaction is not always expected but that is what we're looking at. >> in the larger context, neil, we're talking about these amazing unemployment numbers. we'll get a new set of data on friday. the bottom line is this, retail workers they're in a pretty strong position. maybe amazon is doing this in response to senator sanders but maybe amazon is doing this because they have to. as far as retail workers, of course this holiday season, neil, tons of retailers are making extraordinary steps in the past few months. jcpenney went and hired a bunch of people this summer just to get them under their roof. i was looking at comp charts. walmart actually started paying people $12 an hour in september. target $15 an hour. gap said if you want to work at gap for the holidays, get 50% off all merchandise. some of these retail companies are actually having a hard time getting workers. so my pest this kills two birds for one stone with amazon.

maybe even three. they get positive pr for once. maybe senator sanders doesn't criticize the company as much as it did. also they remain competitive in their sector at a time where the labor market is tight, neil. neil: rich you could argue, what bernie sanders was saying others should follow amazon's lead. not others are capable of doing that but what do you make of that? >> well i was impressed that amazon did this. it is about time. i don't care what their motivations are, whether it was out of the goodness of their heart, whether it was a labor shortage as alluded to, or whether the long run game here to do anything they can to avoid antitrust legislation. it is easy to pick on companies perceived as being greedy there. neil: true. >> i was a lot less impressed with the call that everybody should do this. my goodness, you know, amazon is the second richest company in the world. they can afford to do this. i think the minimum wage applied

to everybody at $15 an hour would be a bad thing t would really hurt young, young poor people trying to get their foot on the ladder in this economy. neil: you know the argument you hear from a lot of those folks who were remaining the 15-dollar minimum wage, deirdre, obviously they're not hurting companies that have done it. we have record low unemployment. so the president should be embracing this because it turned out not to be nearly as bad a thing as conservatives and republicans argued? >> that is a point but i also just putting aside some altruistic ideas here and just going brass tacks, full on cynical, i also think amazon is suggesting it because amazon can afford to pay $15 an hour where some of the smaller retailers that may eventually want to compete with them, or even mom-and-pop shops can't. of course to richard's point, why not suggest that? as you say, richard is the second most valuable company in

our market right now. yeah, they can afford it. neil: that was your point, right, rich? >> absolutely. but i don't care. whether it was out of goodness of his heart or whether it was to, you know, at least their actions let's applaud them. let's not applaud the call for everyone to have to do it. it does play to amazon's advantage, no doubt about it. neil: amazon i think can afford it to your point. guys, thank you both, very, very much. as we were speaking alert from pentagon producer, two packages carrying ricin were sent to the pentagon. we don't know who they were specifically sent but the fbi is looking into it. well we'll have more after this.

300 miles per hour, that's where i feel normal. i might be crazy but i'm not stupid. having an annuity tells me retirement is protected. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org

neil: all right. senate policy luncheon is moments away from starting right now and it could be a defining one for republicanses that gather in that room. they're likely to take sort of a

headcount where they stand right now with judge kavanaugh and how many are interested in making him just sis kavanaugh. former virginia republican governor george allen. maybe he can enlighten us. governor, senator, very good having. >> you good to be with you, neil. neil: what is going on or soon will go on in that room? >> they will discuss a lot of different things that i'm sure everything from the economy to obviously justice kavanaugh. you know, your previous segment you had, talking about amazon increasing wages to 15%. i just came from the national association of manufacturers event. i have a card here. 86% of manufacturers are increasing investments and want to expand. 72% are raising wages. the deal made with canada and mexico, i think their number one concern is finding skilled, capable workers. so, tax reform, regulatory

reform, productive energy policy, this is invigorating our economy. i think that is a positive thing that senators are talking about, and then they're probably all speculating what's going to be in this fbi report about judge kavanaugh and there is really i would say, two senators, murkowski an collins, who are the ones that want to read the report when it comes out later this week and then make a judgment. my view dish. neil: is it your sense ones that do, ininclude on the list jeff flake, who could easily switch, in the end, unless there is something jarring in this we don't expect or no, depends on anyone's version of jarring that he gets approved? >> yeah i think that if, if the evidence stays the way it is us and unless there is some sort of direct lie in there, i think people will say, all right, this is what he did when he was in high school and college. they're all probably destroying

all their high school yearbooks now so no one reads those. >> interesting point about a lie. if there is a lie in there. the reason why i keep hitting that with guests, rudely interrupt them like i do here, a lie is in the eye of the beholder. if the lie seems to be, you know you said only had beers occasionally. we come to learn, no actually in college you drank quite a bit to the point of being trashed. someone will make the leap to the point you must have been close to blacking out if you didn't black out, and hence you lied to us and hence we will not vote for you? >> that is not a direct line my guess. the indicator what kind of justice judge kavanaugh would be on the supreme court, not what he did in high school or college but 12 years he served honorably and d.c. court of appeals. i voted for him when i was in the united states senate. gosh, how many of your viewers, would think, gee whiz, how did i

look at the world in high school and college? do they still look at it that way? of course not. neil: again it is what it is, right? reason why i mention it with you, how senators weigh in on this, president was critical of hypocrisy on capitol hill, senator blumenthal complaining he was in vietnam when he wasn't, and he is fine one to judge and referred to unnamed senator that you wouldn't believe what he did. did you know who that unnamed senator was? you want to share that with us? >> no i don't know who he is talking about. reality, a lot of people talking about, all new his thor callow in -- historical low and smearing and political campaign against judge kavanaugh, people against judge kavanaugh are against him. those for him are for him. independent and undecided are getting disgusted by this. this is really like a soap opera fantasy criticisms and new

allegation every day. oh, my goodness he might have been in a bar fight. is that a disqualification whether he through a beer or ice on someone? no. it is not an indication what kind of a judge he would be. this is a big issue, to a lot of voters who think judges ought to apply the law, not invent it for their own political purposes. so i think the fbi report will be helpful for those truly undecided senators who i think are merck cows ski, collins -- murkowski, collins, heidi heitkamp, joe manchin, maybe a few others. if things stay the way they are, i think he will be confirmed and i think he will be an outstanding justice on the supreme court. neil: we shall see. senator, governor, appreciate it. >> great to be with you. neil: chuck grassley on the wires right now saying he will not ask the fbi for an update on the kavanaugh report. says he is not concerned about kavanaugh's drinking. so he appears to be a pretty

firm yes vote regardless of this updated fbi investigation, is apparently more sweeping than we thought. it will include all accusers, not only dr. ford but deborah ramirez, and julie swetnick, she is michael avenatti client has been sort of crumbling last few days. focus on federal reserve and chairman jerome powell speaking. edward lawrence with the update. reporter: just started. in that speech federal research chairman jerome powell says the economy looks strong for next two years, with unemployment under 4% and inflation staying near 2% since 2020. he said since 1950 the economy has not seen both low unemployment and low inflation for an extended period like we are now. the speech focused on the federal reserve focus on maximum employment and stable prices of the fed chair said he believes better monetary policy the past

few decades reduced the effects of the labor market on inflation. the great inflation in the late '70s, taught us that monetary policy is to keep expectations anchored. powell argues if people expect inflation will be around 2%. it likely will be around 2%. powell suggests risk management play as an important role making monetary policy and the federal reserve stands ready to act if expectations start to change. because of all this phillips curve flattened out because of monetary policy over the past two decades but he said it is nod dead. the phillips curve is an indicator that the fed should use. finally he said the recent rise in wages does not mean we have overheating market and he is confident that gradual rate hikes will keep employment low and inflation low. neil. neil: thank you, buddy, very, very much. the markets hearing a little bit of this are still essentially unchanged, believing steady as she goes beats the alternative

which could be well, everything goes. we'll have more after this. ♪ a moment of joy. a source of inspiration. an act of kindness. an old friend. a new beginning. some welcome relief... or a cause for celebration. ♪ what's inside? ♪

[laughter] possibilities. what we deliver by delivering.

neil: all right. interesting development going on in the bond market right now. it was worried that the federal reserve was behind the curve. we heard about the jerome powell comments edward lawrence was

talking about. he essentially said we'll be vigilant fighting inflation and do what it takes to make sure we're ahead of the curve. the bond market likes that. yield going down is reflection of price going up. so many different things attached to that, like mortgage rates and refinancing rates, home equity loans and the like, car loans. so that is actually going down in this environment. stocks are going up. best of both worlds. then there is tesla. of course saved the day that could have potentially seen its founder and ceo thrown out. he is not thrown out. charlie gasparino was way ahead of that. now some good news, potentially good news on the production front. let's get the details from charlie. what's going on? >> well the model 3 apparently exceeded expectations in terms of production goals. up more than 50,000. you know here is what i don't understand though, let's back up, look at what the props are with tesla because people are actively debating whether they should buy this stock right now

because musk is seemingly in the clear. neil: right. >> let's break down some of the legal issues out there. there will still be a lot of shareholder lawsuits against the company, no doubt about that. that could cost a lot of money. not existential but could cost a lot of money. there is outstanding sec investigation whether they made false statements, tesla, the company, musk himself, made false statements about meeting certain production goals and profitability targets that didn't come out. that is harder case to make you could say simply say i thought at time i was telling truth. i didn't know this would happen. that is tougher case. there is a u.s. attorney's case which essentially is a criminal probe although they haven't issued subpoenas. they asked voluntarily for documents. neil: forgot about that. still going on? >> still going on. when i talk to lawyers close with musk, so they're tangentially related to the team, that he has assembled,

what they say the u.s. attorney, the u.s. attorney from the, northern california, san francisco area where tesla is headquartered they would need, they would have to really have a bee in their bonnet to want to bring that case. it is a hard case to bring. you would have to say he intentionally lied to hurt somebody. would you need emails and -- neil: looked like he was trying to hurt the shorts. >> right but he you would need more -- he had verbal assurances private equity fund taking it private. maybe he thought it would be 420. neil: gotcha. >> you would need a lot to put him in jail over that. i think the legal stuff you can put aside, now it's a matter do they meet the goals in terms of production? i will tell you this, even if they meet the model three production goals is the company still worth $300 a share and does it have enough cash on hand to meet bond payments if it is not? that is a real question.

neil: isn't there a big payment coming up? >> there is two payments. a modest payment of something like 200 million on one bond coming up. then, early next year, there is, if stock does not trade at 360, they owe a billion dollars or so to investors. you have to pay them in cash. you cannot pay them in stock. neil. they don't have a huge cash cushion. so the big question is can they meet these modest production goals and other financial metrics what they're doing with the model 3, is it enough to really propel the stock? there are still questions on that. tesla may be a great car, great concept, they're getting tremendous competition from established carmakers with much better financial position. they have a 53 billion-dollar market cap and they lose money. gm has a 48 billion-dollar market cap and last year they had to take a special write-off, technically lost money because of paper losses but they made

$10 billion without those paper losses. they make a lot of money at gm. you have to ask yourself here -- neil: what gives? >> by the way, did you see my little twitter war i had today? i did not. >> i tweeted out something about getting into bar fights and twit der be. neil: you got into bar fights? >> i did, lots of them. kavanaugh did and essentially disqualifies him in supreme court. i'm a bad guy because of that by the way. neil: you're not a bad guy. i got into fights at ponderosa because of prime rib. >> what is the prime rib like at ponderosa? neil: delicious. but i digress. we'll have more on allegations that he bumped into brett kavanaugh next hour.

when my hot water heater failed, : that water could do.

we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros

even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

. neil: all right. we're still up a lot. triple digits. this would be record territory, correct me if i'm long, ralph, 26,743, in that neck, is the record? we're giving up some of our earlier gains, a continuation of that according with canada that benefitted the likes of boeing and caterpillar, we could throw in there intel and apple, 3m, but the bottom line is they're moving up on optimism about the u.s. economy. now the president is going to be leaving for philadelphia. this as senate republicans are

meeting on brett kavanaugh. normally when he leaves the white house, he does stop and talk to reporters. not all the time, but a lot of time, it is a tv moment, and one for blake burman at the white house where he joins us right now. the president is well aware what's happening at this meeting of republican senators who are no doubt going to be talking about the good economic news, but i imagine more of the latest on the sentiment about brett kavanaugh, right? reporter: right, and you remember last week, neil, republicans were worried if there was an fbi investigation that was reopening against brett kavanaugh, that democrats would say a week for this investigation is not enough. now here we are, and democrats are saying, some of them, a week for this investigation is not enough, but mitch mcconnell reiterated on the senate floor earlier today that a vote for brett kavanaugh will indeed take place by week's end. >> we'll have the opportunity to vote no on the politics of personal destruction. we'll have the opportunity to

vote yes on this fine nominee. >> i believe it's too soon. it's tuesday, and we have to put all the facts together yet. reporter: the political reality here is three republican senators will likely determine the timing with all of this because without the support of jeff flake, susan collins or lisa murkowski talking about a vote this week could very well be a moot point. in fact murkowski said earlier today she wants to see what the fbi investigation might reveal. >> what i think we all need to do now is to wait and see exactly what comes back. i don't know what is going to be in it, i don't know that anybody knows what's going to be in it, so i'm not going to speculate. i'm going to wait. reporter: the president said yesterday, neil, he wants the process to be open. he wants this to be quick as well. and mentioned we are possibly awaiting word from the president. i keep checking my phone, he's running about 20 minutes late. the media gathered on the south

lawn set to depart the white house and see if he stops and takes questions shortly, neil. neil: thank you very, very much blake burman at the white house. you might have heard senator dianne feinstein saying friday is too soon for a vote. we went into this with the understanding of the one-week fbi investigation and then a vote. it is what it is. joining us is john yu, steve start with you first, is it likely the fbi can wrap up what it has to do and do what it has to do by friday if, in fact, the directive has widened to include all accusers and witnesses to those who can or cannot corroborate by what those accusers are saying by friday? >> if you caught me smirking, you said do what they have to do.

we don't be what they have to do. the worst things can you do to investigate quality investigation is a, set an arbitrary deadline, and b, try to limit somehow the scope of an investigation before it even starts. in this case, we've got both things that have been done to the fbi. there's no way to know what they're going to uncover on day two of the investigation that may then require them to go into day three, day four, day five. you just don't know that. and secondly, you don't know what new allegations may or may not arise as a result of what they do day to day. so it's just -- this was doomed from the beginning in the way it was constructed, and if you add the politics to it, you know, the fact there's certain members of the committee who would like this thing to go on until next october. this is a very, very difficult -- i couldn't imagine a more difficult set of circumstances

for the bureau as they move forward on this. neil: john, you drew that point, when you have senators like richard blumenthal, whether you agree or disagree it's a waste of time as criticized the deadline and the scope of the probe when he signed onto this next week, and i'm wondering no matter what is inside this probe or who they reached out to whether it includes all three accusers and those who can or cannot substantiate their claims. so far we understand no one's claims have been corroborated or close to it. what are we left with on friday? >> i think there's no way to satisfy the democrats because as steve said and the reporter said, the democrats keep moving the deadline back farther and farther because they want to have the investigation continue to go on. so i actually think having a deadline of some kind is not just good politics, i think that's the normal way the senate does business. this is not a criminal

investigation. the senate has to say we've decided we have to take a vote on this day, and asking the fbi for its help. fbi doesn't work for the senate. the senate is requesting assistance through the president and saying give us as much information as possible. it's not a criminal investigation, this is the senate performing constitutional advise and consent function. i think they have the right to set their own schedule, and so if senator mcconnell wants the vote friday, the senate in its own judgment can take the vote on friday. neil: steve, as former fbi guy, maybe can you help me with this. there has been six prior fbi investigations on brett kavanaugh over the years, this would be an addendum to those or that very last one, right? so there is conceivably an investigation here that focuses on these charges from these women. the president tried to make very clear yesterday he's not limiting anything here. they want to get to anyone and everyone attached to women and the charges.

fine. is that doable by friday? >> not only can i not answer that, but i don't think anybody can answer that, neil. in all fairness because you don't know what the second person they interview is going to say. you can make up any hypotheticals you want, it's not possible -- it's simply not possible. now, it is true, you can arbitrarily end the investigation to meet some deadline. you can say give us what you got by friday and we'll take a vote. that's understandable and doable. neil: steve, in that process -- i'm sorry, can they ask the person, do you know anyone else who can corroborate what you're saying? given names and numbers of people to talk to? if they are, are those people free not to talk to the fbi and punishment for those who don't? >> i would hope they ask that question. that's a logical question to ask on every interview. do you know somebody else who can corroborate this? they have a duty to ask the question and the follow-up on

that. short of a grand jury, that's a criminal matter, which is not applicable here. no way to compel anybody to give you information if they don't want to in a case like this. if somebody lies to you during an investigation like this, that's another story, but you cannot compel people to give you information. neil: so, john, what are we left with, likely, by friday? i don't see it moving the needle that much. i see that the focus seems to be reading in the media and everywhere that they want to say or prove that brett kavanaugh lied about the degree to which he drank in high school and college and took the leap according to one friend where he was trashed. what democrats are trying get at during the hearing, was he trashed to the point that he blacked out? and something dr. ford charges that he attacked her, if that's what he wants to leave out. to the degree which he drank, is that enough to say ah-hah,

you lied to us. is that along the high crime ands other things we associate with those who lie? is it even in the same ballpark? >> i think that's the right question to be asking. you know, this is not an investigation of a man to find out everything he did going all the way back to high school or before. where is the line drawn? how far back? are we going to look at everything here? what the senate is to decide is this person have a fit character to be on the supreme court? i think by friday, they've already seen him in person, they've already had him testify under oath. what they want to do is decide whether he's been lying to them or not. whether he has integrity, character and experience that would verify what was already seen from his record as a judge and as a government official. i don't think that having the investigation go a month or two months is going to make a

difference. by friday they'll have all the information to make a judgment. they don't care what excuse mes back on the investigation. they've decided they're going to vote against him and all but three republicans pretty much decided they will vote for him. on friday, the answer to the bottom line of the question is the answer is up to senator flake, murkowski and collins whether they see anything in the fbi investigation that changes their mind away for initial support for judge kavanaugh. neil: steve, you know this process so well, and a lot to your point we don't know. seems a lot of the focus -- excuse me, in the press has been about the judge's honesty about the degree to which he drank in high school and college. is that what this whole thing has come down to? that really seems like a big waste of time. >> yeah, and you know, going back to your last question. he has been the subject of these background investigations six times before. i am certain, certain as i can be that during the course of those investigations, one of

the things you're taught to deal with in the background investigation is a person's character. so i have to think that the issue, whether it went back to high school or not, i can't say. during the course of the investigations, you talk to people who knew the nominee in this case for long periods of time and ask you questions like that. you ask if they know anything that would be negative about the person's character. so you got to think those questions have been asked and answered many times over. this should be focused on the very specifics of these allegations and nothing beyond that, in my judgment. neil: well, we're not there, steve. apparently to your earlier point, and john to yours as well. whether it's moving the needle or provides cover, we'll see, later on in the week. gentlemen thank you, both very, very much. a sad note on ge here. of course, this stock that was that of widows and orphans, one

of the safest investments can you make has been downgraded to b, b+ from a-. it's now considered junk. we'll have more after this. welcome to the place where people go to learn about 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: all right, let's take a look at the dow right now. the same issues that were running it up yesterday and the specific issues within the dow running up yesterday on this canadian deal that cements a sort of new nafta, are considering to benefit today and belief that the worst is behind us or the threat of tariffs that could be very, very onerous to all the key players aren't going to materialize. of course china is still out there right now, but is the new nafta deal, though it's not called that now, better than the old one, worse than the old one? let's get the latest from "wall street journal" editor john bussey. >> there are substantive changes but if it passes through congress, which is a big if, it's a victory for president trump on the trade front. he gets to change the name, get rid of nafta. it's now the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. and there are substantive

issues in the agreement. some of it also we should be thinking about as targeting china down the road. expectations laid out for a deal with china, and i think probably importantly and the markets are up on this, it removes the uncertainty what's going to happen in north america on the trade front. so much of business is integrated with canada and mexico now. it reduces some of the concern with europe because if an agreement can be gotten here, then an agreement can be gotten with europe. neil: right, right. >> and begins to create a sort of a group of allies again in addressing the china concern. that's been the big issue up to now whether or not it's so fractious among the allies but there are substantive changes in the new agreement. neil: all right, the old agreement was the one, that you know, you said it was bill clinton's crowning achievement, ended up getting more republican support than democratic support. barack obama with tpp and more

republican support than democratic support, this one would get more democratic support likely than republican support, but you never know. >> you don't. interesting, some of this is aimed at longtime pillars of democratic support meaning labor and unions. in for example, the agreement on autos, there's a demand for localized content. more content in the car of value has to be created in the united states and staffed with workers at a higher wage level. so that's going to move some jobs into the u.s. presumably. the flip side of that is if you don't do that and building the car in canada or mexico now, it's only a 2.5% tariff that's levied against the vehicles coming in. it's going to be tougher for the japanese automakers making cars in the united states and importing transmissions and big-value auto parts from japan to meet the quota. presumably that would pull in jobs and appealing to labor and appealing to democrats who rely

on labor. neil: press on japan to do more of the building and that stuff here, correct? >> that's correct. that would be the intent. neil: john, thank you very much. john bussey. before we get the tape feeding from the white house, americans for families and farmers casey, what do you make of what it's going to do for farmers, particularly the dairy farmers and others who were worried? >> this couldn't have come at a better time. we need the certainty in our business to be able to plan for the next year. and this is exactly what we've gotten. you know, we have enjoyed free trade with our top two trading partners for years, and we need that to continue especially now with the markets the way they are, and with now a certain degree for farmers, you can't plan for the future and can't put a dollar figure on that.

neil: it doesn't address some of the china concerns, that's a separate issue. but on the canadian front and less so the mexican front, this is a win? >> absolutely. this is what we've advocated for, in partnership with the administration for the better part of this whole year is to finalize an agreement with both countries because we know that the effect of that trade partnership has been so positive over the past 25 years, that it's almost a foregone conclusion that we have the trade partnership, until we felt like we could possibly lose part of it, and that uncertainty causes significant problems for farmers. we saw some of our customers selling off their breeding stock. and large part of that was due to the uncertainty that was kind of up in the air about the trading agreements. neil: you know, a lot of you guys are loyal to the president throughout all of this, lot of them are losing money.

so i can imagine the relief, but they wouldn't want this to drag out with china, so if china drags and drags and drags, what do you think? >> i think it's clear that the president does have farmer's best interest in mind and he's demonstrated that more so, i believe, than any other president since i've been alive. i'm 37 years old, and if things like he is serious about getting the best deal for farmers and we've seen he's stuck to it. neil: very good. i don't want to jump you on here, but the president is speaking about this a little while ago. >> canada and mexico has gotten tremendous reviews as you see. well received by farmers and ranchers and industrialists and workers generally, and it's been really something, and i think it's also going to be a very good deal for mexico and very good deal for canada, but it's gotten tremendous reviews and going through the process

and even many of the democrats, including chuck schumer came out and said nice things, so that's very nice to hear that. so it's nice to see a little bipartisan approach, but the trade deal, the big trade deal, the largest deal ever made so far in trade i expect to top it with china or eu or something. this is the largest ever made, and as you know now, we're working on china, we're working on japan, we're working on eu, but these are great deals for our nation and great deals for our workers. reporter: [inaudible] >> i think the democrats are going to like the trade deal. they already do. a lot of them have said very positive things about it. we seem to have great support for the trade bill it. covers just about everybody.

reporter: [inaudible] >> i don't even know what you're talking about. i haven't seen it. i'd have to read the story because i don't know what story you're talking about. reporter: [ inaudible ] i don't think we should lie to congress, and there have been a lot of people over the last year that have lied to congress. and to me, that would not be acceptable. reporter: [inaudible] >> say it? reporter: [inaudible] >> i think that judge kavanaugh is doing well. seems over the last 24 hours, a lot is going to depend on what comes back from the fbi, in terms of their additional number seven investigation, but i think that judge kavanaugh is doing very well right now. reporter: [inaudible]

>> we spoke and that's moving along nicely, but i don't want to interrupt what's going on with judge kavanaugh. i don't want to do anything to interrupt what's happening with judge kavanaugh. ing and the process, i must say, i think hopefully as mitch said, they'll have a vote by the end of the week, and it will be a positive vote, but it will be dependent on what comes back from the fbi. the fbi is working. they're working very hard, and let's see what happens. reporter: [inaudible] >> i think he was fighting people that were making very tough charges against him, i thought he did very well. i really did. i thought he did very well. he's fighting very hard for his reputation, for his family. i thought what happened was really tough. it was tough, tough. i've been watching this for a

long time, i've never seen anything like what's going on with respect to judge kavanaugh. he's a high-quality person. this is a number one student, a top intellect. he's never gone through anything like this. i think he did very well. reporter: [inaudible] >> i think it will be totally impartial. i think he's a great judge, he's known as a great judge. if there's one disappointment, i don't think that you people covered an aspect that's very important, very, very important, and that's what he's done over the last 30 years. you know, you're going back to high school, going back to college. what has he done over the last 30 years? he has been spectacular. he has been a tremendous, tremendous success. reporter: [inaudible] >> well, i heard lindsey say that, and certainly it's interesting. people love him. i was in tennessee last night, and i want to say that those

people, we had a sold-out arena with thousands of people outside. everywhere i go. i'm going to pennsylvania, the same thing, they're so in favor of judge kavanaugh. you've never seen anything like it. i actually think it's like a rallying cry for the republicans. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh. reporter: [inaudible] >> melania is in africa. i just saw on television her walking out of the plane. it was beautiful and saying hello to the kids. she is really doing a great job as first lady. reporter: [inaudible] >> i want to see what happens with the fbi. they're coming back with reports. they'll be back very soon. are you talking about a second time? i mean, this was lindsey's idea. lindsey is a friend of mine for the last six months, as you know, lindsey is a friend of

mine, and he's done really a great thing and great service for our country. lindsey graham. but i have to say they really think that judge kavanaugh is going to be accepted and voted on and positively voted on, but we're going to have to see what the fbi says. they'll come back with the report. reporter: [inaudible] >> it's a tough thing going on. if you can be an exemplary person for 35 years and then somebody comes and they say you did this or that, and they give three witnesses and the three witnesses at this point do not corroborate what she was saying. it's a very scary situation where you're guilty until proven innocent. my whole life, my whole life i've heard you're innocent until proven guilty.

now you're guilty until proven innocent. that is a very, very difficult standard. reporter: [inaudible] >> say it. reporter: [ inaudible ] it's a very scary time for young men in america when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of. this is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. what's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of a supreme court justice. it really does. you could be somebody that was perfect your entire life, and somebody could accuse you of something. doesn't necessarily have to be a woman, as everybody says. but somebody could accuse you of something and you're automatically guilty, but in this realm, you are truly guilty until proven innocent. that's one of the very, very bad things taking place right now.

reporter: [inaudible] >> say it. reporter: [inaudible] >> there's not a message now, you may have a message by the end of the week. you may have a message, you're going to see, you're going to see, but he's an outstanding person, an outstanding man, and for his sake and the sake of his family, i think he's doing very well. i think he's been brutally treated. reporter: [inaudible] >> i've been speaking to people. reporter: [inaudible] >> we're going to talk later. i don't want to do anything to interrupt what's happening this process. that's fine. but i don't want to do anything to interrupt the process. reporter: [inaudible] >> well, i don't drink, i've never had a drink, i don't drink beer, i've never had a beer, and i'm not saying good or bad. some people like it. i just chose not do it for a

lot of reasons. i think that -- i remember my college days, everybody was drinking. it was like normal. i was abnormal. it was totally normal, everybody was drinking and they used to drink a lot of beer, and there was nothing wrong, i just didn't choose to do that but almost everybody else did. i don't see anything else. have you ever tried anything else? >> no, i never tried anything else. neil: that was a few minutes ago. the president en route to philadelphia for an event later on today and tennessee as he continues barnstorming out of the philadelphia event and the tennessee event and others for republican candidates. the president talking about how he hopes brett kavanaugh gets through this. he's optimistic about the ongoing fbi investigation, he'll come through and the vote will be positive and he'll be sitting on the supreme court, but the process has been very demeaning to a guy that doesn't deserve it and putting sons on

notice of those who are getting charged with things, be careful, be very, very careful where this goes and doesn't like where it's going. the president trumpeting the deal with canada saying it's going to benefit the u.s. economy, and remarked it is already showing up in the economy and the markets themselves, he's right about the markets up again today on the optimistic that maybe this seals the deal eventually for china, and we close that out. my next guest says you got to step back from all of this and even put the president's gains in perspective. is he gaining for everybody? the president is using a popular line when speaking at campaigns what the hell have you got to lose? democrats failed you, liberal orthodoxy hasn't done right by you. the latest book, what the hell have you got to lose, trump's

war on civil rights. welcome. >> thank you. neil: you come as close to anyone outright to suspecting the president just has a dim view of african-americans, but do you make the leap he's a racist? you argued near the end of your book, any honest review of trump's life career and early presidency must conclude he is ignorant and resentful toward african-american history. let's say that's the case. record low unemployment for african-american males and teenagers, african-americans in the aggregate, for all key groups. let's say you're right on that and we can quibble. he has a funny way of showing it. they're all benefitting. >> well, that is his primary response whenever anybody raises the issue of race, whether it's in terms of his racial rhetoric or policies, but remember, neil, and i speak this way to you as someone so savvy on business issues, most of this children which hit a high in 2009 right in the midst

of the great recession occurred during the obama administration. it got down do 7% unemployment. in the years since president trump has been in office declined an additional point, down to 6%. it's fair to say it's continued under president trump. neil: what has declineed? >> the unemployment rate. neil: for? >> for african-americans. fair to say it's continued under president trump but i don't think it's fair to say president trump is the one whose policies has brought it down. when i say he's intentionally ignorant of so much of african-american history. i really mean american history and talking about the struggle that working-class blacks have made to get into the american middle class, and the striving, the kind of ambition to achieve the american dream they think should be celebrated. in fact, 40% of african-americans earn between 35,000 and $100,000 and additional 12% between $100,000

and $200,000. neil: i don't hear much bragging about that. >> i hear intentionally he focuses on the 22% locked in poverty and lot of dysfunction and broken families. neil: has any of the orthodoxy used in the past helped that 22%? >> i think it's declined obviously, because you see the growth in the black middle class, those people are coming primarily out of poverty. neil: you look at the difference and say this is eloquently written in the book the difference between father growing up. >> 1902. neil: very, very different. when he harkens back to make america great again. you find a different time? >> i find that a racially explosive term because so many people see it as a time when gee, white men were here and women, blacks --. neil: you know what he's getting at, right, juan? you think it's deliberately racial or america is the unquestioned leader of the world?

that-type thing? >> most of it has to do with the idea, it was a time when big industry was dominant in the society. we weren't exporting jobs and the like, when people were setting the terms in terms of america as the global leader. part of that is the social hierarchy structure. he doesn't like immigration. people talk about him not liking illegal immigration, he wants to cut legal immigration to the country and refers to people coming from the caribbean, s-hole countries and the like. neil: he's not making that indictment. as you know and anyone on this show, i will say, this i think it is easy to take a leap that goes around. this is a beautifully written book, as all your books are. you talk about -- you base suppositions, you made a comment where you talk about it's no secret donald trump's campaign make america great

again fell short of the black vote. his opponent got 90% of them. is it openly racist supporters in the movement and klansmen and neo-nazis, were you referring to anyone who votes for him as a racist? >> that's not what i wrote and said. i don't think there is any doubt about it in the klan paper and the like. neil: you know many on the left have that view of the president just this rabid, ignorant, knuckle-dragging loser. >> i'm not here to demean the president. neil: and you're not there to demean the people who voted for him. >> not at all. neil: the few blacks that voted for him might look back and say whatever my policy differences with this guy, stylistic differences with this guy, something is going on here, something is going on in the economy, something going on in the markets and everyone is benefitting. >> i think the markets have held true in gains. if that's your argument, fine. neil: even with the economy,

high consumer sentiment numbers. >> i said that's fine. that's not to the point. the point is -- neil: my point is, juan, it is to the point, that everyone can benefit and that's the metrics they use to see if they are? >> if that's the entirety of the way you view the world, fine. that's not the entirety of the way the world is viewed with donald trump and his presidency. much were in the midst of the kavanaugh hearings, you look at numbers and see how waem are reacting. women are high on consumer confidence but gosh, don't like some of the things they see, and similarly the case -- neil: what do you make of the argument the president makes it's tougher for an innocent man to have to prove he is innocent than the one who makes the accusations that she doesn't? >> this is so one sided, i think neil, if a woman was sitting here, she would say how hard is it for a woman to come forward in the midst of a supreme court confirmation hearing, put herself on the

line, in the witness chair be and subjected to death threats, the trolling. neil: look what's happened to him? >> i'm saying -- neil: any democrat on the committee for hiding stuff, delaying stuff? >> no. in fact, i think there was acting properly to say if someone is make an anonymous charge against me or you, neil, that person needs to back it up or stand up and put their name to it at the very least. neil: if you are trying to protect one person, is it fair? >> it went to the "washington post" and put their name to it. neil: you deal with this on "the five" and i know the point of this here is you never want us to return back to what the country was like when your dad was growing up. >> of course not. i don't want to return back to days of slavery. you heard kanye west say we should abandon the 13th amendment. this is not about like or dislike. neil: not connecting at all with african-americans?

>> he's not because as i say, if you're talking about omarosa who worked for him and turns on him and calls her a dog. i think people say you calling a black woman a dog? boy, the racial resonance given our history is so awful. neil: given your experiences, you will be very sensitive as you should be. >> my experiences? how about the country's? neil: do you look at everything through a racial prism? >> first of all, i am black. just like saying you're white. we are americans, we have common sense of history and destiny and the change of the demographic shifts, the political shifts. neil: the rising economic tide can lift all people regardless of colors, wouldn't that net net be a positive? >> neil, you keep coming back to that, it's good our economy is growing, nobody is arguing that, but much more to like. when you say as a black person, you somehow distorting this picture, not at all, and i don't think you would say that

to women, you distorted the picture. in terms of the language, talking about the language. neil: the language, and i called him out on that and the treatment of his own people and what comes around goes around, i understand all of that, but do we in the middle of this, lose sight of a balance in covering his presidency? that's all i'm saying? >> no, what is imperative is looking at the actual job of policies and consequences and don't get locked into just the rhetoric. so much of the discussion is that you've been having tonight, is he a racist? i don't like it because i think it shuts down listening and conversation. neil: but do you think he is? >> it's not me, by the way. 49% of americans in polling this summer said donald trump is a racist. that's pretty shocking and shocking that you see high percentages, three quarters basically of the country saying race relations are worse and they don't like the way trump deals with race. neil: better, worse than barack

obama on that front. >> on race? neil: yeah. >> there is no comparison. to me, gosh, if barack obama had been dealing with a porn star and payoffs, the country would have gone bananas. neil: i think there was a white democratic president who was brought up, i'm sure. what the hell you have to lose? trump's war on civil rights. juan williams, you can agree or disagree with him, as a human being, they don't come much better. we'll have more right after this. th. 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. when you're looking for answers, it's good to have help. because the right information, at the right time, may make all the difference. at humana, we know that's especially true when you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan. that's why we're offering seven things every medicare supplement should have. it's yours free just for calling the number on your screen. and when you call, a knowledgeable licensed agent-producer can answer any questions you have and help you choose the plan that's right for you. the call is free and

there's no obligation. you see, medicare covers only about 80 percent of your part b medical expenses, the rest is up to you. that's why so many people purchase medicare supplement insurance plans, like those offered by humana. they're designed to help you save money and pay some of the costs medicare doesn't. depending on the medicare supplement plan you select, you could have no deductibles or co-payments for doctor visits, hospital stays, emergency care and more. you can keep the doctors you have now, ones you know and trust, with no referrals needed. plus you can get medical care anywhere in the country, even when you're travelling. with humana, you get a competitive monthly premium and personalized service from a healthcare partner working to make healthcare simpler and easier for you. you can choose from a wide range of standardized plans. each one is designed to work seamlessly with medicare and help save you money. so how do you find the plan that's right for you, one that fits your needs and your budget? call humana now at the

number on your screen for this free guide. it's just one of the ways that humana is making healthcare simpler. and when you call, a knowledgeable licensed agent-producer can answer any questions you have and help you choose the plan that's right for you. the call is free and there's no obligation. you know medicare won't cover all your medical costs, so call now and see why a medicare supplement plan from a company like humana, just might be the answer.

. neil: all right, amazon, the latest company to hike wages and a generous payer to employees, going to up the ante. wall street likes it. connell mcshane with more on that. reporter: doing it in a very, very strong economy. you can do it if you're amazon, and respond to critics who criticized the company for not paying enough in certain instances. in raising wages, puts pressure

on rivals to play catch-up, 15 bucks an hour, not exactly breaking the bank for many companies around the country. give you perspective on that in a second. amazon announcing it's raising its own minimum wage to $15 an hour, that will be next month for jeff bezos' company and plans to lobby washington to hike the federal minimum wage. now for the perspective, you look at other companies, target raised minimum hourly wage to 11 bucks an hour, promised to make that 15 by the end of the year 2020. walmart up to 11 as well which is where amazon was before its recent move and for further perspective, $22.73 per hour. that's what an average nonfarmworker makes in the united states. many, most blue collar workers are making than what amazon is talking about as the minimum today. it is making a move in a strong economy. features a tight labor market.

analysts expect the raises to cost the company somewhere less than a billion dollars a year, which would be offset by recent $20 increase in the cost of prime membership. so definitely can be afforded. the stock price today, amazon, this is for the year, up by 71%. it's been trading up and down today, a little higher at last check but a highflier all year long and definitely has the money to do it. neil: yeah it does, makes the difference when you have the wherewithal to do that. connell, great reporting, my friend. the president will be arriving in philadelphia shortly. we know what he said before he left, he is confident in the supreme court after the dustup and the investigation is done and senator can read its findings, he will get approved by the supreme court. more on that after this. i don't know what's going on.

i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ . >> i say that it's a very scary time for young men in america, when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of. this is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. what's happening here -- >> all right, that was the president, obviously bemoaning this process that has been very, very unfair to brett kavanaugh. we are waiting for senators to

come out of that meeting. the republicans gathering and get a sense of who's who for the judge. to our own judge andrew napolitano what he makes on all of this. waiting on an fbi report to go into the accusers and anyone who could or could not corroborate what they say? >> listen, i have been the subject of an fbi report, read the reports, in cases where the reports are part of the litigation. fbi will dig and dig and dig. that have a legal and ethical obligation. if they find any evidence of crime, lying to them, perjury, which is lying under oath, misleading congress, even if your words are technically truthful. if the impression you give is intentionally misleading, all of these are federal crimes they will continue to pursue and won't accept an artificial deadline. what happens if friday comes and the fbi says we need another two weeks?

mitch mcconnell said we're not going to give you the two weeks? this is a very dangerous time for judge kavanaugh and unfair the investigation occurs after he testified about the investigation. the investigation should have occurred first, and then the investigation is shared with the white house and the nominee, but he's locked into what he said last thursday. neil: all i have going is on the newspaper reports and others talk about what witnesses said, i think the "washington post," don't hold me to that, said he lied to degree which he drank in high school or college. my immediate thought was just saying that you drank to excess in college, how does that mean you lied, you did talk about the fact he had a fondness for beer, drank a lot of beer. how is that -- if you got to the point where you were trashed or whatever, you could conceivably black out or conceivably do the things that you are charged but it is a leap, how is it a lie to say

that you drank and then someone is drawing a distinction, no, he drank a lot? >> because this is political and not legal. because this is the senate and not a courtroom. if someone wants to believe something is a lie, they'll believe it's a lie. if they're looking for an excuse to vote against him, they'll find some slight ambiguity and consider it a lie. neil: what is the worse thing they're digging up right now in the corroboration in any of the charges, could be from christine blasey ford, deborah ramirez, julie swetnick? >> it obviously is not a crime to drink to excess in your youth. not a crime to become belligerent as long as you don't harm anybody. and not a crime to pass out as long as you don't harm anybody. if you misled the congress about it, that would be enough of a hook to hang their hats on. neil: reviewing comments before the committee and talking about i like beer, i drank to excess, yes, i have, but never to the

point to, obviously, being out of it or falling asleep or blacking out. now, if a friend comes along and says i can remember him being really an angry drunk or whatever, i still don't know -- >> here's what -- neil: what makes this a sin? >> one of the fbi 302s has somebody saying he drank to excess regularly. if now, i haven't seen them. he blacked out regularly. he became belligerent regularly. aggressively pursued women regularly. where do you think that 302 will end up? in the public domain. someone will leak it. and used as an instrument to pry loose republican support in the senate. neil: who gets the fbi report? >> very good question. the white house. white house decides whether to pass it onto the senate judiciary committee. all 13 of them. some ardent supporters and ardent opponents. look for portions of it to be leaked by both sides.

portions that the leaker thinks will help their cause. neil: amazing, amazing. >> this is not right or wrong, it's not truth or untruth. it's just political power at this point. neil: judge, thank you, very, very much. that's what we're waiting to hear, not on the findings of that report because it won't be done, won't be done until friday. republican senators will give an update not only where they stand on this but how patient they are to get a vote done friday, saturday, but certainly before this weekend. after this. 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. . .

fer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

neil: all right. real quickly before i hand this off to cheryl casone. we're learning chuck schumer calling for fbi briefing on this background check t should occur 24 hours before a senate vote on judge kavanaugh. cheryl, to you. cheryl: neil, real quick. i come in really early in the morning to fox business. i wake up today. the italians they're spending like drunken sailors. what is going on with your people? neil: are you surprised. we have propensity to do that we don't save that well but we spend very well. cheryl: we love our people and our wine. thank you very much. neil: exactly. cheryl: neil cavuto. there is a lot of news this hour breaking during this hour. take you live to philadelphia. in a short time from now we will see president trump. he will be delivering a major speech on jobs