we're up 151 points. if we go up another 73 points and small change we will be at 27,000. let's see if neil cavuto can get it over the 27-k mark. neil: so the president clearly watches your show, great show to watch. did he mention me at all? stuart: no, not in that tweet [laughter] neil: all right. because, boy i get some colorful ones but nothing like that. thank you, my friend. freight few hours there. we'll see if we can keep this going here. we're well into record territory amount lot as you've been hear something built on optimism about trade, get the chinese to the table, unexpectedly strong news on private payroll front. that is precursor what could happen with the jobs report on friday morning. i think they're looking for 185,000 jobs added in that month. we'll see. growing optimism that

brett kavanaugh might become a justice, might be by hook or crook and arguing back and forth, and pr battles back and forth and he could make it to the nation's highest court. the vote could come friday. that could be a leap but among the things they're looking at. also looking at ism non-manufacturing data for september. i can't stress that enough folks, a little in the weeds and dull, but as you know that is the world i live in, dull. remember, i'm being cerebral. this is what i do. that is the highest we've ever recorded. this isn't just like a multiyear high for the ism. it has never been higher. with the improvement going on in manufacturing, with improvement in services and like, president is saying pay attention to that. if you want to stop this, that is why when he makes various campaign pitches, if you're sick of winning vote for the democrats. that is the political part of

this. the real market impact on this they like it and we're not really all that far from dow 27,000. this would be the 103rd since the president was first elected. i could be off by one or two there but the bottom line we're looking 46% advance in the dow since he was first elected. a lot of people are saying this is a broad-based rally that will continue because the issues are broad-based. we'll get into that and kind of whipsawing through all of these various sectors. i believe 10 of the 11 s&p sectors are up right now. get read from market watcher, scott martin, heather zumarriaga and susan li. you're at the exchange? >> i am, yes. we're counting down to 27,000 for the dow. when that happens, we'll get a nice souvenir hat. takes a long time to get here. 483 trading days so far. more than that. it will take longer than 483 trading days.

looking at number here from charles brady. this is important. that is from january. taken us this long from january to get us to 27,000. it took us a while to get here. taken three stocks to get here for the dow, that is apple, boeing and the like. nice to see some more breadth taking place in the market markets. neil: aforementioned charlie brady is the stocks editor. quick him from me. he is a encyclopedia, he is watching broad-based nature of this of the scott martin that is what everyone is saying if this is initially based on optimism, we got canadian deal out of the way and new nafta if you will that could set the stage for china, automakers what they are doing, gm, what its doing, key components of the dow, just a precious few that are advancing is that a natural run-up or a

little too frothy for you? >> no, it looks good to me. remember the market is a great future discounter. it trades on future expectations. while things may be great today, as i believe they are. the market thinks they will be even greater in the future. to piggy back the industrials, virginia, that have come all the way back too, how about the tech companies? the tech companies were in front of congress and getting destroyed over privacy concerns and things like that, facebook is not, but googles, apples, microsoft, amazons are all-time highs or near so as they're starting to show how much of a future kind of potential they have in our economy. so to me everything is really forking on all cylinders. really looks like the only hiccup ahead is possible midterm elections that could be a small wretch and things and even some of those are clearing up to some degree and putting the market

higher. neil: survey for americans who to run the show they're narrowing a little bit. heather, ahead of what consumers will be doing. this is crucial christmas shopping season for them. latest indication in the face of higher prices they seem happy to pay them and seem most optimistic in at least 18 years. do you buy that. do you think this will be a strong season? >> i do buy that. i will to shopping this season, neil. i'm sure you will too as well as susan and scott. consumer confidence is 18-year high. adp report was off the charts. so the jobs market is soaring. amazon prices are up a little bit given they raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. all eyes on consumer spending because it accounts for 2/3 of our economy. you're right, the market is on a tear because of this trade deal. this is a great thing for our economy.

the u.s. will become once again a manufacturing powerhouse because of usmca -- uscma. this is great neil. still getting letters write. neil: there are a lot of letters. brian wesbury is with us. brian, someone that crunch as lot of numbers from different industries and fields, states, localities, one thing that struck me from the private data from the adp folks how robust it is bosses are oak kay to pass along pay increases and incentivize people to come to that. that is something we're not seeing in quite a while. the gains there, there is the flip side the federal reserve could look at that say we don't really like the inflationary implications of that but it's a interesting new wrinkle, is it not? >> neil there, is other evidence that showed it before today's adp we have the lowest initial

claims that we have ever have relative as a percent of all the jobs out there. this is extremely tight job market. there are more job openings than there are unemployed people and if you take, you know, forget the average hourly earnings numbers because that is what everybody talks about. there is about eight other measures of wages and all of them have been showing signs of picking up. so, what we're having is competition from companies to find workers. we're pulling people off of disability rolls. we're pulling people off of welfare. this is amazingly strong jobs market and the ism services number today showed it as well. so this economy is cooking along and it is because of tax cuts and because of deregulation those two things are really boosting economic activity. neil: susan i was talking to one trader earlier on, who cares

whether the tax cuts did this, i like it. that ends the debate and makes perfect sense to me. susan, on the floor, it's a little different than what i used to report from there but i'm wondering do you think now that we're getting more believers? it is interesting, half the population is involved in this market. you know, the bullish bear sentiment is not at crazy levels where you think this would end so what's your read from the floor and folks you talk to there? >> they're very bullish. i will correct myself. i haven't drunk enough coffee this morning. i've been on since 6:00 a.m. i have the numbers correct for you since we're stickler for accuracy on fox business. let me go through this once again. this range we're in, 1000-point move from 26 to 27,000 has taken 180 days, right? looks like it will take 180 days plus. that is the longest stretch since that move from 18,000 to 19,000 which took 483 trading days. i feel much better. there is a lot of optimism --

neil: nice going there to keep the ratings going. touche to susan on it that. >> earnings improve in the quarter. that is what they're saying. neil: what is interesting, heather, raise this with you and with everybody, this market climbed a wall of worry in light of the trade stuff, in light of what's going to happen to brett kavanaugh, whether he ever makes it to the supreme court. now even in light of this "new york times" story on donald trump, all he said he was, and was his family playing fast and loose with the irs to get tax benefits that might have been illegal. i poured through that, there are a couple different ways you can examine it. but it has not dissuaded the bull and i find that amazing, whether you get into the weeds of these stories or not, that is a lot of reasons to at least pause and no one is pausing. >> no one is pausing and markets climb a wall of worry and they're also very optimistic if you're already in the market, if you're looking to buy at the same time. so no matter how we got to where

we are, susan's accurate, 27,000 on the dow is here. here we come. get your baseball cap ready. and that is what is going on in the economy. neil: that is the dumbest, that stupid cap is the dumbest thing. >> i want to see you in it, neil. neil: wouldn't fit on my head. i used to be down. there i'm talking when the dow hit 1000. so i'm dating myself. but it is so idiotic. stop it with the hat thing. but that is just me. scott martin, one thing i do want to ask you here is, how broad-based is this? is this even with the the advance today you could find a number of multiples looking back at trailing 12 month earnings or future 12 month earnings estimates this is not obscenely rich market, what do you think? >> no, it isn't, neil. in fact if you adjust for other factors like inflation and some other things the market looks pretty fairly valued. neil: really? >> yeah, it's true. even financials and some are

undervalued out there. really one of those things the market is coming into its own. coming into higher valuations for good reason of the only thing is, i will tell you quickly, i'm sitting here, getting a little nervous. everybody is bullish. feels like the water is almost too perfect. that is when i get worried probably comes in november with the midterm elections versus anything until then. >> debbie downer. neil: that is a late concern. brian wesbury one of the things that come up that is a surprise, markets don't die of old age, bull markets or as much as unexpected developments. what are the developments you're watching, whether developing countries and economies seeming on falling on hard times, what is going on in europe falling on very hard times or what? >> neil, you talked about climbing a wall of worry, we've been doing it for nine years. neil: you're right. >> remember, cypress cyprus

would take the world down and greece, italy and "brexit," all these things. what keeps driving this market is profits. that is why stocks are up? >> as hadn't tech performed. tax cuts fueled profits, right? >> it helped. this year we're up 20% in profits versus 10 to 12 but profits are going, we're already at an all-time high even before tax cuts. and so if you go back over these last nine years, it is profits that were driving this market higher. they have been and nobody believes. and what kills market, what kills the economy is when the fed tightens too much and my belief is that doesn't happen until the fed gets to 4 1/2 or 5% on the federal funds rate. we have a long way to go of fed tightening before they threaten economic growth. and so, you know, and by the way, not everybody is bullish.

maarten feldstein just wrote a bearish article in "wall street journal" he said we're in for a huge crash. every day i see more and more pieces like this out there. and yet we keep climbing. and my belief is, that this economy is not going to have a recession in 2020. and we continue to see the stock market go up for the next two or three years. neil: guys, i want to thank you all very, very much. again when you hear this talk about worries, everyone is bullish it is old market lore, if everyone is of the mind-set you can't have everybody in the party boat. something has got to be resisting that. so you have a lot of people who feel there is a reason to pause. that can be a healthy development because it does climb this pervasive giddiness that could be out there. they don't like giddiness. we saw a lot of giddiness in summer of '87 that was punctured badly in '87. we saw more in deal-making of october '89.

the failed leverage buyout of ual parent company. there are sometimes things we don't see. they go against the popular grain, better things look, sometimes the more worried people get. so we shall see. we're also going to be giving you the latest on brett kavanaugh. they say the fbi could wrap up today. we'll give you latest on this back and forth "new york times" story. the one takeaway i had from it, fred trump, was doing his best to make sure his five kids at the time would have the most possible money they could get out of his big real estate operation. he looked at all his kids, said i want to make sure i provide a way for them to avoid taxes. he would argue not illegally. "the new york times" seemed to intimate something else. i started thinking of my own kids whether i would be so concerned for themes when my wife and i leave this planet they divide the $1000 to their will. we're going to explore that because this all comes back to

what tax breaks and havens were available then, what was legal then versus what might be suspect now or more scrutinized now. with apologies to nobody, with leanings toward anybody. more after this.

i wanted more from my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition

or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com. 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.

>> the national media feeding frenzy literally dragged judge kavanaugh and his family through the mud. the senate will vote on this nomination this week. when we do, we'll be voting on one of the most impressive, most stunningly qualified supreme court nominees in our nation's history. neil: all right. it is going to happen, by maybe the end of this week. we don't know, mitch mcconnell making clear full steam ahead amid reports that the fbi probe itself could wrap up early as today. chad pergram with latest from capitol hill. what are you hearing, chad? reporter: this is a super intense, supercharged atmosphere here on capitol hill. there is vote on senate floor unrelated to brett kavanaugh. related to faa senators complaining that they have trying to get to the floor. capitol police lining the corridor, which is

uncharacteristic to make sure senators get to the vote. mitch mcconnell is sticking to his guns that they will have a vote this week. if they have a vote this week, there is a four-day process he has to initiate today. he has to file cloture which is the move to end debate which would trigger a procedural vote to close off debate, filibuster on friday. you need intervening day before the procedural vote on friday. that would trigger a confirmation vote on brett kavanaugh probably late in the day on friday. so far mitch mcconnell has not done that. you played a bit of the remarks from mcconnell on the floor this morning. there were two pretty intense speeches by senate majority leader and chuck schumer the senate minority leader. you don't hear the two leaders go at it like that very often the chuck schumer was defending christine blasey ford. he wanted an apology from the president for his remarks last night. and susan collins, who is one of the senators in play had something to say about this earlier. she said quote, the president's remarks were just plain wrong.

keep in mind, that if they are to confirm brett kavanaugh, they have to have the votes of at least susan collins or lisa murkowski. it is going to come down to two republican female senators if they can also keep jeff flake, the republican senator from arizona, neil. neil: susan collins to your point, jeff flake, also to your point were critical of the president's remarks. does the president get in the way of the judge's approval then? or do they just sort of accept that the president will say some stuff but we're going to focus on the judge, we'll not let that influence us? >> the president was on pretty good behavior about this when the allegations first came out. he turned it up a notch last night because you don't know what is going to be in the fbi report, and because you know, this vote is kind of dancing on the tip of a pin here, anything, anything, neil, could influence it at this point. you just don't know. even if they were to forge ahead and vote yes is there backlash against collins in the election? is there backlash against

republicans in the midterms? do they sacrifice a short-term gain to get brett kavanaugh on the court for what happens at midterm elections? that is a big question, especially if they are trying to court independent, suburban women in the midterm elections that is the key voting bloc going in. if you have inflamed those folks, especially on the left, that is a program for republicans. neil: my friend, thank you very, very much. >> of course. neil: as usual great reporting on all of this, keeping up with chad pergram, that is what you have to do and he is here with us. meantime this fbi report today, that does wrap up today exactly who they have talked to, we're told a number of key witnesses that an attest or will attest to the argument that brett kavanaugh made this didn't happen or this event at this house never occurred, he certainly wasn't there. tim is among them, chris garrett, a man known as sqe, you might recall. p.j. smyth another one said to be at the event and fingered by

dr. ford among those at the party. he says he doesn't know anything about it. you have a lot of people like that. you also have questions that have been focused on deborah ramirez, the second accuser goes back to her time when she was a student at yale with brett kavanaugh. we're told this ultimately could run into the dozens, but those are the big names that have been mentioned thus far. let's get the read on all this from former justice department deputy director of public affairs ian pryor. if it wraps up or could wrap up today, could some seize on that as a sign this isn't being thorough? >> you know not necessarily. what people need to understand this is not going to be one or two fbi agents going to talk to these people. they will have multiple people in different areas looking at this. they have been at this since friday. in most cases you can get a background investigation done rather quickly. this is the seventh background investigation done into brett kavanaugh. not like they're starting from

scratch. neil: just to be clear, focused on just these allegations not on any prior issues that came up in multiple investigation, right? >> correct. and what we're looking for here is the specific incident or alleged incident, anybody that may have witnessed it. they will not go talking to taker witnesses or people with hearsay evidence. they will talk to people allegedly at this party. keep in mind they don't know where it took place, when it took place and it was 35 years ago. this is going to be very difficult to piece together if it in fact happened. neil: what is your sense where this goes? i suspect it does little to change a no vote into a yes vote or a yes vote into a no vote. a number of democrats are saying, one of the things they're trying to catch the judge on whether he lied or misrepresented his fondness for alcohol at high school or college student? they want to catch him a lie. i don't know how you make perjury leap discussing whether you got trashed at a party,

leaving that aside, that seems to be the extent of it? no i think you're right. i don't think that you're going to get a smoking gun here, nor do i think you will get anything that is exculpatory. think we'll be largely where we were at end of last week. senators murkowski, flake, collins, manchin cover for this and get peace of mind. you mentioned how goalposts have shifted a little bit. they're talking about some different things. what you're seeing in polling is very interesting. in arizona, which is hotly-contested senate election, 49% want to confirm kavanaugh. 42% do not. you're seeing similar numbers in west virginia and north dakota. the house generic ballot has gotten a little better for house republicans. i wonder if internal polling showing the democrats over reached a bit and trying to pull back an throw more mud out there to see if something sticks? neil: good reminders all, ian

pryor. >> thank you. neil: much made of "new york times" report. unusual to see something this long, eight pages, 14,000 word that comes down to this. that fred trump when he was looking after his five kids wanted to make sure they got the loot from the real estate empire he built, not uncle sam. the question doing so, with donald trump's help, did they skirt the irs? did they avoid the laws that were out there? and what were those laws at that time? they would not of course be the first very wealthy family not trying to pay the full freight in taxes. the question here with some of these clever vehicles, i might add to the real estate business, this is something i did cover with mr. trump for decades, whether what he was doing then was illegal then and does it bear watching now? after this. that last place was pretty nice. i don't like this whole thing.

i think we can do better. change is hard. try to keep an open mind. come on, dad. this is for me, son? principal. we can help you plan for that. ♪ cal: we saved our money and now, we get to spend it - our way. valerie: but we worry if we have enough to last.

♪ cal: ellen, our certified financial planner™ professional, helps us manage our cash flow and plan for the unexpected. valerie: her experience and training gave us the courage to go for it. it's our "confident forever plan"... cal: ...and it's all possible with a cfp® professional. find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. is important to me so father being diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer made me think of all the things that i wanted to teach my kids. (avo) another tru story with keytruda. (roger) my doctor said i could start on keytruda so i did. with each scan things just got better. (avo) in a clinical study, keytruda offered patients a longer life than chemotherapy. and it could be your first treatment. keytruda is for adults with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread... ...who test positive for pd-l1 and whose tumors do not have an abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. it's the immunotherapy with the most fda-approved uses for advanced lung cancer.

keytruda can cause your immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in your body and affect how they work. this can happen anytime during or after treatment and may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you experience new or worsening cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, severe stomach pain or tenderness, nausea or vomiting, rapid heartbeat, constipation, changes in urine, changes in eyesight, muscle pain or weakness, joint pain, confusion or memory problems, fever, rash, itching or flushing, as this may keep these problems from becoming more serious. these are not all the possible side effects of keytruda. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions including immune system problems, or if you've had an organ transplant or lung, breathing, or liver problems. (roger ) before i'd think of the stuff i might miss. but now with keytruda, we have hope. (avo) living longer is possible. it's tru. keytruda, from merck. ask your doctor about keytruda.

neil: since the story came out at "new york times." the reviewing a lot of the alleged financial transactions of team trump going back to his father and of course the five kids, including donald trump over many, many decade here. the statute of limitations might be off for criminal action, not necessarily for civil action. although that too could change. christina parts part is live at the trump tower with more. on this. what are you hearing, christina? >> i want to start back when it started, 1995 "new york times" reporter received documents pertaining to trump's 1994 tax forms back then. they found out he lost over $900 million. fast forward 10 years, rachel maddow, got a tax form for 2005 saying that he made $150 million. during that time frame "new york times" reporters wonder how does the president go from losing 900 million, to

making 150 million? they went over the documents and came out with the article published yesterday. the fact that they're trying to go against the narrative and only one million dollar loan from his father and self-made millionaire. the article saying that is not true. he received about $413 million at least from his parents, from his father fred trump. the second, or very important part too is that the parent transferred about $1 billion to all five children. back then the tax rate was 55% on gifts and inheritance. so the family would have to pay $550 million in taxes. they only paid 52 million. we reached out with confirmation and statements from the lawyer. lawyer from the president, charles hearter. what he said "the new york times" allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100% false and highly defamatory. there was no fraud or tax

evasion by anyone. he continues on to say facts are extremely accurate. we had kellyanne conway, counselor to the president speak to fox news, listen in to what she had to say about the accusations? >> he denies this completely through his attorney. also what our press secretary sarah sanders said yesterday about this, very instructive. mainstream media ever see anything positive in booming economy? most importantly trying to go ahead the president into suing them so they can get his tax returns. haven't they learned yet, president trump always gets the last laugh and upper hand? >> neil, i'm sure you will discuss what she meant by him getting the last laugh and upper hand. right now there could be potential consequences. new york state is looking into whether he did back in the day evade taxes. so that is one tax consequences. the other major thing, president had been very private about his financial situation, not releasing his tax forms. so that is another big thing. peeling off the on i don't know

as "the new york times" -- onion as "new york times" reporter says. i know you're with charlie gasparino to talk about it right now. neil: we'll talk about the weather. thank you very much, kristina partsinevelos, reason that loss for the year. how it became an issue, could he have written that off as stages in since? could he have not paid any taxes? could donald trump found himself in positioning thanks to the loss, carry it out and write it off one return after another for better part of a decade. hence the argument that a lot of clinton folks making not paying taxes. we don't know the tax record. we don't know a lot about this. this would not be the first family of great wealth, particularly in the real estate arena, laws get tricky and complicated to try to dodge the taxman. anyway they can. question, did they do it really? did some funny stuff come up? charlie you and i covered businesses for donald trump for many decades.

i always thought that he shortchanged his dad in talking about the influence he had because i think you and i both knew the father enough to know was a brilliant real estate titan. >> he was actually a billionaire. neil: absolutely. >> he downplayed for that years. neil: he did it, opportunity with our returning gis. >> barrett city. staples for middle class. neil: to this day. let me ask you this, is there a sense you're getting this is worry for trump? more to the point who is providing all of this stuff? >> yes there is a sense. it has been real worry of the mueller investigation was not necessarily the russian collusion aspect. it was not insignificant. he would find a way into the business dealings. clear he is hiding something. how can you say that explicitly? he didn't present his tax returns. thus he is hiding his tax returns. neil: his argument i'm in middle of being audited.

>> every reporter i know has been chasing this story for years. "new york times" had the 95 tax statement, during the campaign, just i thought, kristina, it was 95 thing that they got. came up during the campaign. neil: significance was -- >> window into donald trump. he doesn't show his taxes. what he makes and what he doesn't pay and all that. so i would say every reporter i know, i remember, when bill shine was here i had a meeting with him, when donald trump was running. i said listen, here is his issues. it is on these businesses. it is on taxes. and it is on shell companies and whether they're all kosher. what "the times" got no one else had, i'm telling you everybody, wayne barrett tim johnson, everybody that covers taxes.

everybody knew this was out there. none of us had, donald trump tax returns. -- fred trump tax returns. somebody leaked that to the times. we can guess all day long. a leak to trump tower -- neil: i immediately thought michael cohen. remember the raid on his offices and his home? he is the president's personal lawyer. wouldn't he have a lot of this stuff? cfo, who once -- >> just surmising. don't say michael did it. yes he could. neil: someone close -- >> to him. what they did, they got fred's returns. when you boil it down, it was very well-written, i should point out, two reporters. i worked with them. friendly with. just fyi, full disclosure, they're brilliant reporters. the thing that got me was the creation of the fake company that fred trump, and donald trump used that fake

company, essentially to get, to create sham transactions, where they would transfer fred's wealth of that company and somehow pay for stuff at an inflated basis, right? so you can transfer his wealth. neil: this company, this third company. >> all american something. neil: washers, dryers, and ovens, stoves for the apartment complexes. >> say it costs $10 to buy a stove. they would pay $10. fred trump would reimburse the company, the shell company owned by donald and his siblings for $20. neil: right. >> that is the way he transferred his wealth to the shell company so he could basically pay less taxes. then the tax treatment -- neil: what isn't clear, did that provide every transaction, for every apartment building, for every purchase? they had documents i took a look at. grantor annuity trusts you and i know in the real estate business are a means by which family-owned enterprises use that to protect their

shareholders. >> absolutely. neil: private shareholders. >> question when you do a transaction irs or new york state insurance department do they describe it as sham transaction. i'm telling you -- neil: "new york times" wrote a lot about this stuff. getting into means here. is there a sense now that that was a rigged process? >> i don't think it was rigged. there was enough great matter that they didn't look further. people used those vehicles and they probably didn't know how much fred was overpaying on the washer and dryers. neil: flip on another thing. this will be hard to prove this is bigger than it is, but i will say this i have the feeling. you and i talked about this before. that it is a preview of maybe where the mueller probe is going. >> i that i agree with. neil: much like clinton thing

started looking out into real estate transactions this, thing veered so far off course, it will not be about collusion, not about the russians, it will be about business transactions going back decades. >> his people around trump believe that. i give you insight. late last year. early this year, trump was running around off the charges. they will clear me ty cobb. chris ruddy, who is a confidante of donald, are you sure about that? your real problem may not be the russian collusion. it may be, if mueller is looking at this, all your business dealings and whether they were kosher, whether you paid the right taxes. one person's tax dodge is another person's, loophole is another person's, another prosecutor's sham transaction the i can tell you people that were ensnarled in the whole enron mess. bankers that were involved in these sham transactions. that is what the government

called them. they were not real transactions. they were, they were, superficially legal. but, government said they were unnecessary. they were only done to hide losses an stuff like that. to sort of hide the football. remember, depend who this goes before. if it is u.s. attorney. if it is jeff sessions i don't think trump will get indicted. but if it is some state prosecutor, and if who knows. neil: you exhausted statute of limitations on some of these. neil: shoes. other things could come back to haunt them at white house. >> suppose mueller comes out with a report, presumably mueller has some of this. neil: i'm telling you this mueller probe will be about business transactions. >> i agree. neil: his advisors tell him that all the time. i should stress we're not minimizing this, maximizing. charlie, we're nerds, hip or cooler one. we followed donald trump for many a decade and his real estate empire.

highs and lows. his father who was brilliant and real estate titan in his own right. started all of this. we knew then and appreciate it then as we do now, that the dad was instrumental figure in the making of donald trump. that is not to minimize what donald trump did on his own, marketing skills that of course "new york times" brings up to great detail and degree. but i am telling you get increasing sense that this is a focus of things way beyond "the new york times." way beyond. we'll have more after this. a porfolio based specifically on their needs. we're fiduciaries, stewards of our clients' money. entrusted to do what's right. it's a mission. a guiding principle our firm lives by. charles schwab is proud to support more independent financial advisors and their clients than anyone else.

visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

♪ neil: white house briefing about 15 minutes away. couple big issues no doubt coming up. the brett kavanaugh situation, fbi probe could wrap up. "new york times" story and president's business dealings go back to what the 40s, 50s, '60s, you name it. big topics i want to discuss with karl rove.

carl, first talk about the judge and, whether he is going to make it. obviously it is down to just a few key senators, handicap it for me. >> well, right now we have three republicans who have been pressing forked for the fbi investigation. resolution could bring it into the kavanaugh camp. we have two democratic senators heidi heitkamp and joe manchin of west virginia, yet to opine and are waiting. what is interesting, a poll from harvard harris conducted by penn for harvard university. after the hearing it was 37% of voters favored confirming brett kavanaugh. 44% were opposed. but then if you said, the fbi is going to look into these, what if there is no corroboration by witnesses, that it turns into a 60/40, confirmation support

overwhelmingly republicans. big majority among independents. even 40% of democrats say there is no corroborating witnesses he ought to be confirmed. neil: that is very, very interesting. now of course the democrats already prearguing, this is the view from republicans, that not enough people have been searched out. that the questions have not been thorough. i don't know how they would know that. but assuming it is, it is deemed to be a process that provides at least cover for republicans on fence how do you think it goes. >> goes with confirmation of brett kavanaugh. don't kid ourselves, vast that majority of democrats vote no. announced within weeks or months. within hours of nomination, senator part at that discuss booker, "spartacus," called brett kavanaugh evil. even chris coons who is tried in the last week to look sort of

bipartisan, concerned about bipartisanship, we need an fbi investigation. he announced on tuesday, that if a, there were democrat senate, would confirm a trump nominee, not if they were from "the federalist" society, that is neomccarthyism, have you now, ever been a member of "the federalist" society? let's not kid ourselves. vast majority of democrats will be opposed. only two democrats likely to vote for this in heavily republican states, doing themselves real damage. two candidates in the senate, one in tennessee, and one candidate in arizona refused to say where they are on this, realizing this could discombobulate them in the states as well. democrats are bent on 11th hour character assassination. nobody should kid themselves. they all said this could be done in a week. they all said stay, white house, stay out of this all, now they're, let's be prepared for them to say we needed more time and not only that, but we gave

awe list of witnesses you should have investigated and interviewed and you didn't. neil: latest allegations in "the new york times," spelled out in exhaustive detail, going back many, many decades s that they want something to stick but obviously in the case of this "new york times" report, i didn't find anything new or jarring there. we have always known his father was a bigger player, not in the real estate business but in his son's climb, even his son acknowledged. we always knew as well, that if you're in the real estate business or you have a great deal of money period you will do all you can to at least legally avoid paying the irs. now the question is, did it go to the extent of being illegal? no signs that is the case. what do you make of both? >> it is clear they want to get at him. and the allegation that this is somehow shady is problematic from a public relations perspective. but i got to tell you, neil, i'm not the tax expert. but it strikes me.

if you are a new york real estate developer, that is sort of like a class that guaranties automatic audit by irs. i would suspect fred trump's business dealings and machinations to transfer the wealth to his children were observed and audited great many times. neil: by the way the irs did write off on him. they had many battles with the irs. i remember covering them and covering several bankruptcies where same issues came up. no the to be apologist here. in that particular field with the writeoffs, lack thereof you will run into some audits, you know. >> look, i have always thought issue of tax returns had less to do with whatever machinations donald trump and his that's right were involved in, more the fact donald trump built image in people's minds he is this wealthy and tax returns might indicate he is this wealthy. it is, we know that he went through for years and years with the "forbes" listing of the wealthiest americans. neil: yeah. >> desperately tried to make

certain he was high up on the list as possible. going to the point i believe it was, he impersonated a public relations executive on his own behalf. and in order to puff himself up. neil: right. >> so you know, "the new york times" did an exhaustive study here but i thought it was interesting, nowhere in there does it say these are illegal. in fact there is a couple of points where they sort of indicate or suggest that the irs did routinely look at these and there were squabbles about them. neil: talked with some cpas this is a bit of a stretch, a bit of a problem but it is always in the eye of beholder. we'll see how it goes. all i told my kids, fred trump might be interested, carl, looking after to provide for his kids, making sure the taxman didn't take all their money. i told my kids, your mother and i don't care. if it goes to the irs -- >> you can't pull that off on me. you're like fred trump, only about nine zeros fewer whatever

you give to your children. $458, rather than $458 million. neil: "the last supper" painting you're leaving out. carl always good, my friend. >> one of children once had elvis painting. another one wants the dogs playing cards. you have to work that out yourself. neil: i already have. but i can't share that with national audience. karl, thank you very much. my producer is telling me we're getting ready to go to the white house briefing, all the issues minus the velvet elvis might come up. more after this.

fast, reliable internet is crucial. does it every go down? yes. can't do my job. business grinds to a halt. our gig-speed network not only downloads files up to 20 times faster, we go beyond fast with 4g backup for complete reliability. so if the unexpected happens... (snaps fingers) you stay up and running. we lost power... but not to that. i want that. (laughing) get fast, reliable internet and add tv and voice for a low price.

call now. comcast business. beyond fast.

neil: all right. stocks are at a record, we are waiting for the white house press briefing. no doubt the markets will come up and the good economy. whether that gets much attention from reporters, given all these other developments on the judge and now this expose in the "new york times" about the president and his failed business dealings, we are focusing on all of that. our economist and yale professor is with us now. on the interest rates, some might like because it shows a strong economy but if you are looking for a house around now, it could get in the way. how much of the way, do you think, robert? >> well, i think when the mortgage rates were low, when they were exceptionally low,

that was driving the housing market. now we're getting back into more normal territory, i expect that it will be a weakener. there is some sense of weakness in the housing market, notably we are seeing some -- they are still going up but not quite as fast. neil: what does that portend for next year? obviously the federal reserve has indicated and jerome powell, the chairman, has all but guaranteed a trend that will continue. >> right. so there isn't much news coming out. you have to really look hard from the fed. they are on target to increase interest rates, just as the inflation rate is keeping up above the target rate. they are eminently predictable which is a good thing. neil: i guess it would be. for a lot of people, the problem seems to be interest rates going

up can lock some people out, but appraisals are still stingy, i'm told. how much of a factor is that? >> how much of a factor is appraisal? i suppose appraisers use comparable sales, and they would be lower. so you have to correct for a trend. there is an uptrend in both the housing market and the stock market which has been going on for years. the real question in my mind is what's driving this trend. it's not just trump. it's also obama, because it's been going on for so long. these trends do come to an end and sometimes they come to an abrupt end. neil: you know, do you think we're back to the giddiness that surrounded real estate before the meltdown? i mean, i still see a lot of reticence on particularly the part of the young, maybe for different reasons. i don't see nearly as frothy as it was back then but i could be

missing something. what do you think? >> the frothiness, i guess that's a greenspan quote, which is an understatement, the frothiness was extremely unusual probably around 2005, 2006. i don't think we had ever had such an exuberant housing market. maybe right after world war ii, when there was a housing shortage. other than that, it is exceptional and then so also was the correction. the decline in home prices after 2006 was the biggest we've ever seen in a short interval of time. so that is a unique -- we shouldn't always be fighting the last war. i don't think we're as exuberant or bubbly now, at least not yet. neil: all right. always great catching up. thank you very, very much. interest rates are backing up today. the price goes down, the yield

goes up, so that's a concern here. but the markets, certainly the stock market is dealing with it very well. obviously we are looking at a briefing that's supposed to start any minute and this could be a big subject in that briefing, the fbi and its probe that could be wrapping up as early as today. to edward lawrence on capitol hill with that. what are you hearing? reporter: yeah, exactly. fbi sources are telling fox news that the investigation or background check could be wrapped up as early as this evening. now, the senate majority leader would then have to initiate that process to start the confirmation vote. he says it's going to happen this week. democrats today are focusing on president donald trump's comments from last night, where he criticized the first accuser of kavanaugh, christine blasey ford, and also poked holes or highlighted the holes in her testimony. >> -- to show [ inaudible ]. reporter: democrats very upset

about that. now, the confirmation vote could hang in the balance of three republican senators, senator jeff flake, senator lisa murkowski and also senator susan collins. i can tell you today there's a super-charged atmosphere on capitol hill. in fact, senator collins had to be escorted by capitol police to her hearings and her office. it was a scene because protesters were clogging the hallways. collins today said the president should not have made those remarks. >> the president's comments were just plain wrong. reporter: they are defending the president saying that ford could not point to what day it happened, where the attack happened or how she got home that day. >> her memory gaps or factual inconsistencies, that is part of the information gathering proce process. reporter: with this fbi investigation, the fbi already interviewed deborah ramirez as well as some of the friends of

kavanaugh who have been publicly identified in the statements from christine ford and others. also, the fbi talked with ford's friend, the female, the woman who took her to that party that allegedly where the attack happened. again, the investigation could be wrapped up as early as tonight. back to you. neil: we will see. they might weigh what effect this could have less than five weeks from now in the midterms, talking obviously about the judge and where he's going to go and whether he ever makes the supreme court on these allegations and the exhaustive "new york times" study that showed he and his dad and the family might have played fast and loose with tax laws. they say that is not the case. whatever the case, let's go to independent women's forum director hadley heath manning and jake mcabee and joe borelli. joe, is this a concern first off, the judge thing, if he never gets through and people go back and say well, it was because of your comments about the accuser, mr. president?

>> i don't think the blame will fall on president trump for failing to confirm judge kavanaugh. i think he's as vocal of a supporter as judge kavanaugh as a president could possibly be. i think dr. ford has been sort of a third rail for republicans in criticizing her for awhile, but as the investigation goes forward, as more public evidence comes out, as more leaks come out, you can begin to question it because none of it seems to add up. when none of it adds up, you know, unfortunately the microscope then goes on you. neil: do you worry about women voters who are not going to like that? >> no, if you look at a poll in missouri about claire mccaskill, half the voters have come out and said her opposition to judge kavanaugh is a reason they're not going to vote for her. neil: another issue has come up in reaction to the judge and how he handled those criticisms last week. i think hillary clinton said it was his temperament that came into question. along comes origrin hatch who sd

it was righteous anger. what do you think? >> if it was righteous anger, it was petulant. three things senators will be looking at when they take this vote. neil: ruth bader ginsburg when she attacked the president, is that righteous anger? >> she didn't do it in a job interview, certainly. neil: she did it even worse on the supreme court. >> it wasn't in her high school yearbook, either. here's what i'm concerned about if i'm a senator. i would be concerned about allegations of sexual assault. there's already one person on the supreme court, clarence thomas, who has been accused of sexual harassment. i would be concerned about adding a second. two, i would -- neil: acuk accusing is enough? >> it's enough to be concerned. number two is candor. there are a number of instances in judge kavanaugh's testimony when they sort of strain credulity. neil: like what? >> for example, when he talks

about the things in his high school yearbook which shouldn't be a big deal except if you say things that don't really add up, when he talks about ralphing as being about eating spicy foods. it doesn't make sense. neil: it's not about beeating spicy foods? >> i would be concerned about his temperament. neil: this is what it's come to, where we go through yearbook writings and the like, but someone was actually telling me they are trying to get the judge on perjury because he understated just how much he drank. i thought to myself wow, that's veering way off course but maybe it's the nature of the beast. what do you think? >> yeah. it suggests there's a moving of the goalposts going on. i sympathize with americans who are concerned about, you know, women being able to bring their accusations forward. the world has been dangerous for women in that we are more likely to be the victims of sexual violence but president trump recently asserting that this is a dangerous time for young men, that's a fair point, too.

but the good news is we don't have to choose, we don't have to choose sides between men and women or between victims of sexual assault -- neil: don't you think he should have just, on that, just keep it quiet? >> on the ralphing point? neil: no, no, the president not commenting on the accuser, period. done. don't. >> oh, he certainly shouldn't have made fun of dr. ford or disrespected her in any way. we're at a point, critical point culturally, where the #metoo movement encouraged more women to come forward when they have been mistreated and that's a good thing. but that doesn't mean we should tip the scales of justice in the opposite direction. neil: i'm not saying that one way or the other. i thought the president complicated things for some of those republican senators on the fence, susan collins, lisa murkowski, even jeff flake, who were all critical of his response. >> the only thing we can be certain about susan collins and jeff flake is that whichever way the wind is blowing on the day they vote, that's the way they're going to vote. but --

neil: they have made some brave votes. >> they have in the past. i'm not talking necessarily about those. i'm talking about the fact this is going to come to a head this week. mitch mcconnell is going to push a vote and they have to vote up or down. look how far the democrats have come. last week on this show it was as predictable as the yankees winning a playoff spot tonight. we said they are going to -- neil: we just lost the oakland audience. >> the democrats were -- neil: let me ask you about that. hillary clinton was commenting on this about the temperament and this other issue, and that's the latest thing the democrats are seizing on. don't you think it is distinctly possible that these democrats up for re-election in big trump states, obviously joe manchin is mentioned, heidi heitkamp, obviously, in north dakota, would be under enormous pressure to vote for this guy? >> here's what i think is the great news for anybody watching this, is that it doesn't have to be judge kavanaugh or no one. the president could nominate somebody else who would be extremely acceptable to these

democrats in top races. as it stands now, all those democrats had excellent reasons and not just reasons, but responsibilities, to vote against this nominee because there have been so many questions raised. neil: would it hurt the ones in those states the president won big to not vote for the judge? >> i think that most people in most states will appreciate a senator who stands up and takes a stand and can say you know what, i have looked at all of this, i have concerns, that's why i would rather this president nominate somebody else. neil: i mentioned many brave senators in the past on both sides of the aisle. you know, hadley, i'm just wondering how the president deals with all of this. of course, you will have a briefing with this "new york times" story, it will come up about whether he inflated his own role in the wealth he accumulated, turns out it might have been more his dad than he, and the way that wealth was done or whether the irs was skirted. of course, knowing a little bit about him, having covered him for many decades, the irs keeps a close eye on real estate

titans and those who acquire a lot of wealth. there might have been other things to come up and obviously new york state officials are investigating, but i think for the president, the big thing is more the ego here, on the minimal role he said his father had in his financial life was just not the case. what do you think? >> well, the story certainly puts president trump back at the center of our politics and that's something i believe democrats, that's a goal of theirs to make the midterm elections more or less a referendum on president trump. but aside from the personality politics and aside from questions about president trump's personal wealth, this midterm election season is also about the issues. it's about tax reform, it's about health care, it's about immigration. those are issues on top of voters' minds as well. whether or not that story influences any voters, i think is actually not going to have the impact the democrats are hoping. neil: they also use wall street as a proxy, not always an accurate one, but we talk about it. right now the markets seem more

impressed with good earnings, with the trade deal with canada, maybe avoiding a trade war with china in the last step of this process and that's all that seems to matter. either they are not worried about judge kavanaugh becoming justice kavanaugh, but we'll see. sarah sanders will no doubt take up all of this. let's go. >> good afternoon. in keeping with his campaign pledge, the president continues to donate his salary on a quarterly basis to further important priorities. today, president trump is proud to donate his 2018 second quarter salary to the small business administration. administrator linda mcmahon is here to accept the check. i would like to bring her up to say a few words about how the funds will be used. >> thank you very much. this is awesome. i would like to thank the president for his generosity and for his support of small business administration. he clearly understands the value of small businesses. there are approximately 30 million of them in this country and i'm very happy to be their

advocate. this money is going to be used in our veterans program. we are going to establish a seven-month intensive training program called emerging leaders, an adaptation of that program for our veterans, helping them transition from military life into private sector if they desire to start their own jobs -- their own companies and be entrepreneurs. once again, we thank the president very much for this and it will be put to very good use. thank you all very much. >> thank you, administrator mcmahon. now i would like to bring up national security adviser, ambassador john bolton, to discuss the withdrawal from the optional protocol on dispute resolution to the vienna convention to diplomatic relations. he will take questions after some remarks and i will be up to take questions of the day. >> thank you, sarah. earlier today, secretary of state pompeo made a very

important announcement regarding the president's decision to terminate the 1955 treaty of amity with iran, a treaty iran made a mockery of with its support for terrorism, provocative ballistic missile proliferation and malign behavior throughout the middle east. today's decision by the international court of justice was a defeat for iran. it correctly rejected nearly all of iran's requests. we are disappointed that the icj failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order with respect to sanctions the united states imposes to protect its own essential security under the treaty. instead, the court allowed iran to use it as a forum for propaganda. the iranian regime has systematically pursued a policy of hostility toward the united states that defames the central premise of the treaty of amiity. the regime cannot practice animosity in its conduct and

then ask for amity under international law. in addition, i am announcing that the president has decided that the united states will withdraw from the optional protocol on dispute resolution to the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. this is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of palestine naming the united states as a defendant challenging our move of our embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. i would like to stress the united states remains a party to the underlying vienna convention on diplomatic relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention. our actions today are consistent with the decisions president reagan made in the 1980s in the wake of the politicized suits against the united states by nicaragua, to terminate our acceptance of the optional compulsory jurisdiction of the international court of justice under article 36-2 of the icj

statute and his decision to withdraw from a bilateral treaty with nicaragua. it is also consistent with the decision president bush made in 2005 to withdraw from the optional protocol to the vienna convention on consular relations following the icj's interference in our domestic criminal justice system. so our actions today deal with the treaties and current litigation involving the united states before the international court of justice. given this history and iran's abuse of the icj, we will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the united states to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the international court of justice. the united states will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us. that concludes the statement. i would be happy to try and answer a few questions. yes, sir. reporter: thank you, mr. ambassador.

in response to the actions you just announced, iran's foreign minister [ inaudible ] an outlaw regime. i also wanted to ask you, if i may, about north korea with the announcement that the secretary of state is going to be traveling to pyongyang. do you trust kim jong-un? do you personally trust kim jong-un? >> with respect to questions outside the scope of our withdrawal from these two treaties, i'm going to pass on those because we want to emphasize the steps that the president authorized in connection with those two treaties. you know, iran is a rogue regime. it has been a threat throughout the middle east, not only for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it's active for decades as the central banker of international terrorism and its hostile and aggressive military behavior in the region today is a breach of international peace and security. so i don't take what they say

seriously at all. sir? reporter: two questions for you. [ inaudible ] are you at all concerned about the people of iran [ inaudible ]? >> our dispute is with the ayatollahs who have taken iran from a respected position in the international community to being a rogue state. our dispute has never been with the people of iran. we only wish they had the ability to control their own government. it won't have any effect. sir? reporter: canceling those two treaties, i'm trying to figure out what are the open paths for potential talks with iran and

the palestinians? >> this really has less to do with iran and the palestinians than with the continued, consistent policy of the united states to reject the jurisdiction of the international court of justice which we think is politicized and ineffective. it relates obviously in part to our views on the international criminal court and the nature of so-called purported international courts to be able to bind the united states. sir? reporter: you are also closing doors in the end. you won't be able to use closing doors that shouldn't be open to politicized abuse which is what we have consistently seen in the icj. john? reporter: thank you, mr. ambassador. as you know, yesterday the french government denounced the iranian government for a terror plot in paris. are you aware of that? was that a factor in any of the

decisions you made withdrawing from these two protocols? >> no, these decisions were made before we were aware of the french decision but i have to say, what the french have done is exactly the right thing. they arrested and other european governments arrested accredited iranian diplomats, accredited iranian diplomats, for conspiracy to conduct this attempted assault on the rally in paris. so that tells you, i think, everything you need to know about how the government of iran views its responsibilities in connection with diplomatic relations and i hope it's a wake-up call across europe to the nature of the regime and the threat that they pose. reporter: are you racheting up tensions between the united states and iran and what is our intelligence when it comes to their nuclear weapons, et cetera, at this moment? >> i'm not going to get into what our intelligence states,

but the issue is protecting the united states against the politicized use of these international institutions. as i've said, this goes back now close to over 30 years, really, in connection with u.s. policy of rejecting jurisdiction of these courts, and it's a continuation i think in the interest of the american people. reporter: -- any kind of attempt to try to come together, trying to work with them in closing -- >> they are bringing a lawsuit against us in the icj has nothing whatever to do with a diplomatic effort to resolve our differences. it was a politicized use of the court that exacerbated the differences. reporter: can you respond [ inaudible ]? >> i will say it again, maybe you will listen this time. our policy is not regime change, but we do expect substantial

change in their behavior. that's why the president has directed all of us in the government to come up with steps to reimpose the economic sanctions and to do whatever else is necessary to ensure we bring maximum pressure on the regime to stop its malign behavior across the board. not just in the nuclear field, but across the board. reporter: given that the eu is still part of the nuclear deal, does this make the united states effort to try to force iran to abandon or try to dismantle its nuclear program any weaker? in other words, how much leverage do you have? >> i don't think iran is dismantling its nuclear program. if anything, recent reports that are public indicate that it's increasing its activity. reporter: you don't have the eu as a partner. >> i think we will apply the maximum amount of leverage we can. we are working with our european partners, with the british, the

french, the germans and others. they have chosen to remain in the iran nuclear deal but as i've said to them, it's like a book that was written several decades ago when this country was called something like the "six stages of grief." first you have denial, then anger, eventually you get to acceptance. i think that's the direction the europeans are moving in. i can tell you, european companies in droves are foreswearing business opportunities in iran because they don't want to be caught up in the pressure campaign that we're applying. reporter: can you just address palestine, you said it is a so-called state. is that language productive -- >> accurate. it is not a state. reporter: is the president committ committed, in new york city, as you know, recommitted his goals to achieving a two-state solution. >> that's right. reporter: so is using that sort of language productive in his goals? >> sure, of course.

it's not a state now. it does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. it doesn't control defined boundaries. it doesn't fulfill the normal functions of government. a whole host of reasons why it's not a state. it could become a state, as the president said. the guide requires diplomatic negotiations with israel and others. so calling it the so-called state of palestine defines exactly what it has been, a position that the united states government has pursued uniformly since 1988 when the palestinian authority declared itself to be the state of palestine. we don't recognize it as a state of palestine. we have consistently across democratic and republican administrations opposed the admission of palestine to the united nations as a state because it's not a state. sir? reporter: yes, sir. the iaea is saying it doesn't take at face value netanyahu's

claims that iran is harboring a secret atomic warehouse. do you agree with the israeli prime minister that there should be an inspection and what's your reaction to the comment? >> well, i haven't seen those comments. i will say we have been -- the intelligence community has been reviewing the material that israel extracted from iran and going over in quite some detail, i must say it's extremely impressive and we have been very supportive of the israeli effort, and supportive of the iaea taking new steps to follow up on it. the senate just confirmed a few days ago, ambassador jackie wolcott will be taking up her new position as ambassador to the agencies in vienna, the atomic energy agency, and she will be on the case shortly. sir. reporter: when the president

came out in support of a two-state solution at the u.n. last week, prime minister netanyahu said he was confident they would retain security control of the west bank under any white house plan. is that correct? are you open to a palestinian state with no security presence from israel inside their borders? >> i have been working, as you well know, on a peace plan involving israel and the palestinians. we will be rolling it out in due course, when we decide it's the most appropriate time to do it, and i'm sure that will answer your question. >> one last question. >> i'm sorry. i actually did try and recognize this gentleman. i guess i didn't point accurately enough. my apologies. reporter: thank you, mr. ambassador. former secretary of state john kerry said yesterday he had not met with the iranians since the u.s. pulled out of the deal but had met with them on several occasions before. do you think he violated the logan act by doing so and was he subverting the policy of the united states? >> i think secretary pompeo

addressed that previously. i will stick with his remarks. thank you very much. >> thank you, ambassador bolton. couple of quick reminders. fema in coordination with the federal communications commission will conduct a nationwide integrated public alert and warning system test of the emergency alert system and the wireless emergency alert later today. this will take place in two parts. the wea portion starting at 2:18 p.m. eastern followed by the eas portion at 2:20 p.m. eastern. this was the first nationwide wea test and fourth for the eas. the overall test will assess the operational readiness of the infrastructure for distribution of a national message and determine whether technological improvements are needed. looking ahead to monday, president trump will travel to orlando, florida to address the international association of chiefs of police. as the largest gathering of police leaders, the president will speak about the work of the

administration to protect american communities by restoring law and order, supporting local law enforcement and securing the border. lastly, on the night president trump nominated judge brett kavanaugh, senator schumer declared the democrats would oppose this nomination with everything they had. before single document was produced, a single meeting with the senator or hearing was ever scheduled, chuck schumer and the senate democrats telegraphed a strategy to throw the kitchen sink at the judge with no regard for the process, decency or standards. they are not opposed to judge kavanaugh's judicial views. they are literally trying to undercut the voice of the american people when they elected donald trump. they have questioned his legitimacy and casually tossed around vicious accusations of perjury. all false and baseless, but now they have sunk lower as they spring these 11th hour accusations and a full-scale assault on judge kavanaugh's integrity. this is a coordinated smear campaign. no evidence, no independent corroboration, just smears. here are just a few of the

examples. chuck schumer said, quote, there's no presumption of innocence or guilt. chris coons who sits on the committee said kavanaugh, quote, now bears the burden of disproving these allegations rather than dr. ford and miss ramirez. mazie hirono said judge kavanaugh does not deserve the presumption of innocence because of his judicial views. one thing is clear. democrats want to block kavanaugh and hold the seat open until the 2020 election. this is about politics and this is about power, pure and simple. they destroyed judge kavanaugh's reputation, undermined dr. ford's privacy and tried to upend our traditions of innocent until proven guilty in the process. it's a complete and total disgrace. we will receive and submit the fbi's supplemental background investigation on his nomination to the senate, as leader mcconnell said judge kavanaugh deserves a prompt vote and we expect him to get one. with that, i will take your questions. john? reporter: the three people who are most important in this whole

process are senators murkowski, collins and flake. this morning, two of those senators, flake and collins, were extremely upset about how the president described christine blasey ford at that rally in mississippi. knowing how sensitive this issue is and how important it would be if the fbi investigation shows no other compelling evidence to keep judge kavanaugh from the court, that these people need to be comfortable with voting for him, why did the president say what he did last night in the way that he said it? >> the president was stating the facts. frankly, facts that were included in special prosecutor rachel mitchell's report. he was stating facts that were given during dr. ford's testimony. to say i have to make a decision based on those facts and whether or not they see judge kavanaugh to be qualified to hold the position on the supreme court. every single word judge kavanaugh has said has been picked apart, every single word, second by second of his testimony has been picked apart,

yet if anybody says anything about the accusations that have been thrown against him, that's totally off-limits and outrageous. this entire process has been a disgrace and the only reason that it's been that way is because senate democrats didn't do this the way that it should have been done and they circumvented the entire system. frankly, they have undermined our entire judicial branch by the way they acted and the inappropriateness with which they have conducted themselves. reporter: you point out inconsistencies, that's one thing, but the tone with which the president did it last night clearly had an effect on two key swing votes for his nomination. is the president concerned that he may have put those votes in danger by doing what he did last night? >> i don't think so. the president is very confident in his nominee, as he stated time and time again, and we expect the senate to vote. we hope they do that soon. reporter: two quick questions. first, does the white house have any response to the report

[ inaudible ]? >> the president has certainly been made aware but as we said yesterday, the u.s. secret service will respond to those. reporter: do you have any information on the president's meeting with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and the president's confidence in him? >> again, we don't have any updates on that front. if there's a meeting we will let you know. at this point, they continue to work together and both show up every day and do their job. reporter: you criticized the democrats for undermining dr. ford's privacy. aren't you trying to have it both ways, attacking democrats for doing something that was in their interest and the president goes out onstage to simulate mocking her? >> not at all. we are pointing out the hypocrisy -- again, none of this would be taking place if democrats had done this in a normal order and not exploited

dr. ford and attacked judge kavanaugh in such a public manner. all of this could have been handled completely differently. senate democrats hold all of the responsibility for that process. josh? reporter: the "times" reported yesterday the president engaged in outright tax fraud throughout the '90s with basically getting more money from his parents than he said. he rebutted the story. can you explain what is inaccurate about that story? is there anything actually inaccurate about it? >> it's a totally false attack based on an old recycled news story. i'm not going to sit and go through every single line of a very boring 14,000 word story. i will say one thing the article did get right was it showed the president's father actually had a great deal of confidence in him. in fact, the president brought his father nointo a lot of deal and they made a lot of money together. so much so that his father went on to say everything he touched turned to gold. the president's lawyer addressed some of the specific claims and

walked through how the allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100% false and highly defamatory. there was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. he went on much further, and i would encourage you to read every word of his statement which completely undercuts the accusations made by the "new york times." reporter: are the president's taxes still under audit? >> a number of his taxes are still under audit? reporter: from the '90s and early 2000s? does he plan to provide any of his taxes? >> i'm not aware of any plans to do so. reporter: a few days ago the president called christine blasey ford a very credible witness, very credible, very compelling. but now he's basically making her out to be a liar. so which is it? >> certainly the testimony by dr. ford was compelling. but you can't make this decision based on emotion. it has to be based on fact. they have to determine what the facts are of this case. that's one of the reasons they

asked and begged for the fbi and delayed a hearing vote so they could get more facts on this case. we expect the fbi to turn those facts over to the senate and they can make a determination based on that. that's all we're asking for. reporter: you said he was stating the facts at that campaign rally, but this was so much more than stating the facts. this was a full-scale campaign rally assault on a woman who says she's a victim of sexual assault. what do you get out of that? is that to help kavanaugh's nomination? is this to rally the base? is this going to help with the midterms? what's the point in doing that? >> again, i dispute that it wasn't anything other than the president stating facts. in fact, facts that were laid out in the prosecutor's memo she put forward to the senate. each of the things he called out were things laid out in that memo. reporter: there is conflicting feelings on capitol hill right now over whether the fbi investigation into judge

kavanaugh should be made public or not. does the white house commit to transparency on this effort and let the american people see the full rein of this investigation regardless of the findings? >> we have been very open and transparent throughout the process. the president is the one that ordered the fbi investigation to take place and has allowed the senate to actually control and dictate the terms and scope of the investigation. we are continuing to do that and allowing the fbi to actually do it as they do best, and that's their job, to do this investigation. reporter: another question for you, if i may, on declassification since we haven't spoken in awhile. the president has said -- the president said he would refer the declassification process to the doj inspector general but he wants to see that happen quickly. what does quickly mean? are we going to see these documents before the midterm elections? >> i'm not going to walk through a timeline but we are continuing to work through that process and we have an update on it, we will certainly let you know. alex? reporter: you said earlier that michael cohen was acting on his

own in arbitration proceedings to prevent stormy daniels from doing television interviews when the president actually directed that. >> as you know, i'm not going to get into a back-and-forth. that's an issue for the president's outside counsel. i direct you there to answer it. john? reporter: thank you, sarah. three questions. first, the president's comments notwithstanding, it is a fact that senators collins, murkowski, flake and manchin are the undecided votes, critical to the nomination. are there any plans for the president at all to meet with them between now and next week to make one final pitch, perhaps explain his remarks a little bit more? >> i'm not aware of a specific scheduled call but we certainly have been in close contact with a number of members and will continue to do so up until the vote. reporter: i was going to ask,

two of the president's early supporters in the house, collins of new york and duncan hunter of california, are running under indictment. there are rules of the national republican congressional committee barring support for members who are under indictment. does the president still support both of them for re-election? >> i can't get into a lot of details. one, for hatch act violation, but also with an ongoing investigation, i'm not going to be able to comment on that here. reporter: bloomberg put out an article about the fbi background investigation and bloomberg is reporting now that the fbi hasn't interviewed judge kavanaugh or dr. ford because the white house hasn't given investigators clear authority to do so. is that indeed the case? >> as we have said several times, the president has indicated that whoever the fbi deems necessary to interview, he's fine with that. but he's also asked that the senate be the ones that

determine the scope of what they need in order to make a decision on whether they vote kavanaugh up or down. i can also tell you that both kavanaugh, judge kavanaugh and dr. ford were questioned in the most public way possible by the members of the senate who are ultimately the ones who have to make the determination on whether or not they vote for judge kavanaugh. if they had additional questions for either one of them, they had a time and an opportunity certainly to ask those. reporter: does the white house believe it is appropriate? >> again, we will allow -- reporter: president trump talked a lot yesterday about this issue of being concerned about men being guilty -- being thought guilty before proven innocent and this idea of due process. but in the past, with the central park five, he put out an ad basically calling for the death penalty before they had

been found convicted and even after they were exonerated, he still basically said they may be guilty and even as president, he has talked about, presided over rallies where people say "lock her up" talking about hillary clinton. i guess is there a disconnect between when the president is interested in due process for some but not for others? >> not at all. the president actually encouraged the senate to hear dr. ford's testimony in the same way he encouraged them to hear judge kavanaugh's. he is simply stating the fact that we are a country of law and order. we are a country that still believes that you are innocent until proven guilty and we want to see that process go through in its entirety and it should be on a fair playing field. that's the only point he's making. reporter: [ inaudible ] does he feel that now? >> i have to look back at the specific comments. reporter: there's a real question in the midst of this. the president has taken this moment to say that he's been

affected personally by all of these allegations and he's picking and choosing. he said the central park five were guilty, and he made bill clinton guilty. has he decided to change his mind on the central park five as they have been exonerated? >> interesting you bring up bill clinton. nobody wants to hear those accusers' voices be heard but you are certainly happy to hear all the others. dave, go ahead. reporter: the president hasn't addressed this. >> dave, go ahead. reporter: is he still talking to them? reporter: several times in the last week the president tried to reassure voters that he will protect people with pre-existing conditions from losing their health insurance. is that a sign that he's worried republicans are losing the argument on health care in this election? >> i think it's a sign that the president wants to protect people with pre-existing health conditions. i think it's pretty simple. he said that he supports that and wants to make sure that that's not something that gets lost. jim? reporter: i want to go back to this, it was pretty obvious the president was mocking christine blasey ford last night.

he said how did you get home, i don't remember, how did you get there, i don't remember, where is this place, i don't remember. he seemed to be to the delight of the crowd there in mississippi, mocking her repeatedly. isn't there something wrong with the president of the united states mocking somebody who says she was sexually assaulted? >> it seemed to me that he was stating facts that dr. ford herself laid out in her testimony. once again, every single word that judge kavanaugh has said has been looked at, examined, picked apart by most of you in this room, but not -- no one is looking at whether or not the accusations made are corroborated, whether or not there's evidence to support them. every person that she names has come out and said either they didn't recall it or it didn't happen or they weren't there. every single bift evidence and facts we have seen in this moment have supported judge kavanaugh's case. and the president simply pointed out the facts of the matter and that is what the senate will have to use to determine whether or not they vote to support him

or not. reporter: are you saying judge kavanaugh is the victim in all of this? >> i think both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh are victims at the hands of the democrats. i think it is absolutely disgraceful what they have done and exploited this process. they exploited dr. ford. they are exploiting all of the women that have come out to make any type of accusation. this isn't the process that should have been done and certainly everybody deserves to be heard but that includes judge kavanaugh. that should be part of this process. the facts have to be looked at and i think you have to look at the prosecutor's memo. those are where you see all of those facts laid out and i think she makes a very compelling case. reporter: you don't have any problems -- >> i don't have any problems stating facts. no. john. i know that's something you probably do have a problem with, but i don't. reporter: actually, we do state the facts. i think there have been many occasions when you don't state the facts. >> john, go ahead. reporter: thank you, sarah. five days ago on friday, the president when asked about dr.

ford's testimony before the senate, said that she was a very credible witness. we saw a different tone, different substance last night in those remarks to that campaign rally audience in mississippi. why the change in tone, and does the president still believe what he said on friday, that she was a very credible witness? >> i have addressed this a number of times. the president also said she had a very compelling story and nobody disagrees with that -- reporter: but the credible part. >> nobody disagrees with that. the president is simply stating the facts she laid out in her own testimony and that the prosecutor laid out in her memo. at the end of the day, the senate has to make a decision on where they stand. take one last question. reporter: does he still -- does the president still believe dr. ford's testimony was credible when she testified under oath? >> the president believes judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. he has a lot of confidence in him and would like to see a vote to make that happen. reporter: couple questions.

president trump seemed to link the credibility of a claim with how much time has passed since the individual meeting. president trump also called the sex abuse scandal in the catholic church very sad but many of the victims waited decades before coming forward. why does the president seem to assume men who are claiming abuse but wait to come forward trelg the truth, bare telling t but not women? >> that's not true. the president has supported again throughout this entire process dr. ford's ability to come forward and tell her story. he's the one that ordered the fbi to do further supplemental background check to look into each of the accusations and allegations that the senate deems necessary before making a vote. he's also been more than happy to give a platform to the accusers that have come out against then president bill clinton. to say that he's never sided with women is just ridiculous.

reporter: he has implied they are coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden and cited that as a reason why even though he's called for an investigation -- >> after judge kavanaugh has been in public service and in the public eye for over 26 years, been through six background investigations, now part of a seventh, this is the first time you are ever hearing of any of these allegations. the fact that through all of those background checks, not even an inkling of any of those things has ever come up despite the fact he was one of the top prosecutors for ken starr and in a major public position, none of these things came up when he was nominated to be on the federal bench. none of these things came up. he's been a public figure and there has been a lot of opportunity for people to raise this issue and it never has. now at the 11th hour, the democrats have exploited this process and done so publicly and it's a shame and he's simply calling that out. thanks so much, guys. see you soon. neil: all right. as expected, a lot of the

questions centering on this particular announcement on what is going on with the judge and whether he is going to get a full and fair treatment on the part of this ongoing fbi investigation of witnesses who could either corroborate or not some of the charges of christine blasey ford. also, some of these additional women, including deborah ramirez and julie swetnick. what was interesting is the questions that centered on what the president had to say about the charges of dr. ford and whether that complicated matters with republican senators who have already come out saying they were unnecessary and unprofessional, including jeff flake and susan collins, lisa murkowski. bottom line is here that mitch mcconnell has already indicated that the vote will happen at the end of this week and if he had his druthers it would be as soon as friday. we are told the fbi is wrapping

things up today. miss sanders didn't give an indication as to who is calling the shots in this investigation, whether the administration is sort of putting a leash on how many people they talk to and for how long. she claims otherwise, that this is the senate's call on this, and the fbi can talk to whomever it wants. then there was that separate story in the "new york times" that miss sanders said is just old news that's been rehashed, but that is essentially much ado about nothing. let's get the read from the president's former white house press secretary and best-selling author of "the briefing," sean spicer. sean, what did you think? >> well, just on its face, it's better to be a viewer than a briefer, i will tell you that. it's nice being able to watch the briefing instead of give it. look, i think one of the things we have lost focus on is the fact that we have a senate confirmation going on and there are serious allegations, right? what this has turned into, sarah referenced this, is a kir scirc. there are stories about limb throwing ice, what he did when

he was in kindergarten. we lost focus on the serious charges dr. ford has leveled and allowed the media to bring up everything that's gone on in his past, his background, his childho childhood. that's unfortunate for both reasons, both because people i think aren't going to want to serve anymore because they have recognized that this is the level to which this kcircus affected the desire of people to serve in public office. secondly, when it comes to dr. ford and the charges she has leveled, there is a degree to which the reason she came forward in the first place and wanted to do so anonymously is so it didn't become a spectacle. we lost both of these in this discussions, in large part due to the way the media has covered this. it has become an absolute disgrace. neil: do you get a sense the president, with the comments he made at this rally, i know for the first few days of all this, he was being very measured, very careful in his responses, then

the wheels come off and he invites the kind of reaction he gets from some of these senators to say it's best not that you weigh in on this. >> well, look, obviously i don't know, but i get the sense at least that there's a bit of frustration on the president's end about how this is covered. he puts up a guy like kavanaugh with a stellar record, there are allegations brought forward. the president agrees that it is worth looking into these and that the allegations are serious and merit an investigation, yet it goes off the rails in the coverage because everything but a discussion of the qualifications that kavanaugh has and his record and the facts, and an entire, you know, like i said, an entire circus. i think there's clearly a level of frustration on his end. neil: i am taking a leap here just on my own, and you are free to dismiss it, but this "new york times" report that goes back on financial transactions of the president in working with his father fred and the emergence of the trump real

estate empire and it got me to thinking it happens sometimes that maybe this is a preview of coming mueller report findings, that have nothing to do with collusion, maybe nothing to do with russia, that it has veered into business transactions that go back decades, and i hazard that supposition only because prior investigations of presidents have veered wildly off course, bill clinton famously started out as a real estate examination and how he acquired certain land, et cetera, and ended up being about an intern in a blue dress. is it your sense that maybe, whatever the details and what's accurate, what's not, that the mueller investigation is that, his business dealing? >> well, i can certainly see why you would think that that's possible, because you're right. in the clinton investigation we started off as a land deal gone

bad, turning into an inappropriate relationship with an intern that was lied about under oath. i hope that that's not the case. i hope the president's lawyers have had discussions and taken steps to keep the scope of the investigation focused on the allegations which again, there's been nothing to suggest there was any type of collusion and all of the current charges are regarding actions and acts that were inappropriate by others that weren't involved in actually the campaign at the time. so i get why you're going there. i hope that that's not the case. i do think it's fascinating to see the level to which the "new york times" will go as far back as they can to go after this president. anybody objectively whether you like the president or his policies or not, that doesn't understand the visceral nature that so many in the media have towards this president and the lack of objectivity that exists should surely take a look at this and realize when you are going back 30 and 40 years, to

dig out old records that have well passed any contemporaneous business dealings, you understand why people on the right believe the media is going after us. neil: do you get the impression, though, that someone sent a lot of this material to the "new york times"? obviously a number of names come up. i'm not here to accuse anyone, but the "new york times," you know, got their hands on all of fred trump's tax returns for the business, et cetera. for all i know, they might have the president's. he was very reluctant during the campaign and since to release his own tax returns. what did you think then and do you think there might be a chance for him to vindicate himself by releasing those returns, especially the ones, the years covered now? >> yeah, i mean, obviously that's up to him. you saw earlier rachel maddow did something where illegally releasing copies of his returns, and i think if you understand

from the president's mindset the level of attack he's faced and the negative coverage and the lack of objectivity that he's faced, you at least have an understanding as to why he's skeptical about ever getting a fair shake. i think that that's probably currently the mindset that exists. why would i ever do anything to help these folks when every time i try to do some level of transparency or showing them something, they figure out what the negative angle is. i don't see a lot of promise that that's going to be the case. i understand at least his level of frustration as to their lack of objectivity. neil: the reason i mention this is the president, one of the biggest things, you were dealing with this during the campaign, his central story has been yeah, my father helped me out a little bit, gave me $1 million, now we're told over the course of his career in today's dollars it would be north of $418 million, that there was more to that than was the case, and that the

father had his son's back financially and otherwise, multiple times. does that, you think, whether it's true or not, gnaw at the president, that a story, not exactly a rags to riches deal, but that this story is now held as maybe a myth? >> yeah, i'm sure, because only he and obviously his father, his late father and his accountant understand whatever deals were made and loans were actually made. i don't obviously, for many of us going back 30 or 40 years, you don't know exactly what the intricate trappings of these deals were and we are relying on the "new york times" which doesn't exactly have a strong track record when it comes to their objectivity of covering this president. so i look at the story very skeptic skeptically. you saw in their coverage of judge kavanaugh, they have somebody covering judge kavanaugh that publicly was very clear on their own twitter page about their disdain for

kavanaugh and conservatives. so i don't think the "new york times" is coming at this with a level of clean hands that causes one to look at this and say with objectivity. they have shown time and time again the level of visceral hatred they have for this president and everything he stands for. neil: you know, the market's worried about any of the stuff we mentioned, they have a funny way of showing it. they are reaching new highs, the economy is doing well, we just had a service sector jobs report, manufacturing economy at an all-time high. the president feels he can't get that message out. do you think it will get out for the midterms? >> i hope so. i think the economy is a gut feeling. if you think you are doing better, if you feel like you are saving more, then you do well. i think people are feeling the economy. you can't tell people they are doing better. they have to feel it. i think they are. these deals, these statistics show it. i think the way he's renegotiated the u.s./mexico/canada agreement has been phenomenal and will reflect

well on the market. people will start to continue to feel the effects of this president's policies and i think that's why we will do well in november. america first, the super pac i work for, is doing everything we can to make sure people understand how these policies are making for a better country and improving the lives of every american. neil: all right. sean, great catching up with you. thank you very, very much. your patience through this briefing. you know how that goes. >> it's hard to be critical of the briefing. neil: thank you very much. sean spicer. more after this. the dow in record territory. one bottle at a time. today, we produce nearly 20 million cases a year. chubb has helped us grow for the past 30 years... they helped us prevent equipment problems during harvest and provided guidance when we started exporting internationally. now we're working with them on cybersecurity. my grandfather taught me to make a wine that over delivers. chubb, over delivers. that over delivers.

sometimes, they just drop in. obvious. cme group can help you navigate risks and capture opportunities. we enable you to reach global markets and drive forward with broader possibilities. cme group - how the world advances. ♪

neil: you know what's amazing about this rally? all sectors riding along in this incredible march upward. trish will take you through that. trish: the white house coming out swinging, blasting the liberal media, blasting democrats for trying to ruin, as they say, judge brett kavanaugh's reputation. white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders saying this is quote, a total disgrace. and this is a coordinated smear campaign. all of this coming as we watch the rally on wall street. you heard neil talking about how we just keep going up, no matter what, up 150 right there. you see the s&p trading up nearly half a percent. little over half a percent on the nasdaq composite index. people feeling confident about our economy and about the president's america first trade policies, and that's being reflected in the stock market. coming up, secre