response. enormous morale booster. no military damage in japan what a booster. richard e. cole, may he rest in peace. he just died. neil, it is yours. >> stuart, thank you very much. we're following developments right now to avoid wars in the future with north korea south koreans are concerned that the north koreans are wandering from the script and increasingly hostile comments from both sides coming from both sides of the pacific. you heard julian assange, charged with computer hacking. he could face a lot of years in jail for this. we're following this very closely. as the attorney general of the united states william barr is raising questions about what launched the investigations into

donald trump in the first place. a lot to get to here here. very heartfelt thanks to my friends, david asman and connell mcshane when i was out. my colleague blake burman. reporter: good to have you back, neil. we await the comments when he meets south korean leader moon jae-in. white house has not said anything neither have they down a few blocks at foggy bottom, state department. federal government putting everything on the place of the department of justice who charged wikileaks founder julian assange with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. this of course is in relation to the chelsea manning case. the former u.s. army intelligence analyst gave the wikileaks founder assange, 10 and tens of thousands of documents related to the wars in

iraq, afghanistan, guantanamo bay, other diplomate tick cables. but the federal complaint released today, takes specific aim at assange trying to help manning hack pentagon computers. here is bit from the complaint. on or about march 8th, 2010, assuange agreed to assist manning cracking a password standard on united states of department of defense computers connected to the secret internet protocol network, a u.s. government network used for classified documents and communications. that is the case that the united states is build up. assange's lawyer spoke just a little while ago, they are trying to make the argument that it's a journalist who is being unfairly targeted. >> this sets a dangerous precedent for all media organizations and journalists in europe and elsewhere around the world. this precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the united states for having published truthful information about the united

states. reporter: to be clear here, attorneys for assange are saying all he did in their estimate pages was is publish documents that, for the world to see, i.e. journalism. however, the united states government is saying what assange really tried to do is help manning hack into government computers. that of course is a crime that assange could face up to five years in federal prison if convicted. still needs to be extradited back here to the u.s. assange's attorney earlier today said they will fight the extradition. he is currently in the uk. neil: thank you very much, my friend, blake burman. fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. what the arrest could mean. always good to see you, my friend. i see you're in washington. you referred to assange as a hero. i know what you were getting at. nothing should be kept a secret, et cetera, et cetera. some interpreted that, myself included initially, whoa, how is this guy a hero? >> well, the theory that the,

first of all neil, so good to see you back. even though i'm in d.c., none of fox is the same when you're not around, even down here. the government's theory here would put daniel ellsberg in jail and put "the new york times" and "washington post" in jail for publishing the pentagon papers. it is very clear from the supreme court condition the publisher, the receiver of the information, as long as the information is a matter of public interest is immune and can't be prosecuted. does the receiver talk to the person who steals it? of course! but the thief in this case is chelsea manning who was convicted, went to jail and then had his now her sentence commuted by the president of the united states at the time whose justice department prosecuted hip. so i don't know where the government is going with this. i think that assange's lawyers are making a very sound argument. his behavior was protected. neil: you know, it is

interesting, judge, the argument that the white house has had going after him is that it is one of the largest compromises, quoting here, classified information in the history of the united states. do you draw any exceptions for something like that? whether were passing along information freely with some you chatted you know to be compromising? >> well the supreme court does not draw that line. in the pentagon papers cases there were several of them, there were transcripts of conversations between lbj, he wasn't president at time this came out, nixon was in the white house and generals. with the two of them, three of them actually were conspiring to lie. so there is really no line to be drawn. if the matter is material interest to the public, if it is truthful, the publisher is immune from the legal consequences of the publication. neil: but that dismisses the fact theres were concern getting that information out on,

understating casualty count in vietnam at the time, hiding stuff from the american people, i get what you're saying but that is a slippery slope, isn't it? getting that information out and then emboldening others who have access to such information as manning did at the time -- to be open field, right? >> it's a value judgment, neil. the supreme court, as the final interpreter of the constitution makes. maybe the present supreme court will make a different value judgment. last time they looked at this they asserted first amendment values were greater protection unthe constitution than the national security values. let me suggest something else to you. may very well be the government does not want to prosecute julian assange. one of the crimes they charged him with may be barred by the statute of statute of limitations. they want to talk to him. this has nothing to do with russia or the 2016 election but

they would love to talk to him about that, he, as you know, released a treasure trove of hillary clinton and her folks e-mails from the democratic national committee. this case doesn't even mention that. but i'm certain the prosecutors, whether bob mueller's or main justice, once assange gets to united states, if he gets here wants to talk to him. they may very well indicted him to get him here to ask him questions about the 2016 presidential election. neil: yeah i think that might be a very big impetus to do that. judge, always a pleasure. thank you, my friend. >> always the best, neil. neil: attorney general william barr is still getting a lot of heat saying yeah he thinks spying was going on in 2016. that precipitated this investigation into then candidate donald trump. he wants to look into it. former georgia republican congressman bob barr, no relation, was house manager during the clinton impeachment. congressman, very good to have you. >> thank you, neil, good to be back with you. neil: same here. what do you make of what the attorney general is saying?

he thinks spying was happening. he doesn't know whether it was for justified means or you know, but he wants to look into it and it created this ruckus. what do you think? >> well, anything that the attorney general says to the democrats in either the house or senate is not going to satisfy them. nancy pelosi made clear i think just yesterday or maybe even this morning, she said the only thing that would satisfy her is trump is out of the office and a democrat is president. nothing is going to satisfy them. what barr is saying makes perfect sense, reflects what all of us know, and that is there were high level officials at the department of justice and the fbi in the waning months of the last administration that took lip berths and abused their -- liberties and abused their offices. barr is saying we can't have that, can't let that go

uninvestigated. i need to look into it to see if laws were violated. my reaction it would be irresponsible if the attorney general not to take such a position. neil: does it look weird, congressman? maybe you're valid into everything you outlined but he is two months in the job. president frequently said there should be investigations what led to this investigation. that prompted former cia director brennan saying bill barr sounded like a personal lawyer for donald trump. what did you think? >> i'm not been impressed with mr. brennan and his behavior both as cia director and subsequently as former intelligence official, the positions that he has taken. i've known bill barr, he and i worked together interestingly at the cia back in the late 1970s. we worked together way back when. i know him to be a man of integrity. he is a smart man. he knows the department. he knows the responsibility of

the attorney general. he and i don't agree, haven't agreed on every policy decision over the years but to say we don't trust him, we don't believe him, anything he does is political assembly is a political statement and doesn't reflect who bill barr is. neil: you know, while we have you, congressman, you've been kind enough to entertain lots of different questions, the julian assange arrest today, judge andrew napolitano is raising the distinct possibility, the probability that a lot of that had to do with getting him back here to find out what the bob mueller folks were getting from him. what do you think? >> i wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case. with regard to the actual charges that have now been leveled formally against mr. assange in order to extradite him, i'm not quite, i wouldn't quite go so far as the judge indicated, saying nothing that assange did deserves

protection or all of it deserves protection. really depend on exactly what he did with chelsea manning and others in order to get the information. that is the requestion i think. neil: got it. great scratching up with you, sir. >> thanks, neil. neil: let's go to the south lawn of the white house. the south portico of arrival of south korean president kim jay in and his wife. reading a lot of press over there, government sanctioned though it may be, i'm talking about the north, there are increasingly, i wouldn't say challenging responses on part of north korean government to the united states demands and secretary of state demand that the north koreans are not doing enough. south korean leader, moon jae-in is doing a tightrope trying to keep the sides talking even though up to now that has been evaporating. we're on it.

more after this. 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres. 48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ ) ifor another 150 years. the fire going the day we'll finally get something done. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine.

♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

neil: company like amazon listening to you. thousands of amazon employees caught up in charges they might

have been sneaking up on you via your alexa device at home. details coming up on that. we'll keep you posted. if this was supposed to throttle investors, hasn't had that effect yet. one group that seems to be throttled or will be at least if some democratic candidates have their way, mill areas and bet -- millionaires. in the case of elizabeth warren she is going after them with avenge against that would include herself, putting up a surtax on them and corporations. let's get the read from all of this majority whip, minority whip, in his dreams, joe borelli, jessica tarlov that scenario would be her nightmare, "wall street journal" editor john bussey right down the middle. i want to begin with you, what it make first of all about the democratic attack on wealth. we'll go into some of their plans. more to the point.

at least they would be zooming themselves. >> you could argue gives them extra credibility and tacks themselves. warren buffett says i'm not paying enough taxes. mind you they may be millionaires. they may be successful book writers or -- neil: a third of elizabeth warren's income from books. >> bernie sanders said the same thing i wrote a book. you write a best-seller you too can become a millionaire. regardless how they made their money, their issue is going to be i'm not speaking for the millionaires. i'm speaking for the people not making a million dollars a year. median income, so, half of this above, half of that below. median income is about 97,000 in the united states. median household wealth, that is the group that they are focusing on. that is where they will try to get their political points with. neil: that is where the money is, right? separately, elizabeth warren's plan to tax corporations, a surtax on those that avoid taxes. that could raise trillions over

the -- >> certainly can. more the government raises, the more the government will spend. this points out a real hypocrisy for a bunch of candidates who have eschewed capitalism, that used their government office to grow their own wealth. elizabeth warren was simply a law school professor pedaling textbooks she would not make $350,000 for a book. the reality of most americans they can't write a best-selling book. they work old-fashioned way, they need tax relief, not higher taxes. neil: both parties fault they will come up with schemes to raise money but not to save money, not address underlying spending. i think that never gets discussed ever. >> no. well it does for a second where everyone pays lip service to it. then they go about their business spending. democrats are a little bit more by the book being honest they don't fear spending the way republicans acted like their

fiscal hawks. >> fair criticism. >> i'm so glad you're here for this moment. but to your point about hypocrisy, joe, what they will do with, i actually don't think democratic voters will have a problem with it. first of all bernie sanders has cult-like following. neil: they never have a problem with it. >> i think, well they certainly did, people had problems with hillary clinton, called her a corporatist shill and people go after cory booker. neil: not what you go after their money, right? you go after getting more money from those same people. >> i think they are genuine in saying i'm happy for you to tax me more like warren buffett, bill gates, spoken about this people, all the billionaires taken giving pledge are all on board with this. neil: there is difference between billionaires and average persons. >> that is the line people will draw here as well. say, not going to write a book will become a millionaire. bernie sanders is in his mid 70s, right, mid to late 70s, something like that,

elizabeth warren, a lot have spouses to could have earned money. people go after nancy pelosi all the time. she has a husband incredibly successful. nothing to do with her office. >> this is important point. let's remember who put donald trump in the white house. a billionaire, a lot of people who did not have a college education, who were earning on lower end of the scale. they felt he was going to be a good advocate for them. democrats say i don't care about their personal wealth. i want an advocate for me. what are they saying. joe's point is a really good one, it will be hard to come down on the system of capitalism when they're benefiting from it as much as they are. they will have to be careful of sort of navigating that. >> let's not forget, neil, this issue was almost adjudicated in the 2016 election, democrats made donald trump by virtue of fact he was successful and millionaire. >> billionaire. >> make sure 10 billion as something evil, something that is not representative of the american public.

neil: something else going on here. these guys have their own tracking polls. surveys they put out -- >> tax the rich plays well. neil: resonates no doubt with the base but do you think in the general election would resonate? >> i think it does. neil: talk to walter mondale. i don't think it did. >> president trump used very similar campaign rhetoric to bernie sanders. they were the two populists. president trump, now president trump, candidate trump was saying i'm going after my own friend. i will go after the hedge fund guy, they will not like me much for it. neil: he never did it. >> because he is liar. neil: but he didn't go after -- do you think that any of these democratic candidates -- >> i think elizabeth warren -- neil: they will go surtax on wealth? they will go with a trillion dollar hike in corporate taxes to pay for stuff? >> elizabeth warren has the most elaborate impressive policy shop of any of the candidates. she explains how she will pay for everything single thing. i don't think she will back down

from it. in contrast the "medicare for all" from bernie sanders -- >> we'll figure out when we get to it at some point in the future. neil: assuming you could raise that kind of money. in the end where does this all sort out? >> elizabeth warren announced 7% additional tax on corporations that are making a certain is amount of money, a large amount of money. she wants to tax the ones making the most. neil: over 100 million, right? >> that is where this ends up. neil: what is to keep them here, if that happens? >> great big market. they were here before when tax rates were significantly higher. neil: amazon wasn't. >> no. >> what is funny, neil with all the talk, popularity of democratic socialism, highlighting of countries in scandinavia as models, we never get to the point of pro-business models and low corporate tax rates. before trump took office, finland had far lower tax rate

than the united states. this is the model should be based. if we have the negative sides of social democracy, tax individuals. >> you brought up democratic socialism. there is only one democratic socialism running for president. elizabeth warren interviewed over and over on her out look. she says i'm cap at that timist, i believe in the system. it needs to be just capitalism. neil: if you believe she is capitalist, i'm a owe him pij athlete. >> i didn't know that about you. >> who is the real spokesperson for the democratic party right now? is it elizabeth warren or far left like ilhan omar. >> elizabeth warren is far left? this is revelation. neil: i wish we had more time. blessedly we do not. thank you all very much. getting quick bulletins of the president meeting with south korea's leader. he is optimistic he can continue to make progress with the north

koreans. he is saying right now he did not in talks with north korea but certain things are very good. has not outlined what the certain things are. hope springs eternal. when we get the pool spray we will. more after this. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.

whoooo. did you know the exact same hotel room... ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price!

neil: all right. still monitoring on going talks between moon jay in, south korean president and president trump. we are getting some blurbs what will come up on a pool spray a little bit from now. the president was discussing another meeting with north korea's kim jong-un, last one ended with no accord. in fact they packed up a little bit early you might recall. he is still open to another powwow there. we'll keep you posted. a look at the border, another big departure of homeland security, acting i.c.e. director ron vitiello called it quits. he will leave tomorrow, we're told.

the guy that had the job before him, tom homan, acting i.c.e. director under donald trump. tom, good to have you back. it looks like a purge, for good reason, do you think it is justified? >> i wouldn't call it a purge. i think the president is setting reset button. he is getting discouraged about numbers on border. he is looking for some changes in leadership with fresh ideas coming in. i call it a reset not a purge. ron vitiello has been a friend of mine 25 years. he redives our respect and thank you for serving in a role. also the secretary. half the congress hate what is she does. what trump administration is doing. i respect both those fine americans. neil: very nice of you. the president's pick, this kevin mcaleenan, he has said to be a take no prisoners kind of guy. you had said of him kevin will put his foot on the gas.

what did you mean by that? >> i worked with kevin for the last eight, nine years. during the first surge, family surge of fy-14-15 under then secretary jeh johnson i worked with kevin on a daily basis addressing the surge on the border. kevin knows the border issues. he knows what needs to be done. i think he will make controversial decisions regarding controversial he will do what he can legally to help stem the flow. i think he can hit the ground running. that is the most important thing, when secretary nielsen leaves you need someone going in there, hit the ground running, most important issue of dhs which is a national crisis on the border. kevin has the knowledge to address it. neil: were you asked about this job? >> i will cross that bridge when i come to it. i have had discussions with a lot of people and like i said, i will go with whatever the president decides in the future but, i think right now i just got to say, i can't really

comment on my discussions with people at this point. neil: i understand. i'm so glad you're on remote so you can't punch me. did the president really want you to be his homeland secretary or did you send out a signal early on, no? >> i have not had any specific discussions on homeland security, secretary's job. i of course, like you i have friends and people that says they're interested in me but again i will cross that bridge when i get to it. i came back from retirement once to serve the president. i retired twice in the federal government. three times would be i think a record. but look -- neil: it's happened. it's happened. >> i truth is i love my country. hard to say no to a president who wants you to come back to serve especially in difficult times. i'm not saying yes or no. it certainly would be a discussion i would have. it certainly would be a decision that would be, would split me. at the same time i retired to spend more time with family. at the same time i see what is

going on at the southern border. i would do what i can to help. neil: you know the reason why i mentioned stephen miller, obviously senior advisor to the president among those pushing for a shakeup in the whole homeland staff and your name came up someone would be perfect for doing that. that is why i raised it. what do you think of stephen miller and the outsized role he is playing here? >> first of all stephen miller is very intelligent man. i met with stephen miller many, many times. he kept his eye on the ball from day one under the trump administration to try to secure our border. a lot of people out there don't like stephen miller, but i tell you what, i respect him, i like him, he is sticking to his guns on this issue. the president has made a promise, like the six presidents i worked for in the past i'm going to secure the border. this president is actually walking the walk. he is doing everything he can within a legal framework to try to secure the border. congress isn't helping. they haven't offered one fix.

ninth circuit is constantly issuing temporary retraining orders everything he does. he will not give up. that is the change you're seeing in dhs he is setting reset button. he wants fresh ideas, fresh people. he is going to secure the border. he is going to do it with the fine men and women in i.c.e. and cpb, other agencies like dod to try to secure the border. i think stephen miller is president trump's right hand on this issue. neil: we'll see what happens. tom, always good chatting with you. thank you. >> nice talking to you. neil: tom homan. we're getting dribs and drabs out of the meeting president is having with south korea's president right now, moon jae-in. saying at least from his end the south korean leader he has seen a turnaround on the situation in the korean peninsula, ever since the president met with kim jong-un for the first time. president intimating he is open to another meeting with the north korean leader. we'll see. move after this.

all in one place. because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. you need decision tech. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection

that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.

neil: all right. i knew michael avenatti was facing some serious legal problems but just indicted now on 36 charges of tax dodging, perjury, theft from clients and on and on. that is going to be a long legal day there. anything more on this we'll keep you posted. meanwhile two reports of spying, not talking about uncle sam. i'm talking about uncle jeff as in amazon? what is alexa up to? let's ask deirdre. >> google created a hassle is for amazon today. i got a call from amazon representative -- neil: talking about bloomberg, the news service. >> reported that these alexa machines are taking in private conversations but distinction that the amazon spokesperson made to me on the phone which bloomberg cited in it article, you have to say the word alexa for the recording devices to be turned on. what amazon is saying in its defense is that, we're only taking small samplings. we're doing it to improve the

machine learning so to serve you better. neil: they don't know where it is coming from, they say? >> right the workers going through data points trying to improve the machine learning of alexa don't know where -- could be here, could be in europe, could be in asia. neil: didn't a lot of this start with concern that alexa was listening in on some guys in romania planning a rape? >> yeah. neil: those guys didn't obviously say alexa. >> different languages. sometimes different languages there are words that sound like alexa. the french i know, with that, is similar enough to -- neil: could have activated it. >> so they are saying -- neil: do they say they can activate it from where they are? >> yes. the data capture is only coming after somebody specifically called out to alexa or says words similar to alexa, that on the amazon side all of, like all of the privacy is completely encrypted. even the people sifting through this data don't know that it is

deirdre bolton in new york. neil: let me switch gears to disney. right now one analyst saying it's a threat to netflix, very legitimate one. new disney investor day talking about post the fox entertainment deal it is well on its way. >> tons of questions. i think for 20 months by my last count, disney has been stringing along its investors and the public exactly what disney plus is going to do, what it is going to look like. there is a call that starts 5:00 p.m. eastern today. it is two hours. it is a big event. i will be on it. neil: you will be on the call for two hours? really? >> i will bring snacks. neil: do the characters get in on it. >> i feel like calling for that. that would be really cool. neil: holy toledo. >> the big x-factor is price. disney all along implied it would be cheaper than netflix. netflix is one of the most popular -- neil: all disney stuff? >> all disney stuff but they

will create original content only found on disney plus. they are said, we will be included other content. they are clearly focused on stuff that cost them the most money, lucas films which has "star wars" or marvel. neil: yes. >> they will push that. there are some questions. let's say a big blockbuster movie cops out, do they put that in theaters first then on digs any plus? netflix you just get it. some analysts say this could be really a threat. other people say not really. netflix is the biggest in the world. it will be the last one that people cancel. there does seem to be this kind of subscriber fatigue. they did this consulting project found that people at the end of the day a little bit annoyed. they have hbo. they have amazon prime. neil: right. >> netflix. neil: their production work. a lot of it is, might be award winning series. but some of them stink.

>> some do stink. disney has loyal following for its brands, particularly young kids. there are still big questions going to be answered today. we'll see. neil: why are you here -- while you're here, uber, given the lyft experience maybe it is ratcheting down, both of offering and expectation. >> uber is casting a long shadow. i think the question for investors are you willing to pay for a company that has amazing sales, amazing revenue and no profits. neil: right. >> that is true of both of those companies. lyft since it is public down around 20% give or take on the day. uber has been very forthright as well. we lost $900 million last year. but -- neil: lyft is down 11 bucks since its offering at 72. are people just reassessing the whole thing and could that hurt uber? >> i think it could hurt uber, that is step one. step two, these companies in fairness to them have been

transparent. we have great sales, no earnings. if you want to buy us fine. here are the shares. neil: it has been saying hey, this is what we do, you don't like us -- >> love or hate facebook, facebook had a very wobbly start out of the gate. a lot of tech companies do. a pile of investors are more tolerant, this is big transition from being a private company to being a public company if we're long term believer in the business model we'll support it. there is another group of investors say i wouldn't buy that to begin with, i don't want to be invested in a company that has sales and no earnings. neil: if you had waited until facebook's prospects improved, and it tumbled you were richly awarded. it was down 15, 16 buck. >> to your point you had to wait. you do not know. >> you doesn't know. >> facebook had add mobilization strategy. that was game changer. neil: what did you call that

mobile ad -- >> monetizaton. when you click you see an ad you think you're going to buy. neil: you kids today. all right, don't get me started on ad monetizaton. she is genius. deirdre bolton. thank you very, very much. >> thank you. neil: the president is is saying right now he doesn't have anything one way or the other about julian assange. after bet, what, a decade, more like seven or eight years, whod whod -- holed up at ecuadorian embassy is looking at serious jail time and maybe here. after this. i'm working to keep the fire going

for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today.

>> the democratic party has shifted significantly to the left. bernie sanders who three years ago had fringe ideas is now the poster-child for the american people with regard to democratic party. the democratic party left me. i didn't leave them. neil: which is why howard schuss is persona non grata within democratic party circles, that could hurt his business as well at least in charlie gasparino is right. that and much more. >> we should point out starbucks is doing very well, businesswise, not just because of your love of pumpkin spiced lattes because the stock is all-time high. will record earnings.

neil: wouldn't democrats in droves say all right? >> here is what i'm hearing, the company knows this as well, we have sources inside of starbucks. starbucks is bracing for a backlash if schultz does this 2020 run as an independent. obviously the if he runs lot of democrats think he can help donald trump because he is long-time democrat. they're bracing boycotts from advocates, calling for boycotts of starbucks, schultz is no longer affiliated, largest shareholder, not chairman or ceo but the founder. they're embracing for this thing to get pretty sticky from a corporate standpoint if he does run. starbucks is tracking social media, looking at various activist groups, monitoring tear activities. so much they haven't seen much now. this is kind of a quiet period from schultz. from what i understand inside the campaign he will take next

six weeks or so to decide whether he will run. neil: do average people make the association, schultz, oh, the guy who started starbucks, there is such a disconnect, i love my starbucks i don't care if the guy is from mars? he is no longer active manager. what do you say? >> he is largest shareholder. this is polarized country. boycotts do happen. fox gets boycotts. they do happen. they do have an economic impact. neil: if you get a boycott like you said organized, certainly draw attention. >> committed democrats, a lot of them go to starbucks. they like starbucks, not just for the coffee but its social message. howard always had the social message. pays for peep's college educations. theoretically, not -- pays for their health care. i ace country run by a liberal. howard schultz is a liberal. neil: does this sound like a guy says forget it? >> this is tough guy.

i ran into him in the hallway, he didn't like something i reported. he got in my face. he thought he was like scaring me. just another day at the office. he is pretty determined dude. didn't come from a rich family. grew up in as you hog project. went to school on football scholarship, built this company basically, up from, he is not the founder? is he founder, i can't remember, but one of the primary builders of starbucks. neil: he came up with idea that people pay a lot for coffee. >> my point he is a tough guy and he has been around. neil: there is traditional argument that democrats hate the idea as independent would destroy the democratic nominee's chances, siphon votes from them. >> i wonder is the big corporate question we're raising would his run, no doubt the democratic activists will try to boycott, mount a massive economic boycott, would it have an impact? we can only surmise.

i think it would have some impact. i think democrats are annoyed. neil: would you short starbucks stock the better he looks? >> here is what he would say, my sources on this are not some lunatics and in the labor union. these are generally insiders of the democratic party insiders who are monitoring this stuff and they are saying that the anger from not just the activists but from the party, people running the party at howard schultz right now is at a fevered pitch. they despise him from doing it. they think it is an ego trip. they think no way he can run, unless he really wants to reelect trump he is out of his mind. that is what they're telling me. if the sort of rank-and-file democrats -- neil: wouldn't they be more hurt if they pick a far left, extreme nominee? >> they don't think that will happen. neil: they will settle on biden. >> kamala harris, cory booker,

some combination of beto or bernie. they don't think this guy will take it. except howard schultz. i'm talking about the anger, so palpable you could see where they would help and aid the activists in targeting starbucks. neil: couple a minutes away from the president. i wanted to go on to discuss something with you about what the president has been talking about with getting tough at the border, meeting with the south korean leader talking about a third summit. his poll numbers picked up a little bit. i'm wondering on economic matters, they have picked up is that enough to close the deal? i always argue he would be up 10 points more in the polls if not for all the other stuff? >> listen, he is a wild card. sometimes compare him, he never polled well against hillary and people held their nose an voted for him because they shout she was worse. maybe one of the democrats are worse. we haven't vetted kamala harris

or cory booker. we don't know what is in their closet. trump is a known entity. i can say this, i know larry kudlow pretty well. i know what he is trying to do, working feverishly trying to get the trade deal done, he feels if the trade deal gets done it will propel markets higher. neil: what if we go from that getting a big fight with europeans in in the ueu? >> this is rolling fights. get trump, china out of the way. neil: you're not happy unless you're fighting. >> isn't that trump? appeal to the base. then try to work something out. kudlow is saying working real hard to make this happen. if it happens he thinks it is 2,000 points on the dow. neil: talk the chinese could open up cloud computing here. >> i read that every time i read that they say yeah. next day you read, no, they didn't really mean this. neil: for all the promises i've seen online yet to see -- >> they're a tricky bunch. i don't believe -- neil: wrapped in a conundrum as

are you. >> i don't believe anything i hear out of the talks until i see -- neil: right to the send ister of attention. president with the south korean leader. reporter: mr. president, economic progress with north korea, south korea, are you allowing them leeway of lasting sanctions -- [inaudible]. >> we are discussing certain humanitarian things right now. i'm okay with that to be honest. you have to be okay with that. south korea doing certain things to help out with food and various other things for north korea. we'll discuss different things, again the relationship is much different rip than it was two years ago. you remember what that was all about, certainly during the obama administration, where nuclear weapons were being tested often, where rockets and missiles were being sent up in many cases over japan and we are

in much different situation right now. so we'll be discussing that very [ inaudible question ] >> i know nothing about wikileaks. it's not my thing. i know there is something having to do with julian assange. i have been seeing what's happened with assange. that will be a determination, i would imagine mostly by the attorney general, who's doing an excellent job. he will be making a determination. i know nothing really about him. it's not my deal in life. i don't really have any opinion. i know the attorney general will be involved in that. he'll make a decision. reporter: are you pleased that your attorney general yesterday [ inaudible ] spying into your 2016 campaign? >> yes, i think what he said was absolutely true. there was absolutely spying into my campaign. i will go a step further.

in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again. i think his answer was actually a very accurate one and a lot of people saw that and a lot of people understand, many, many people understand the situation and want to be open to that situation. hard to believe it could have happened but it did. there was spying in my campaign and his answer was a very accurate one. [ inaudible question ] >> a summit could happen. it's step by step. it's not a fast process. i never said it would be. it's step by step. i enjoyed the summits. i enjoyed being with the chairman. i think it's been very productive and it really is, it's a step by step. it's not going to go fast. i've been telling you that for a long time. if it goes fast, it's not going to be the proper deal. i think that would be largely

dependent on chairman kim, because president moon will do what's necessary. i know president moon has been fighting this battle for a long time. he's done an excellent job. i consider him a great ally. and lot of good things are happening. lot of good things are happening in the world. our economy is the best it's ever been. our employment numbers, unemployment and employment, are the best they've ever been. we have more people working right now in the united states than we've ever had before, almost 160 million people, and likewise, south korea is doing very well. their economy is doing very well and i think our trade deal has helped that process. so we're sitting on two great countries right now and we're leading two great countries, and we think that, i can speak for myself and i think i can speak for president moon, we think that north korea has tremendous potential and really potential under the leadership of kim jong-un. let's see how it all works out.

[ inaudible question ] >> i don't want to comment on that. but we have a very good relationship. reporter: on the mueller report, are you concerned that barr said he's not going to redact that report to protect you? >> no, i'm not concerned about anything because frankly, there was no collusion and there was no obstruction, and we never did anything wrong. the people that did something wrong were the other side, the dirty cops and a lot of the problems that were caused. it's a disgrace what happened. again, it should never happen to a president again. you're just lucky i happen to be the president because a lot of other presidents would have reacted much differently than i reacted. you're very lucky i was the president during this scam. during the russian hoax, as i call it. so no, i'm not concerned at all. the bottom line, the result is no collusion, no obstruction, and that's the way it is. i know a lot of people were very disappointed but they knew the real answer. you know, when the democrats go behind the scenes and they go

into a room backstage and they sit and they talk, they laugh because they know it's all a big scam, a big hoax. and that's called politics but this is dirty politics, so this is actually treason. it's a very bad thing that people have done. i just hope that law enforcement takes it up because if they don't take it up, they're doing a great disservice to our country. [ inaudible question ] >> no, we're talking about long-term. we always talk about long-term. we want to have long-term. our relationship with south korea is extraordinary and we only think in terms of long-term. okay? reporter: [ inaudible question ] how much do you support the

president's push for [ inaudible ] which includes resumption of the joint inter-korean industrial complex? >> at the right time i would have great support. this isn't the right time. at the right time i would have great support with north korea. great support. i think that south korea, and i think japan and i think that the u.s., i think a lot of countries will be helping. china, i really believe, will help. i think that russia will help. i think a lot of countries will help. when the right deal is made and when the nuclear weapons are gone, i just think that north korea has potential as great as anything i've ever seen in terms of potential. they have an unbelievable location surrounded by sea on two sides and on the other side, russia, china and over here, south korea. you just can't do better than that. and they have magnificent land. it has tremendous potential. [ inaudible question ]

>> translator: the question was if south korea submits a road map, are the two presidents, will you be discussing this issue at the summit meeting today? >> yes, we will. we will be discussing it. certainly that's a very prime topic for our meeting today. we hope that's going to happen. yes. reporter: is your position still that sanctions should stay in place on north korea until there is denuclearization or are you willing to consider easing sanctions to keep the talks going? >> no, we want sanctions to remain in place and frankly, i had the option of significantly increasing them. i didn't want to do that because of my relationship with kim jong-un.

i did not want to do that. i didn't think it was necessary. as you know, a couple of weeks ago, i held it back, but i think that sanctions are right now at a level that's a fair level and i really believe something very significant's going to happen. we could always increase them but i didn't want to do that at this time. reporter: mr. president, would you accept a smaller deal to keep the process going as president moon called it? >> i would have to see what the deal is. there are various smaller deals that maybe would happen, things could happen, you can work out step by step pieces, but at this moment, we're talking about the big deal. the big deal is we have to get rid of the nuclear weapons. thank you very much, everybody. you know, there's 15 players capable of winning and i guess you could say there are a lot more than that. there are great players. i don't think the field for the masters has ever been this deep. i was watching late last night

and they were going over the different players. i think the field has never been so deep. but always phil and tiger and dustin. you have so many great players. but they were just saying they're younger, they're stronger, they've never hit the ball this long, they've never hit the ball this accurately, they've never putted better than they do now. you know, the whole thing is pretty incredible but the field is very, very deep. i think it's going to be a great masters. i hope so. thank you very much. >> thank you. right this way, guys. neil: the president and the south korean leader, in the end there he's referring to the masters, the golf tournament going on in georgia right now. he says it's a very strong field. i guess it is. one of the things we gleaned from that is that meeting with the south korean president, moon jae-in, he's open to yet another

summit, his third with kim jong-un of north korea. sanctions will remain in place. he's open to a smaller deal if necessary, but right now, they are getting way ahead of themselves even talking about that. the president is saying as well that he has no doubts now that there was unprecedented spying going on in his campaign. already his attorney general made clear that he agrees with that. there was some sort of spying going on, as republicans are pushing efforts to investigate what started the investigation. former justice department attorney under bush 43, matthew hyman joins us right now. great to have you. let me ask you first about the attorney general saying that that's worth a look. is it? >> well, i think it's clearly worth a look and as we know, the inspector general, michael horowitz, has already begun that process several months ago. so we're expecting a report from him in the may-june time period on whether or not the authorities that were used by

the doj in terms of surveillance and other things were appropriate. neil: jerry nadler immediately seized on that to say it's just another republican dodge, don't go for the distraction, look at this shiny object here, don't believe that. you say? >> well, i have no reason to believe it's a dodge, and you know, if you look at attorney general barr's track record, he is a pretty straight shooter. he's not a partisan. i think he's wanting to look at all the angles of this story to make sure that -- and to the extent authorities were used to surveil trump campaign officials, that they were done with appropriate predication. neil: i guess what raised the concern is that he was quite critical of even looking at potential obstruction of justice on the part of the president and had written extensively on this subject when he was going through his confirmation hearing a little more than a couple of months ago. obviously democrats have the knives out for him and are saying this is doing the bidding

of the president. what do you think? you can't win for love or money on that. >> no. he's between a rock and a hard place. you know, i don't think attorney general barr is acting at the bidding of the president. if that were the case, shortly after his confirmation, he could have terminated or suspended the mueller investigation. obviously he didn't do that. he let it run its course. he let the report come out. and as i understand, the plan is to release the report next week. so i think what would be good on all sides is for the partisans to check their tongues and let the report come out, then they can assess for themselves the work of special counsel mueller. neil: that's actually good thinking for both parties to keep in mind. matthew, thank you very, very much. >> my pleasure. neil: the president did have a chance to respond to the julian assange arrest today. take a look. >> that was absolutely true, there was absolutely spying into my campaign. i will go a step further. in my opinion it was illegal

spying, unprecedented spying and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again. neil: i misstated that. the president of course was referring to what he thinks was an orchestrated plan to illegitimately go after him as a candidate. i did mention the julian assange arrest today. remember, the wikileaks was actively involved in all the democratic e-mails, that became their own separate issue and the reason why the mueller folks were paying a good deal of attention to that. the read on all of these cross-currents from katie. katie, the president is convinced that this was all a witch hunt and this was all trumped up, no pun intended here, and now his attorney general thinks it warrants an investigation. what do you think of all this? >> i think a lot of this is more political than it is legal. there are going to be investigations that run their course. i don't personally think that the investigation was

ill-advised from the beginning, but i think that these investigations and these talking points are going to continue throughout the election cycle on both sides, the kind of continue down this path. but really legitimately, i think that the investigation was probably legitimate from the beginning. neil: we will never know, to your point here. but i do want to bring in the wikileaks founder, julian assange's arrest and how he figures into this. the mueller folks use a lot of that wikileaks material or how that material got out, more to the point, to justify what they did. one of the arguments the white house has raised is the assange case showed it was one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the united states, referring to a lot of stuff that was leaked. they want to get to the bottom of it. where do you think this all goes? >> well, right now the indictment with julian assange only references the chelsea manning case and doesn't have

anything to do with the dnc hacking at this point. there could be -- neil: i'm wondering if the dnc hacking is what really is the issue here to get him. you have the manning stuff and what manning shared with assange in their conversations, certainly that merits a good deal of attention, but that the real appeal seems to be getting back to watching all this mueller stuff. >> i think that's a possibility. the doj can issue a superseding indictment if he is extradited here. we have to go through that entire process at this point to see if he will be extradited to face the manning charges, and then from there, there can be additional indictments that are issued. of course, there are those allegations that are out there. i think realistically, that is something that will absolutely be looked into. there was indictments that came out of the mueller probe related to at least lying about that information so we know the information was passed along to members of the campaign, but of course, they're not charged or accused of actually communicating directly with assange but that information is

still very relevant to that entire case. so absolutely, i think that's a realistic possibility. neil: i'm wondering what manning with julian assange, we had judge napolitano on earlier and one of the things he was saying is by whatever means you get it, clearly they will have that material out there, is akin to the pentagon papers, where it was later proven that authorities, presidents, top brass, joint chiefs of staff, had lied to americans about how the vietnam war was going, and that sometimes the end does justify the means. what do you think of that analogy? >> well, there's going to be people that come out on both sides of a free press sort of argument, that this is important work that's being done, but at some point, there is a line where it's very dangerous work and where you are violating national and international laws. so personally, i don't buy into that. i think that there are things that the american people need to

know, but i have worked for the government and i believe in the process that exists to get information out. so i think that renegade sort of argument is not super-persuasive when you are putting people's lives at risk. neil: well said. thank you very much. appreciate it. threw a lot at you but you hand it well. attorney extraordinaire. the president right now is facing two picks for the federal reserve. one more than other is catching the flack, after this. i'm working to keep the fire going

for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

whoooo. did you know the exact same hotel room... ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price!

neil: well, roosevelt tried to pack the supreme court, right? is this president trying to pack the federal reserve in naming two picks that are controversial, to say the least, steve moore and of course, all the attention right now that he's getting for, well, trying to put someone on there who at least people believe is going to be instantly rejected by at least three u.s. senators. ubs senior vice president of investment, market watcher and former dallas fed adviser with us. herman cain is that more controversial pick, i would think, and right now, with three

republican senators saying they wouldn't pick him, he can only afford to lose one more, assuming all democrats vote against him. what are we looking at here? >> well, i think what we're looking at is a high-risk to the gop that they not be able to confirm cain and that would certainly be a black eye for them. and most of the people who have even been circumspect, who haven't even come out directly against cain said we just have to wait and see in the confirmation process, we'll have to see what the vetting process brings to bear. i think that there is definitely a high risk for the president in nominating cain versus moore, who many people have come out and supported overtly in the republican party. neil: so greg, i know you had reasoned that you might lose herman cain but that wouldn't give the president two defeats,

right? >> first of all, you or i have a better chance of winning the masters golf tournament this weekend than herman cain getting confirmed. he's not going to get confirmed. here's my machiavellian theory. the white house will throw him under the bus but say to senators you can't reject two of our nominees. i think the big fight will be for moore. i say moore has a chance whereas cain does not. neil: interesting, do you know the reasons they would eschew herman cain? he has obviously business credentials, or is it all the controversy from his presidential campaign? >> it's interesting because the charge is going to be this is way too political, cain having run for president and having his 9-9-9 plan. the federal reserve board has had politics all over it for a long time. you can't tell me janet yellen and ben bernanke weren't political in any way. the federal reserve board and the presidents of the united states have a long history of knocking heads.

it's not surprising that the president would try to put his stamp on the fed by bringing in two guys from non-academia and two guys that are probably going to vote to lower interest rates in the face of jerome powell, who wants to hold things steady. so why is he getting a lot of pushback? could be the allegations that surfaced during his presidential run. i'm not sure. but i think greg and danielle have it right when it's going to be a lot easier to go with stephen moore than herman cain. i wonder if these are the best two guys that you could find. i really like finding people that are not necessarily cut from the same academia cloth as the rest of the fed and aren't going to subscribe to the group-think. but are these two really the guys that we want? robert caplan came from the private sector. i think he's got a great mind, he knows the financial sector, knows the shadow banking system. neil: they are easy money advocates. it's fair to say both of these gentlemen, whatever you think of

them, are advocates for keeping rates low or lower than not. and that isn't overly controversial but maybe the fact that both are of the same ilk is what could hurt them, that they look like they would be doing the president's bidding. >> well, that's just for starters, but here's the rub. they were both on the opposite side of the same argument when obama was in the white house. so for me, it raises an issue of credibility because you don't want to have somebody on the fed board who is overtly malleable and influenced by the president. you want somebody who is going to think for themselves and be able to hold their own around that table full of a lost brt o brilliant people. neil: i'm thinking even with those who joined the supreme court, there's already a lot of folks saying kavanaugh has changed already, his demeanor and approach, maybe more in line with brennan. i don't know who's right on

that. i do know the organization can change you. those who have come to the federal reserve in the past, all the way up to voting members to chairmen and chairwomen, have kind of become the organization. >> the rough edges get smoothed over. that's typical in a big organization like that. i would also point out, i think all this talk about the fed losing its independence is overdone. even if, say, steven moore does get confirmed, he's one of 12 governors. it's not like he's the decision maker. he's one of a dozen. i think this threat has been overhyped. neil: do you worry that you don't have an independent fed that calls into question the market's runup if it's perceived to be much more political? >> i do worry. on the other hand, i think the federal reserve board over the years has made a number of mistakes that have really hurt the market. 2004 to 2006, we raised interest rates 17 times. what happened. we had a housing crisis.

that's not the only reason but there's been a lot of policy mistakes by the fed. now, if you politicize it, do those get heightened or does it create less of a group-think type situation. i'm not particular, i think greg's right, it's just one seat. i do wonder that if trump does this, what will his successor do. will he say well, i've got to undo what trump did and i've got to get three real hawks on this panel or three people that think like i do just to offset what president trump did. yeah, it does bother me that it seems to be getting more political in nature, although again, it's always been a little bit political in nature. neil: yeah. just sometimes it wasn't so obvious. i think you're quite right. there was a lot of that going on. guys, thank you all very, very much. meanwhile, the push for medicare for all, after this. >> the american people are increasingly clear, they want a health care system that

guarantees health care to all americans as a right. they want a health care system which will lower health care costs and save them money. am ca. it turns out, they want me to start next month. she can stay with you to finish her senior year. things will be tight but, we can make this work. ♪ now... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now. principal we can help you plan for that . 2,000 fence posts. 900 acres.

48 bales. all before lunch, which we caught last saturday. we earn our scars. we wear our work ethic. we work until the work's done. and when it is, a few hours of shuteye to rest up for tomorrow, the day we'll finally get something done. ( ♪ )

charges now being brought against mr. avenatti can be broken down into four general categories. first, wire fraud, related to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients, including a paraplegic man who agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement but has received only a fraction of the money despite the fact that mr. avenatti received the full settlement amount. neil: boy, michael avenatti is in a world of legal hurt, barely a month after he was arrested for allegedly trying to shake down nike for up to $25 million, he's been indicted by the federal grand jury in california on some 36 counts, including embezzling a paraplegic, lying

to authorities, withholding payroll taxes, attempting to obstruct the irs, failing to file tax returns, aggravated identity fraud, bank fraud, false testimony under oath during bankruptcy. if found guilty on all of these charges, he would be in jail for 350 years. or life. meantime, bernie sanders said the campaign is looking to provide medicare for all, and is welcoming a fight with the president over something, at least bernie sanders has said he had welcomed that would be open to some years ago. a former member of president obama's economic recovery advisory board joins us right now, fox news contributor, wall street titan robert wolf. good to have you. >> great to see you. thanks for having me on. neil: let me get your take on sanders. he was talking, whether you like his approach or not, he was the first to start talking this up,

not paying for it and presumably going after guys like you to pay for it. what do you think? >> i think bernie has certainly been probably the lead voice, he and senator warren of the populist movement. i believe health care's a right. i'm not for where he is, medicare for all, because i'm not sure how we would execute that. i like other plans like medicare x, where maybe you lower the age for medicare. i'm also one for believing we should extend the public option but we should be able to keep the private option. there's 175 million people that use private insurance. we should be able to keep that. you know, my concern with this type of single payer medicare for all is not that it may not work over time, but the transition to get there i think is going to be near impossible. i think there are many iterative approaches and my view would be take the affordable care act, aca, and extend the public option and probably also look to allow insurance companies to cross state lines. neil: all right.

in the meantime, there are about, what, 130 to 150 americans with private health insurance coverage, are largely happy with that. about 20 million under the affordable care act who would be jettisonned under the republican plan to something the president has argued will be better. we don't know what that would be yet. but the response you get, medicare for all or maybe something even closer, some of the extreme left saying just get rid of private insurance coverage. do they risk hurting themselves and hurting the party's chances in november if they look like that is what they want to do? >> i think, you know, the midterms show that health care was the number one issue, and that health care as a right was supported by a majority of the country. that being said, how we get there is, i think, really where the difficulty is going to be. neil: i don't mean to jump on that, but for those 150 or 200 million americans or so who have private health insurance, they

might wince at some of the cost, you're quite right, but they kind of like what they have. >> i think they should be able to keep that. like i said, i would not go to the universal system they are speaking about. neil: bernie sanders were the nominee, i know you think now it's unlikely but we don't know -- >> he's probably near the front-runner. neil: do you worry about that? >> sure, i worry about the debate stage and that people are being pushed to the left but everyone will have a vote. what we saw in the midterms, you and i were there election eve together, is that really, the way that the democrats flipped from red to blue was by winning moderate areas. i believe that there are things that they agree about, immigration reform and gun reform and health care as a right. but i'm not sure we are all in agreement on medicare for all and i know that some of the 15 plus candidates have gone there. but not all of them have. a lot of them are -- neil: real quickly, then, i wish we had more time. elizabeth warren and others talking about a tax on corporations over $100 million

in sales, 7% surtax to make sure they never get away with not paying any taxes. this is the same woman who had a wealth tax, others have variations of that. in other words, for all this government largess that will be borne by business or rich people. >> listen, i'm probably more fiscally conservative today than where the conservative party is because they have extended the deficit by north of $1 trillion. we have to figure out how we are going to pay for all these things. neil: they have. tax the rich. >> yeah, well, that hasn't worked, really. that's not enough money. neil: barack obama, your friend, is concerned about this. >> he is. neil: and is he concerned to the point where he's panicking? >> no, because i think first of all, a lot of these populist ideas are great to run on but that doesn't mean they are going to go anywhere with respect to a vote. i mean, i don't think the surtax today that elizabeth warren spoke about is a surprise to

anyone. she has been in the lane where corporates are being treated better than individuals. neil: 15 candidates support some sort of a surtax or add-on tax for the wealthy or asset tax. it's kind of in the soup. >> well, because i would agree with many of them that trickle-down economics has not been working. supply side economics has not worked since the mid '80s. neil: we have record low unemployment, right? i'm not an apologist for the president, republicans. we have record low unemployment. we have an economy that's doing fairly well. >> listen, they like that. no, no -- neil: but -- >> i like that the economy is doing well. i like that the economy is doing well. we still have six and a half million people who are unemployed with seven plus million jobs available so we have a skills mismatch. we could take this debate many different ways. but we are both capitalists so there's a lot of things i'm liking but i do think there needs to be dramatic changes. neil: great chatting with you. thank you very, very much. robert wolf. amazon workers listening in

but so far, investors don't give a hoot. gerri willis with more. gerri: a new report says amazon employees regularly listen to and transcribe recordings from the company's smart speakers as part of its ai training process. it's recording sometimes background conversations that may contain sensitive information like full names and bank details. do investors really care? the numbers say no. amazon says it has sold over 100 million smart speakers since the launch of the device four years ago. in fact, last quarter, amazon reported a profit of $3 billion in part because of sales of the echo dot which became its best-selling product during the holiday season. it's not just amazon. facebook gaining more users and posting record profits last quarter despite a laundry list of privacy scandals. just last month, news broke that facebook had been storing millions of user passwords on its company servers. check out the stock. this year alone, facebook is up 35%.

amazon up 23%. both companies expected to report fiscal first quarter earnings later this month. so neil, even as customers do care about being overheard by their smart devices, it's certainly not enough to hurt the stocks of these tech companies and besides, if they listen to me, all they would hear is me saying david, did you pick up your socks? david, did you take out the garbage? just not that interesting. know what i mean? neil: you might be right. you might be right. gerri, thank you very, very much. it's common in a lot of households. they just switch the names. garbage still has to go out. the defense department is saying a space war is coming and we better get prepared. >> it is all the more vital now because our $19 trillion economy, our american way of life and our american way of war all depend on space. w. you two o have such a great trip. thanks to you, we will. this is why voya helps reach today's goals... ...all while helping you to and through retirement.

can you help with these? we're more of the plan, invest and protect kind of help... voya. helping you to and through retirement. i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. in a clinical study, over 96% of people taking xarelto® remained stroke-free. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding

if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

neil: this is fascinating.

this picture, the first black hole -- the first photo of a black hole ever recorded in human history. some people are on the wires, on the news today complaining that it's fuzzy. this thing is five million light-years away, folks. it was done with an event horizon telescope, a collection of eight of them on five different continents around the world designed to look at these phenomenon, black holes that have never been recorded before. all the telescopes around the world are linked together in a virtual telescope that some say compares to the size of earth itself. this telescope takes radio wave data from all the eight telescopes to form this image and people are whining about it being blurry? you're lucky i've been away for a few days because i would just flat -- anyway, this takes us to a space force which is the big issue on capitol hill today. it has nothing to do with the black hole debate. hillary vaughn has the details on that. reporter: president trump wants a space force but he has to

convince skeptics in congress first before he can push this through. there's a bipartisan coalition of both democrats and republicans in the senate that really aren't convinced that a separate branch of the military dedicated to space makes sense, but acting secretary of defense patrick shanahan and joint chiefs of staff chairman general joseph dunford told the committee today that if the u.s. does not take the lead on space, they will be playing catch-up with russia and china forever. >> given the significant change confronting us, we now need a military service dedicated to space. the status quo is not sufficient. we need to outpace threats in space, not simply keep up with them. >> china and russia have taken significant steps to challenge our traditional dominance in space. space is no longer a sanctuary. reporter: we heard from senators today about the cost. i talked with senate armed services committee chairman james inhofe and he told me the

$2 billion budget for the space force is not optimistic. how far are we from this actually happening? >> i think this hearing is going to precipitate pretty quick action. reporter: there are other senators like senator angus king that say they don't think this needs to be its own branch of the military and we also heard shanahan tell us that to fill the space force, they will pull from other military branches and they don't plan to backfill those positions. neil? neil: thank you very much. apparently we're not planning to hitch rides with the russians any longer, either. the days of doing so are gone. very good to have you. thank you for coming, lisa. >> thanks for having me. neil: how close are we to this, never relying on another country to get up to the space station or up into space at all? obviously we have been doing it with unmanned vehicles and the rest but what do you think?

>> well, there are a couple of private companies that are working on their crude space vehicles. space x is testing a vehicle. they already did one test without any astronauts in it and are planning another test for later this summer. i believe that boeing has another test planned also for later this summer. first without astronauts, then with astronauts. it's getting under way but we want it to be safe. we don't want to have any disasters on the way because that wouldn't help progress anything. it may be a few years. i don't know exactly what their specific plans are. it will depend on the results of these tests. neil: a lot of them now, i know the vice president talked about going back to the moon. a lot of people hear that and say gosh, been there, done that. obviously they would be using it for a launching pad to go elsewhere. what do you think of that? >> i think there's still a lot to learn on the moon. i think if you had told the apollo astronauts 50 years ago that that would be it, we would have six landings on the moon, then nothing for almost 50 years

later, they would have been shocked. they are still shocked. some of them are still around and they're like why. neil: there were supposed to be three more after apollo 17. they shelved it because of budgeting issues. >> right. what else is interesting is how many other space agencies and countries are trying to send things to the moon as well. there's a chinese moon lander that landed on the far side of the moon which was the first time that's ever happened. that mission is really cool. there's a lander built in israel that's supposed to be landing later today, look out for that, that's cool. there's a space craft from india that will be orbitting the moon soon. they are also planning a landing. everyone is interested in the moon at the moment. i think that's great. neil: the new old cool thing. thank you very, very much. i appreciate it. maybe it would give you a good shot of what's happening throughout much of the midwest or the west, snow up to two feet in some places. on earth, it's spring. from afar, it will be a whiteout. there's a lot to love about medicare.

there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,

insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less out of your own pocket. that's nice. and these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. it feels good to have someone looking out for you. want to find out more? call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, with aarp medicare supplement plan options to fit your needs. and learn how this type of plan works together with a part d prescription drug plan. here's something else good to know. with a medicare supplement plan, you have freedom. freedom to go with any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you're not restricted to a network. ever. and if you need to visit a specialist, you'll have a choice there, too. your coverage goes with you, too, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state.

they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp. that's the icing on the cake... i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call. neil: well, if there's anything that unites the democratic presidential candidates almost to a man or woman it's this notion the government has the obligation to do more for folks and a lot of folks are being left aside. in fact, they reach out to

christians or those of any religious persuasion to say it would be almost what jesus would have wanted, socialism, whatever you want to call it. but i want you to go back almost a quarter century ago when the late supreme court justice antonin scalia was weighing in on this very issue. his son joins us right now, chris scalia, who has penned some of his father's more revealing thoughts on this and so many other matters. lessons from an american believer. very good to have you. >> thanks a lot for having me on. neil: it jumped off the pages, you go back to a 1996 speech your father made talking about socialism would hold such an allure to christians because it seems like the right thing to do, to take care of people and all that, but quoting from your dad at the time, i know of no country in which the churches have grown fuller as the governments have moved leftward. the churches of europe are empty. the most religious country in the west by all standards

believes in church attendance, capitalism least eluded by socialism, the united states. of course, church attendance has gone down here as well but not nearly to the degree it has elsewhere. he was on to something, wasn't he? >> i think he was. one thing he tries to do in that speech is point out that you know, christ obviously said that we need to help the poor, we need to help strangers, but christ did not try to establish a government and these were not necessarily government prerogatives. they were prerogatives for the individual, the individual christian, the individual citizen, apart from the state. i think that was an important point he makes in that speech. neil: know what's interesting, chris, he goes on to say if you reflect upon it, you will see the socialistic message is not necessarily christian, and the capitalist message is not necessarily non-christian, but the issue is who is better able to help, right. >> yeah. neil: i guess you left me a

little unsure after reading the speech as to your dad's views on the subject. is it about catholics, frequent church goer, you know, all events, all times, it was in his dna. did he feel that the government could do more or wasn't doing more? what were his thoughts? >> well, i think he was a classic conservative in that he believed that a smaller government could be more effective at providing for the citizen. and you know, going back to that particular speech, he also points out, he doesn't really weigh in on whether socialism or capitalism is a better economy, but just kind of suggests that socialism is not more christian and he concludes that speech by pointing out that christianity is actually really important to the success of capitalism, because capitalism at its worst tends towards greed and that can be counteracted by devout religious belief.

neil: that's the point democrats say we're at now. he also said, this is where i recognize your father's sense of humor, christ said after all, you should give your goods to the poor, not that you should force someone else to give his. i got what he was saying but i'm wonderi wondering, growing up with a father like that, and you were all very, very close and he was very deliberate, that had to make dinners tough, right? it seemed like you guys were quizzed a lot and in the middle of maybe some lasagna you had to spout philosophy. that's tough. >> there were some intense intellectual conversations, but there were just as many goofy, irreverent and silly ones, too. that's one of the things i miss most about my dad is learning from him and trying to teach him, too, at the dinner table but also just having a lot of fun with him talking about tv shows and things like that. neil: did he, as time wore on, and i know this religious stuff is very integral, your brother is obviously a priest and

there's a great deal of christian commitment in your family, was he worrying as years went by and his time on the supreme court, the decline in participation, the decline in religious reverence of any sort, about what was happening to this country, about what was happening to this world? did he preach about it? did he concern himself with it? >> yeah, it did worry him. in particular, in these speeches, he worried about what the supreme court was doing, the role of the supreme court in kind of limiting the role of religious expression in the public square. supreme court decision that basically said the government had to be neutral between religion and non-religion, when the founders really thought there should be a space for religious expression, the government had to be neutral between different sex and denominations but the founders understood that religion was a great important source of virtue for citizens and citizens needed

to be virtuous for a democracy to flourish. my father was worried that message was being forgotten and our country might suffer as a consequence. neil: you know, my dad used to say, also passed away, you could tell the measure of a man or woman by how he or she treats people who can't really help them out at all, and there's a passage near the end of your book where you refer to your dad just as a human being, when he would go into a mass or to church, there was no special place, no special seat, hard for a supreme court justice to avoid a special place and a special seat. it's the nature of the office, if not to demand special treatment but your father would have none of it. one time you say we tried to take him out for a steak, he wanted a burger. another time we had a seat for him at a luxury box. he wanted a seat in the stands. it was integral to who he was, right? >> i should give credit if it's due. that's from one of his former law clerks. this book includes reflections from former colleagues. neil: they all say the same

thing, he was not driven by ego. >> no. he liked church. he liked hunting in part because he was just an ordinary person out there. people would tease him about his job and not kind of praise him so much. he really appreciated that. neil: these reflections of those who knew and worked with him and of course, you editing all of this and the foreward by clarence thomas, remarkable book. lessons from an american believer. it's out now. it's a real soul searcher and a good one. chris, thank you very much. >> thank you so much, neil. neil: more after this. . . i'm working to keep the fire going

for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

>> i'm concerned about the possibly lasting impact that the threats of trade war can have on economies. because you know, i've been in the private sector for 20 years of my life. you listen to policymakers and you take your decisions, you decide to open an office, you decide to set up subsidiary you decide to hire people based on what you anticipate. so when threats are on the horizon you just watch, you wait. neil: imf christine lagarde speaking with our own connell mcshane. catch it on "after the bell," 4:00 p.m. eastern time. the european is not a fan of the way president is going at then and european union on autos and as he battles china. the goal is to remove barriers on all sides of the global here

that everything will be fine. dow down 69 points. toss it to chars payne, doing, double, triple duty. thank you for hard work in my absence. one viewer said, pity, cavuto alive. i thought it was pretty mean. charles: i will remove the tweet later. i'm charles payne. this is "making money." stocks are in a holding pattern like a coiled spring ready to pop after the stealth rally near all-time highs. plus out of hiding, wikileaks founder julian assange under arrest in london on charge of conspiracy. we'll have latest. big tech behaving badly. a new report says amazon has thousands of employees, spying on your conversations through alexa. so much more on "making money."