earlier this morning. i have got to believe venezuela was one of the topics and it was. look at the big board. we'll leave you with the dow at the high of the day. we're up 165 points, 26,471. here you go, neil. neil: stuart, thank you very, very. you have to go back to a certain historic event to put this in perspective. that unemployment rate it, was 1969. now what happened that year? well remember this? man walking on the moon. that is the last time we had an unemployment rate this low. it is staggering. all politics aside no way you can play this red or blue. you have to look at the green. you have to look at record unemployment levels not only for average americans, but virtually every key demographic group in the latest report, for example. the unemployment rate for hispanics, officially got to the point where it is the lowest it

has ever been, not 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, but lowest ever. i could go on and on but let's get right to it. the market likes it up 170 points. it follows on other upbeat reports we've got own everythe last week, we'll explore whether this could be the wind at the president's back seeking re-election. it might be a early jump on things. the market impact of this with gary kaltbaum, and raymond james chief economist scott brown. gary, no way to put a political spin on this. look at the numbers what they are, remarkable. >> but they will try to put a political spin on them, neil. 3.2% gdp for economy this size, 3.6% unemployment, which is just a fantastic number but i have to add in something else which amazes mere, 2.5% 10-year yield,

and 2.9% 30-year. if you give me these economic numbers i would tell you interest rates are five and 6%. the fact that they are so low keeps the tailwind with the economy. i suspect we'll be in good stead for quite a while. this is really, big stuff for the average american and polticallyally as we move into a very important year next year. neil: it lifted monthly average of job gains, scott, folks like you follow, get big picture not one month, previous months were revised net up tick about 16,000. average hourly wages running at 3.2% annualized clip. that ain't bad. >> you know, these are pretty good numbers. i would caution people not to put too much weight on any one particular month. if you pull up a graph of the monthly change in non-farm payrolls you see it bounces

around quite a but really around and underlying trend, that underlying trend appears slower than we had last year but still very respectable. we only need 100 thousand jobs per month to for the new entrants. we did have the late easter and drop in unemployment rate seemed entirely related to drop in participation, prime age

that may be they would cut rates this year. i would assume, that is report of this strength and magnitude, puts that away? >> all i can tell you, as i mentioned, at the outset, the

10-year yield is helping the fed, the fact that it is staying low. they don't have to do anything. they can sit here and relax. interest rates back up to 3%. maybe they move upwards. if interest rates keep going down, that would enable them to lower rates. the fact that the market itself is low is what is more important now than the fed at this juncture. i think they will be on hold all year, if not longer than that. that is good news. 2.5% 10-year with the economy doing this, unemployment this low is to me absolutely amazing. neil: i want to thank you both. have a safe wonderful weekend. 2 1/2% 10-year rate is what the federal reserve is putting out to charge banks for overnight loans. they call the federal funds rate. it too at higher end of the range, 2 1/2%. a lot of people look at that something statistically significant. that you rarely see that. normally portends a slow down of some sort. in this case, there are all sorts of anomalies.

it's a reminder how through this strength, inflation, inflationary pressures are kept at bay. really remarkable. puts a lot of 2020 democrats on defense, doesn't it? if the argument is the economy isn't going well. there are the haves and have-nots. if deemed by statistics a lot fewer have-nots thought earlier to be the case. "daily caller" director vince collagnese. what do you think? >> this is good news news for te president and bad news for the democrats. the last thing you want to hear out of your mouth, are you better off than you were four years ago? many americans will not able to nod and say with resounding yes i am. that may say they want to keep the current commander-in-chief in office. neil: you and i always chatted about this, given the robust

economy, 3.2% figure. factory orders, up 1.9%, in the latest period even high marks for the president when it comes to handling the economy at around 56%. that is a cnn poll. yet overall, in the latest, you know, one-on-one matchups, this early as you politely remind me. they don't really, get to be much more credible than the paper they're written on, but the president trails all the premier democratic candidates. why is that? >> well, i, part of it i think no matter what president trump does he is running uphill against a media establishment that is basically has an embargo on good news for him. you will hear the good economic numbers this morning but it will be four minutes after the president full time for most of media outlets. he has to run against that. also, as far as the president is concerned he has to maintain a sustained focus on this one of

the things about the president, he focuses on some issues in just a single day. look at his twitter account every single morning, sometimes he strays from the things he should emphasize. these economic numbers are very, very strong. neil: usually the economy dictates everything, right? bill clinton famously said it was the economy, stupid. i would like to think he was right then and whether you like the president or dislike the president the economy kind of decides things. there can be anomalies along the way, wars, what have you, i'm not dismissing that, if this were to maintain itself, that would be a pretty hard thing to run against, if you're any one of these democrats now, so you've got to focus presumably on something else? >> right. so, for now this is, that is the important thing. really i think ultimately if the president can go into 2020 with such a strong economy. it will be the unknowns that get in his way. whether or not we have shooting war. if the economy starts to slide.

that would be kind of stuff is barrier for him. the rest will be tonal, sentiment. going after people like joe biden, when they make claims like china is actually not a threat to us economically. that does not work well anywhere in the country. the president is right to come out on fox last night saying that very thing. that's naive. this is how president trump to the elected. he looked around, saw threats to the country especially economically. he assessed them. he said we can't have that anymore. we have to get a better deal over countries like china. he sees it the right way. he has to keep emphasizing that on his opponents and their weaknesses. if it is a referendum on that he wins. neil: vince, thank you. >> thank you. neil: venezuela is having one demonstration after another this week, nicolas maduro the man they're targeting to step down to get out, neither stepped down or gotten out, so what should we do? why should we be the ones doing it? after this.

i was ready to make my mark, but i didn't know how. i was working the same job for a few years. i had a degree and some experience but no career. i opened the careerbuilder app and found an awesome job at a company i love. it even built a resume for me with skills i didn't know i had. i applied with a tap. and i start on monday. careerbuilder. work can work. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't.

and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

you can barely feel. 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. >> just want to be clear on don mcgahn. under what circumstances would you allow him to testify to congress about the special counsel investigation? >> well i have had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> so is the answer no? >> so i don't think i can let him and tell everybody else you

can't, especially him because he was counsel. they have testified for many hours all of them, many, many people. >> as far as you're concerned it is done. >> one can and others can't. >> so it is done? >> it is done. neil: referring to don mcgahn chief counsel at time, testified for 30 hours with the mueller folks. in the report were detailed, president told mcgahn to fire mueller and reportedly mcgahn refused. now the president differed with that interpretation of his conversations with mcgahn. bottom line he doesn't want mcgahn to testify. exactly how far can that to with jerry nadler the guy that runs the house committee looking into all of this is demanding he and many others testify before that same committee. former whitewater independent counsel robert ray. nice to see you. >> nice to be with you. neil: can he force the issue, the president? >> he is setting it up that way.

we learned this week, emmett floyd the white house counsel, laid down a marker, the marker should be that the president is not having waived executive privilege as a result of don mcgahn's cooperation with the mueller investigation. now that investigation is over. the president is trying to carve out legal space through his lawyers to essentially make the following argument. jerry nadler, you have the house judiciary committee. you are not engaged in legitimate oversight. the mueller investigation is over. don mcgahn cooperated with that investigation. unless you're prepared to say i am implicitly say, unless you're prepared to say you're conducting impeachment inquiry there is no basis to have don mcgahn testify before your committee. period over. it is done. neil: but there are 30 hours for the world to read. >> are we litigating that? if the mueller investigation is over, the criminal case is done, you're not conducting impeachment inquiry, what are you doing? neil: how did sam irvin, the

watergate committee, get at the time john dean, richard nixon's, white house counsel, to testify? >> to be very temple. so everybody can understand. it requires the department of justice figuratively walking arm in arm with the chairman of the judiciary committee to say, the judiciary committee is conducting a legitimate impeachment inquiry. as a result of the fact that it is preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding which would be impeachment, sort of writ large, that authorizes access to a bunch of materials out of the justice department which includes 6-e material. if jerry nadler is not prepared on behalf of the judiciary committee, to say,age knowledge what he is doing is in fact an impeachment hearing, the justice department and executive privilege women not allow the mueller investigation to be opened up for a purpose not with legitimate oversight. neil: hasn't mueller given to

congress to do with what you will? >> that is interpretation the democrats are putting on it. neil: when a report like that gets released, seeps a lot insinuation, you are the expert i'm not. >> right. neil: we could not go yea or nay on obstruction of justice. you might be able to, pursue this as a high crime and misdemeanor, interpretation here? >> i think that. neil: are you meant to do that. >> i think that interpretation is wrong. there is a lot in the media about certain sentences of the report they construe to bob mueller's intention to refer this to congress. that's not what was going on. first of all, there is not a mechanism under the special counsel regulations. neil: could he have indicted in that report? >> could mueller have indicted? we know there are certain impediments to that. one which is the standing "o" lc, office of legal counsel opinion about not being able to indict a sitting president. neil: what then would have been the next level to that? to say and render a

prosecutorial judgment in applying the principles of federal prosecution. neil: he didn't do that? >> in his belief there was sufficient evidence to believe that a obstruction offense was committed which he did not do. neil: in fact he was kind of wishy-washy, not enough to say there was, not enough to say there wasn't. who did he leave to decide? >> what he said there are substantials issues of both law and fact i would add also policy why he couldn't render that determination. he didn't leave it to anybody but in the vacuum created as a result of that, he is after all hired aspects counsel to be a prosecutor. sort of quist lent of a u.s. attorney with jurisdiction over this particular matter. if he doesn't render that judgment, he ultimately reports to attorney general who not only has the responsibility but the duty to make a call on behalf of the department of justice, whether or not a crime has been committed. that is what bill barr did. neil: talk about bill barr.

a lot of angry democrats. he didn't speak before the judiciary committee. >> we wouldn't have as much fun if they weren't angry. neil: he did absorb a lot of attacks, speaking before the senate, took on all questioners. they want his head now. some want him to resign. others are demanding that he testify. >> there is pattern here. if they can't get donald trump's ahead head. neil: what is the next level someone could testify before a committee. the president is saying you should say no, who decides that you should? >> ultimately a court will. but we haven't reached that point yet. the thing on the table right now, likely result in a contempt citation or at least the initial efforts by the judiciary committee to proceed down the road of contempt relates only to the question of the unredacted mueller report. but again as i have indicated the only thing that is unavailable to the united states congress is 6-e material under

federal rules of criminal procedure which is grand jury material. again the only way the committee can get that if the department of justice goes along, and jerry nadler has to say what he is is doing is conducting an impeachment inquiry up to now the democrats have refused to say. and i think the trial balloon is now being fleeted. i think it will last not much very longer, whether or not democrats are prepared to travel down the impeachment road. i think you will see next week or so it is clear they will back off, not go down that road. if they don't go down that road they're not going to 6-e material. i don't believe any court will order it be released. that will be end of that with regard to the attorney general, they're talking about the what the resolution will be. democrats should accept half a loaf and allow testimony of bill barr under terms he asked, which members question him. neil: not a lawyer from outside. >> department of justice, i'm interested in being, how full

disclosure you cooperate with congressional legitimate, legitimate congestional inquiry. ultimately he may well testify. we'll see. neil: yeah. >> i also don't think it's a free-for-all to allow several staffers from the judiciary committee to question the attorney general of the united states. you want to choose one staffer, you want to limit the amount of time? maybe the department of justice perhaps will agree to that we'll see. both sides have to be reasonable. neil: good luck with the reasonable. i will say this, i follow wall street. maybe as proxy on sentiment and expectations. wall street can be wrong, it can change on a dime -- >> market is following this too. neil: they don't seem to see this is going anywhere. >> consensus what really is this about? you don't have to agree with ted cruz about everything. i think he basically got it right at the judiciary committee hearing? what is the real complaint? democrats didn't like the fact that bill barr got the opportunity to control the narrative for three weeks. that is the sum and substance. neil: as far as impeachment, markets don't see it happening.

>> right. do you think there is basis for impeachable offense as a result of fact that bill barr controlled the narrative for three weeks and democrats are not happy about it? they have gotten what amounts to the full mueller report. really, what else to do you want? you have to make a decision in the political process, that you have to go forward with impeachment which they're not willing to do. this is much ado about nothing. markets are taking that into account. neil: for today, you're right. >> we'll see. neil: robert ray, former whitewater prosecutor. so much more. >> thank you. neil: we have a lot more coming up. the job growth that is, really the backdrop for what is happening in the corner of wall and broad. that is the underpinnings here. that is what really decides where markets go. uncertainty about mueller probe and how far it reaches out for now, not aware. after this. your daily dashboard from fidelity. a visual snapshot of your investments. key portfolio events. all in one place.

because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. you need decision tech. [spanish recording] so again, using "para", you're talking about something that is for someone. ♪ pretty good. could listening to audible inspire you to start something new? download audible and listen for a change.

. . . . neil: all right. i think we are at the highs of

the day for the dow up better than 208 points. 28 of dow 30 stocks are participating. looks like cisco and unitedhealth group are the standouts. they're not down all that much. unitedhealth group down about a buck 72. of course the economic report and lowest unemployment rate since 1969 providing the catalyst for a lot of this. if you like what you're seeing now, if the chamber of commerce is right, we'll see a boom. if democrats and republicans can agree on some sort of spending for infrastructure. u.s. chamber of commerce chief officer kneel braddy. good to have you. >> thanks for having me here, neil. neil: i'm glad you pell it the officially correct way to spell neil. >> that is what i was saying, infrastructure. neil: infrastructure would treat a boom but there is no agreement

how to pay for it. >> there is no silver bullet to pay for infrastructure. we think the opportunity for donald trump and congress to do what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did nearly 40 years ago. come together with come son sense user fee based model and adjust the motor fuel tax for the first time since 1993. states are doing it. neil: talking about the gas tax. >> i'm talking about the gas tax. neil: hasn't been hiked since the early '90s. doesn't seem much broad-based apfight for that oddly among democrats who think it is regressive. they will say if you scale back corporate tax cuts, what do you think? >> no one is rebe looking to the corporate tax cuts. there is more support than you think among democrats. the coalition on outside of congress and business and labor unions. business groups like the u.s. chamber which i represent, unions like afl-cio are actually in agreement it is now time to

raise the gas tax. we're also in agreement we need to stay away from poison pills like reopening the tax reform bill. this is something that we're seeing in washington outside of the halls of congress. something that we're seeing in the halls of state legislatures. 35 state legislatures have already raised their gas tax to fund their portion of infrastructure. and they pay part of it. the feds pay par part of it. those are deep blue states and rid states like alabama, where legislatures are coming together on bipartisan basis. there is no reason democrats and republicans in washington can. neil: on paper it sounds like it is doable. a lot of things look good on paper. while i have you here, neil, you're familiar out in the "wall street journal" things are tense between the chamber of commerce and white house. across the street from each other, they had chilly relations with barack obama. first of all is that true, that

it is chilly? >> it is not true at all. that "wall street journal" story is completely inaccurate. in the first quarter of this year the staff at the u.s. chamber and the president's staff at the white house met over 200 different times on a whole range of issues. our ceo, tom donahue was just over with the president and ivanka trump. our ceo serves on a task force that the president created on the american workforce and future of employment. actually the second task force he served on on behalf of president trump. we have a great working relationship with president and the administration. neil: talking about the trade battle, right? you're not only group that has concerns about back and forth with china and all these other deals that could boomerang. that seemed to be the source of this friction. how would you describe it? >> we have never seen eye-to-eye on tariffs, no question about that, but we never see eye-to-eye with any president on every issue. the usmca, the new nafta passed

through congress we launched a coalition. neil: that looks pretty dicey. what happened? >> i actually think we'll get it done. neil: really? >> we do. we're talking to democrats in the house of representatives every day who are telling us that once we get the tariffs relieved on the steel and aluminum between canada and mexico, there is aned path forward. they're willing to vote for it. we hear the same thing from senators like chuck grassley, chairman of the finance committee. so we're actually quite bullish we can get usmca done. we're in lockstep with the administration, making sure that happens this year. neil: neil bradley, veried about seeing you. >> have a great weekend. neil: secretary of state mike pompeo is expected at the white house any minute right now. the administration could be targeting exactly what to do about venezuela. we'll keep you posted. more after this. looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model.

and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ i was ready to make my mark, but i didn't know how. i was working the same job for a few years. i had a degree and some experience but no career. i opened the careerbuilder app and found an awesome job at a company i love. it even built a resume for me with skills i didn't know i had. i applied with a tap. and i start on monday. careerbuilder. work can work. 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. ( ♪ )

♪ neil: all right. ginnie mae very big in the home lending arena is trying to crack down on repeated refinancing. "barron's" associate publisher, best-selling author jack otter is here. what are they noticing? when they say repeated, what's the focus? >> so what is happening here lenders go to the veteran and or the retiree, hey, we can get you a better interest rate, we can save you money. who doesn't want that, right? so they refinance. what happens in fact is, there are a lot of fees involved with refinancing. and so that fee gets wrapped into the mortgage. your monthly payment might go down but in the long run you end up paying more. it is very important for people to understand something about mortgages which is in the early years, when you pay all the interest. when you look at statement, you have a whole lot of interest, not a lot of principle. every time you refinance you're resetting the clock. there are moments where your rate could go down far enough where refinance something is is

not a great idea. don't refinance all the time because you're treading water. neil: if you refinance, should be for substantial drop. >> exactly. neil: in the last few years, it has been within the same half a point. >> it really has. neil: who are the targets of this? >> one of the big target groups is military veterans. to me it is bad enough to be a financial scammer of anyone, not give anyone a good deal but to go after a veteran is just despicable. obviously they have been focusing on fighting for our country, not on learning the ins and outs of finance. so they're particularly vulnerable. just before coming on with you i called a guy, dryden pence, lpl, financial visors he is a veteran. looks out for veterans, to especially help veterans on west coast. gave me two source, military one source.mil. benefits.va.gov.

these are places anyone being targeted offering a refi or another financial product, should dig around a little bit. check the source. make sure there haven't been complaints against them. be extra vigilant. neil: when you are targeting veterans -- >> this is not the first time. neil: there is special corner hell. >> diana enriquez, "new york times." mutual fund we couldn't buy but offered on military bases. a military guy will be vulnerable to bad insurance pitch. he has family at home. neil: he worry. >> it is really awful, people need to be vigilant. neil: thank you for being on top of it, jack otter. meantime, liz claman on top of things at the big berkshire hathaway shareholders pow-wow. it is an event, almost like a religious event. the host of "countdown" to the

closing bell omaha. liz. >> backstreet boys will play the same arena. warren buffett and vice-chair charlie monger will sell more sights. not sell, they can't be bought. you have to have shares of berkshire hathaway. this is not the share hold mere meeting there. it snakes back there. the buffett faithful come to here, 88-year-old guy, warren buffett, and 95-year-old charlie monger talk about investing and talk about that sort of what got them where they are today. did you know, warren, a neil, a single share bought 1000 bucks worth, bought back in 1965, when he started berkshire hathaway would be worth $16 million today? so you can imagine all these people, people from south korea. we talked to people from china. sir, let me talk to you. where did you come from? >> i came from northern maine. >> northern maine, you own shares, correct? >> yes. >> this is your first time.

>> first time coming to this event? >> why? >> it is the festival of finance. it is very hard to say no to experiencing that at least once in your life. >> people from all over the world. thank you, sir. canada. i said, middle east, they will come here tomorrow. today they will come in. this is the only shareholder meeting that makes money. it is the largest in the world. and you know what? we talked to everybody out here but yesterday, in a fox business exclusive, we got a chance to catch up with his three grown children, howard, susie and peter. we talked to them about everything, like the first piece of advice they remember. about money their father gave them. but also i brought up abigail disney, recently, heiress to the disney fortune, spoke out about bob eyeing ear es compensation of $64 million calling it insane, because it is 1424 times what the average median disney employee gets paid. i thought to myself let's ask

these three are worth billions in philanthropic money what they thought of that. here is what they said. what you hear adult children of bail first around your age are saying these things what goes through your mind? >> i'm saying the same thing. i'm out there performing, essentially saying what are we measuring and what are we rewarding that tell us about the system we're in. i don't think bob iger is a bad guy. we're inside of a structure that creates this. >> by the way, that is peter. howard sat on boards of coca-cola, conagra, archer daniels midland. he was absolutely outraged what he season compensation boards. he watched it happens, some ceos are paid too much and the wealth gap is worrisome. nobody is worrying here. we have huge crowds. we're at the front. they will open the doors in about i want to say 15 minutes. but folks, all day long we're going to be hitting you live from this meeting and 3:00 p.m.

eastern on "countdown to the closing bell." we have governor pete ricketts. we have the three kids. wait until you hear what they said about that scandal, the college admissions scandal. you know, paying for access, et cetera. we have many more guests. we hope you join us. we have the all-access pass here. most importantly, starting tomorrow, hook up to our facebook.com/fox business page or facebook.com/lizclaman page, starting pretty early in the morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern, we'll hit all kinds of things on facebook live. you have got to stay tuned. there is nothing like this, neils on the planet. berkshire hathaway annual shareholder meeting. neil: it is an event. look forward to seeing you on fox news channel, our saturday show, some really big nuggets come out of that thing. you're right there. liz, good luck to you. sounds like you have a lot of crowd to contend with. meanwhile facebook is saying we are banning dangerous accounts but who determines

what's dangerous and how far do they go? after this. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online.

i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found. take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today.

neil: all right, we're getting new details on the conversation president trump had with vladmir putin this morning. lasted supposedly an hour.

so they would have had time, even allowing for translations to get into a lot of stuff. blake burman with latest from the white house. reporter: neil, a flury of activity as it relates to venezuela. you hit on one of those activities the president speaking with vladmir putin earlier today. the press secretary sarah sanders revealing that phone call took place for about an hour they spoke on a host of different topics. as you know the united states supports juan guaido. calls him the opposition leader. duly-elected leader of venezuela. russia supports nicolas maduro. the u.s. accuses the russians propping up maduro. sarah sanders told us a little while ago venezuela was indeed one of the discussion points in that call. >> the president reiterated need for peaceful transition. his focus throughout the conversation was on a need to help the people and make sure the aid was actually getting to them and being delivered. reporter: over here at the

white house secretary of state mike pompeo set to meet now with president trump. pompeo earlier today was over at the pentagon along with the president's national security advisor john bolton as they met with the acting defense secretary patrick shanihan. shanihan afterwards told reporters it was decision making meeting about venezuela. quote, these are decisions on our planning, just recommendations that we're in alignment. think of it as interactive agreeing to things around assumptions and activity. vice president mike pence reiterated today when he sat down with sandra smith as it relates to venezuela all options, including the military option remain on the table. >> i think for more than two years president trump has made it clear that we reserve all options and the capacity of the united states of america to pursue our interests in this region are unquestionable. >> is there a tipping point? are we there?

>> well i think the president said yesterday there is always a tipping point but we hope for a peaceful transition of power in venezuela. that is why we continue to stand strong. reporter: shanihan was talked about the possibility of naval engagement by the u.s. in that region. suggested it very well could take place, telling reporters at one point, all options are comprehensive but there is a lot of water, a lot of water nearby. we await to see the next steps on venezuela what actually the administration might take from here on out. back to the phone call for a second, between president trump and vladmir putin, also discussed between the two leaders according to sarah sanders, north korea. also a possible nuclear treatment as well. with china and sarah sanders said that the mueller report was brought up. that portion of the conversation was quote quick. neil? neil: the mueller report was quick? reporter: the topic of the mueller report was quick.

sarah sanders saying they talked about how both sides knew that there was no collusion an that they wanted to get past that and they went on to the other topics that the two leaders discussed about. neil: interesting, blake. thank you very much. have a good weekend. >> you too. neil: get a read, heritage foundation senior fellow mike gonzalez. mike, when you think about it, all options on the table, what obviously implied including military intervention. now i have talked to many people who are nervous if it is just american military intervention without the colombians, without maybe the brazilians. that we're setting ourselves up for disaster. what do you think? >> well that is being said from the beginning and obviously in a situation such as this any u.s. government is going to say, you know, all the options are on the table. i would imagine even the obama administration would have said something like that. i'm not sure that, that that is

being actively considered. i heard your report. things are moving really, really fast now. the meeting between acting secretary shanihan and secretary pompeo and john bolton was a planning meeting and decision meeting. now pompeo is headed to the white house to give, to talk to the president. so things are moving really fast. obviously the preferrable option here for venezuela to be liberated by venezuelans. you have to understand putin's mind set. he is a disruptor who wants to disrupt american aims around the world. syria is not an exception. it is not a coincidence. so, you know, if we are getting involved in venezuela that would make putin's day in a sense that he would be disrupting us even further, trying to, making us engage in all parts of the world. neil: so, do you think that if this were to drag on, another

week, it can't, right? can't have one demonstration after another, uninterrupted. someone has to blink or bend or some of these generals who have been so loyal right now to maduro, have got to be peeled off, right? short of that, then what happens? >> well they're not so loyal. don't forget the defense secretary padrino had conversations with guaido's entourage. we know that from "the wall street journal." maduro had a plane on the tarmac ready to take him and his family whisk him off to havana, until the kremlin intervened said no, you're not going anywhere, you stay put. we know this because secretary pompeo told us, ambassador elliot abrams told us as well. i trust their intelligence on this i think we have pretty good intelligence on this kind of stuff. i'm not sure. i think what you're seeing right now is a bunch of scorpions in a

bottle. maduro looking at top brass, they're looking at whom, they are saying who will stab whom first? he was ready to leave on monday. they're ready to deal with guaido. i know the situation is dragging on and dragging on, maduro has never been this weak. this is a very weak position for him to be in. neil: yeah. you have got to watch the roll of russia to your point. mike, thank you very, very much. >> thank you, neil. a pleasure to be on with you. neil: same here. we talked about the strong jobs report. we talked about the corner of wall and broad, lifting dow stocks, 28 out of 30. we told you it could provide good underpinnings of donald trump. what we didn't tell you it could give the u.s. added leverage in the china trade talks.

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.

( ♪ ) neil: 1969, the year man landed on the moon. the unemployment rate was 3.6%. technically in december of that year. the unemployment rate even though we haven't returned to the moon, has returned to what it was then, 3.6%. we added a staggering 263,000 jobs in the latest month.

we are averaging this year better than 205,000 jobs per month and we are now approaching close to the 11th year of a bull market. maybe ten and a half. that ain't bad. what is going on here? to edward lawrence with the latest. reaction from the white house? reporter: neil, a stellar jobs report. this means the economy is averaging over the last 12 months, not just this year, 12 months, 213,000 jobs per month. the unemployment rate dropped to 3.6%. take a look at this. the unemployment rate for adult women is 3.1%, the lowest since october 1953. hispanic unemployment is the lowest since they started keeping records in 1973. but you're not seeing the wage growth spark inflation concerns. the average hourly wages grew at 3.2% over the past 12 months, moderate enough according to bankrate.com senior economist

mark hamrick, the federal reserve will not raise rates. larry kudlow says you match this with strong gdp numbers and you have an economy that's working for everyone. >> 3.2% growth and 263,000 jobs which continues the strong trend. we have no inflation. virtually no inflation. you have strong growth, strong growth with virtually no inflation. reporter: house speaker nancy pelosi pushing back. she admits the job report is promising news, but hides the economic uncertainty felt by millions of americans, adding we must do more to ensure the economy is benefiting every member of the community and that americans have every opportunity to move ahead in our economy. still, it's hard to argue with this report. back to you. neil: or at least find something else to argue about. thank you, edward lawrence. stanford school of business professor with us now.

do you see anything right now that would slow that down in the very near future? >> no, i don't think so. 103 months is a pretty good record. the trump administration was probably doing cartwheels yesterday when they got that report. of course, they have 16 more to go before the election. unquestionably, it was a really good jobs report. the two things that stood out for me was one, it is a continuation of adding 200,000 jobs month after month after month for 103 months. what's really been curious is the uptick in increase in real wages over the last few years. so i have been spending time looking at it and there is absolutely no question what's driving that, it's the lower quartile of jobs being driven by minimum wage increases. what's going to be interesting is as the states and local municipalities keep cranking up minimum wage, you will have a situation where donald trump and elizabeth warren will both be arguing over who gets credit for the increase in wages. neil: what's interesting, i know a lot of small business owners and others who have a devil of a

time filling positions because there is such open competition for those positions. i don't know whether physically forcing the minimum wage up is what started it, but it's now driven by just the robust economic activity and competition among employers to find workers who seem to be suddenly in short supply. >> yeah. the convenient thing is when you're cranking up -- you have been cranking up minimum wages at exactly the time when employers are struggling to get workers so you haven't seen any negative impact of an increase in minimum wage. that's been good. in fact, within the jobs report which is sort of unseen but you kind of have to get in the weeds a little bit, is a lot of people came off the sidelines and entered the work force. that's all good. the question is, how long can this go on for and we all have to acknowledge that this is a debt-fueled economic boom. the data is crystal clear. so are we the generation that sort of pulled the ladder up behind us or is this something that's going to build long-term

economic growth. neil: can i ask you about something the president has mentioned that is, he's very critical of the federal reserve board, he's seen his two appointees nixed over the past week and a half or so so he might be just grinding here but he has recommended the federal reserve lower interest rates by a full percentage point, return to quantitative easing, the thing he criticized during the obama presidency because that would spur even more growth. much stronger growth than we're seeing now. what do you think of that? >> well, look, i mean, it's probably the one thing president trump and joe biden can agree on, which is nobody wants to raise interest rates. how do you expect to get votes going into 2020 if you are telling an america that is up to their eyeballs in debt we are going to increase interest rates? i'm sure every politician on both sides of the aisle wants to keep interest rates low for now. also, keep in mind that interest on the federal debt is now substantially higher than our entire military budget.

so you start bringing up interest rates, that's going to be devastating for the economy, which is why there's going to be a whole lot of pressure and president trump will probably park air force one in front of the federal reserve to keep interest rates from going up. neil: or tanks. real quickly, it might be just me obsessing about it, but we've got a ten-year note yielding around 2.5%, we've got federal funds, the overnight lending rate, around 2.5%. it's weird. what do you think? >> oh, yeah. interest rates, you know, used to hover around 3% to 4%, now have been -- they were at zero since 2008, now are up 1% or 2%, and we are going it's so high. i actually think when history is rewritten the federal reserve will be the biggest sort of criminal in what i think will eventually be when the music stops, and that's this, low interest rates have caused people and the federal government and state and local governments to do what's rational which is borrow like crazy. as soon as those interest rates come up, or people's borrowing capacity has reached the max,

which i think we are near, then the fuel that has been driving gdp growth and job growth is going to end. because you can only borrow so much money, whether it's your auto loan or student loan or the federal government. neil: until the music ends. always enjoy talking to you. i always regret that i didn't have a professor like you back when i was in school. i would have probably learned a lot more than i did. very good having you. have a great weekend. >> you, too. neil: meanwhile, 2020 democrats certainly have a tough time with this. how do you play it, what do you do, do you still say the economy is sort of meandering along? rashad ritchie and former communication director for marco rubio, alex conant. alex, republicans obviously like this. democrats, you would argue, are in a bind. what do you think? >> they are in a bind. look, no incumbent president has ever lost re-election in modern times with a strong economy which is undoubtedly what donald trump has. if donald trump -- neil: were you surprised he's

having a devil of a time in the polls? he trails very early, i must stress, every major democratic candidate, couple of them by double digits. >> i think it's very early. neil: you're right. >> he can make this election about the economy which is clearly what his efforts are going to be over the next 18 months, then he's in a very good spot because he has a good story to tell. i think that's why the democrats are desperate to talk about anything other than the economy. it's why joe biden who is leading now in some of the polls, he wants to make -- his motto will be make america moral again. he doesn't want to be talking about the jobs or the economy. he wants to be talking about the president's character, make it a referendum on the president and his tweets. that's why the president can continue to focus on the economy, make it a referendum on that, he's in a very strong position going into his re-election. neil: rashad, i'm sure you agree with all of that. >> i agree with some of it. it's not joe biden who is making this about everything but the economy, it's actually president trump, who is making this about everything but the economy. this is actually a win for

republicans, it is a win for the president, but he won't land the plane, neil. he will not be able to land this plane because he will start talking about everything else other than the numbers. as far as democrats are concerned, here's how they should potentialize the data. based on the numbers that are coming out, they have to agree this is a strong sign of a robust and growing economy, but the goal is not to simply have more jobs but to have jobs that actually pay the bills for the average american. that's not happening here. just in business services jobs alone, 50% of those jobs are consulting jobs and you know this, if somebody reports that they work one hour in one week in that survey month, they are considered employed. so that is a contextualization. neil: we are growing wages at a 3.2% clip and that's historically unprecedented. i'm wondering with that, if you maintain that, this fighting for employees among employers

because they can't find them, that's hardly a position for democrats to be bemoaning, right? >> that's right. i think if you look at the president's job approval rating on the economy, it's very strong, even if it's a little bit lower overall because of some of the distractions and the investigations and whatnot. neil: it's more than that. to rashad's point, i think he is right in saying the president can be his own worst enemy. i'm not meaning to mischaracterize what you said, rashad, but between the tweets and everything else, he gets in his own way and stomps on it at least when it comes to the economy, his otherwise good message. >> that's right. the white house and the president need to talk about three things between now and the election and only three things. the economy, the judges, that just this week the senate confirmed president trump's 100th circuit court judge, and lastly, socialism and talk about what the democrats would do if we put them in charge of the white house, which would be medicare for all and government takeover of health care. higher taxes which undoubtedly would hurt the economic expansion that we have seen

since president trump's tax reform went into law. so i think those are the three things he wants to talk about. if he's tweeting about anything other than that, i agree with the democrats that's probably off-message and counterproductive. neil: normally there are changes in leadership, rashad, when everything hits the fan. the meltdown certainly helped barack obama beat john mccain. there were other factors. i'm not dismissing any of the other stuff. from ronald reagan it was what's going on with jimmy carter. do you see an environment like that, because on paper, that would be about the only way a democratic candidate could win, right? >> i do see that happening, neil, because we have such a hyperbolic political narrative and atmosphere but here's what really happened. you take a stand based on where you sit and i'm talking about where you sit in stow site. so if you think the moral equivocation issue is the primary reason why you elect a

leader, what democrats are right in making this not about jobs, not about the economy, but about the moral center or the moral character of the country. i think that's what you're seeing being played out. neil: -- if they finally have a job or better-paying job or more economic security, they are going to risk that because they have a moral issue with donald trump? >> yeah, i don't think they will make that linear connection here because the same individuals who are benefiting from a lot of these additional jobs that are in the marketplace, be it that many of them are part-time jobs, they are still saying no, generally, to a president trump matchup against joe biden and even democratic socialist bernie sanders. >> i don't know. donald trump won in 2016 and he's the same man then as he is now. i'm skeptical democrats if they turn this into a character referendum on the president is going to have any different outcome than it did in '16, especially if the economy continues to be this strong. neil: we'll see. gentlemen, thank you both very, very much.

by the way, as these fine gentlemen were talking, we are getting the president tweeting. he said in his latest one had a long very good conversation with president putin of russia. as i have always said, long before the witch hunt started, getting along with russia, china and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing. we discussed trade, venezuela, ukraine, north korea, nuclear arms control and even the russian hoax. very productive talk. there you go. more after this.

can we talk? we used to play so beautifully together. now we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. if you have bent fingers, and can't lay your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened? there are nonsurgical options. take the first step. and learn more about dupuytren's. at factsonhand.com ♪

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

neil: all right. long live block chain technology. facebook apparently exploring it. kristina partsinevelos with more. >> i reached out to facebook and they did confirm they are exploring block chain technology which is a system that records crypto currency, but i asked them specifically about this latest report coming from the "wall street journal" saying that facebook's looking into making their own crypto currency and facebook replied saying that's just speculative. they also gave me this statement saying like many other companies, facebook is exploring ways to leverage the power of block chain technology. this new small team is exploring many different applications. we don't have anything further to share. but the way the "wall street journal" is painting this future is that facebook right now is

recruiting financial firms and other online merchants to possibly accept a facebook crypto currency. so when you have about 2.38 billion users per month, they need to buy stuff. imagine you could start to buy items on facebook or other online merchants using a facebook coin, a digital coin. adding to that speculation, there was a very popular crypto currency website called coin telegraph. about a month ago they reported a very similar story that a well-known vc investor, tim draper, was going to meet with facebook to possibly invest in the crypto currency. that adds fuel to the fire. but the issue is, can this catch on. if you look at bitcoin, we know how difficult it is to get a digital currency mainstream or make it mainstream. what you are seeing right now is bitcoin has fallen, however, just this week, it hit a 2019 high. does not have to do with the facebook story but more so, the bullish reports and some

technical analysis that it's gone beyond the moving day average but could this catch on, could we start using facebook technology to buy and use digital coins. they certainly have the platform. we'll see if people can take it mainstream. neil: thank you very, very much. more controversial issue these days for facebook is its efforts to ban what it calls hate speech or the likes of louis farrakhan, alex jones as a host of others. civil rights attorney says that facebook should take some closer steps toward -- take a closer step towards censorship here. this isn't just policing what's impolitic. you argue they are going too far? >> absolutely. they are not just banning specific comments or remarks that are hurtful or violate their terms of service. they are actually banning people and mainly they are banning people in their announcement yesterday for who they associate with. that's the really scary part, is actually, only louis farrakhan

was banned for things that he actually said. the others were banned for people they associate with who are already people who facebook doesn't like. on top of that, the new rule says if you, a regular user who is not on that list of banned people,

a huge chilling effect. the pock kraes concerns a lot of conservatives. many accounts that hate jews are there but it seems the bulk of people that are being banned and de-personed from these platforms are people with conservative views. neil: what i worry about, conservative or liberal views, doesn't matter to me, if it brings out the nuts, that's what these organizations like facebook are saying, it brings out the nuts, you don't want to bring out the nuts, you want to contain the crazies, but i worry

about who is deciding who's crazy? simply because i have views that are different than yours, am i crazy and you are going to ban me and vice versa? that's a very slippery slope. >> not only that, but the terms of service that facebook has which are a contract between its users and itself do not specify any of these reasons. it does not say in there if you associate with people who we don't like or find tb o be icky we can ban you. with regard to your earlier segment on crypto currency, now we will be having social media companies put out forms of currency, we are banning some people from being able to use those? that has very troubling civil rights implications as well. neil: that's a very good point. thank you very much. good chatting with you. >> thank you, neil. neil: be very, very careful what you wish for. you just might get it. the intentions are always good, i take nothing away from the intentions of a lot of these companies. but your views might be out of sync. your views might become so unpopular that you are out of sync. think about that.

more after this. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ 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. ( ♪ )

neil: keep wall funding out of is so the president can get democratic support is you would beef up the tension centers and not be in position where you actually have to just let people go. what do you think about that? >> well, look, again, there's a myriad of different types of solutions we absolutely need. keeping families together in an expedited process which really again, affects us on the front li line. the fix is in the legal framework. neil: that was customs and border protection's robert perez. this was at the time the trump administration was and is looking at its asylum policy that's already facing a lot of legal challenges. former i.c.e. senior attorney on what happens if that asylum policy is shot down. what do you think? >> thanks for having me back on.

the asylum policy is a long string of efforts that president trump has made to try to create a deterrent for people coming to the southern border and claiming asylum. the president does not believe that most of those cases are meritorious, so he wants them to be adjudicated as quickly as possible and have the claims that are not good denied and have the people returned to their home countries. the president also wants to remove what he considers to be the incentives to coming to the united states and applying for asylum. right now, many people are eligible for bond. they can get out and live in the united states, they can work, they can hire attorneys and fight their cases for years here in the united states and try to qualify for asylum. the president is trying every opportunity he has to remove those incentives and change the law. neil: he's separately working and also being challenged on an idea where mexico keeps detainees who are trying to be granted asylum, presence in the united states and others argue that's unfair, that they should wait it out in the united states.

what do you think? >> that policy is something that i think no one saw coming, when the president put it out there, and it's one that i think will have a tremendous deterrent effect. if the central american people from the northern triangle countries, if they know they can't even get into the united states to apply for asylum and have to stay in mexico, most of them probably won't come up and apply for asylum because mexico is dunning rouangerous. if they wanted to be in mexico, they would have stayed in mexico on their journey to the united states. this remain in mexico policy is extremely effective as a deterrent. i don't think it's a terribly great policy because it leaves those people at risk when we are trying to offer them protection, but it is a very effective policy. neil: know what i noticed, we talked about this before, the administration has a cruel view regarding immigration and just taking the word illegal immigration out of it, a record number 1.25 million became u.s.

citizens in the most recent year, so that is continuing unabated, those who use the normal legal process for citizenship in the united states or to get green cards in the united states, that continues. i'm wondering how that has happened, how this has morphed into you're racist, cruel, inhumane, the statue of liberty is crying and all this other stuff, when in fact, increasingly, democrats from cory booker to jeh johnson, barack obama's former homeland security head, is saying we do have a problem at the border and it's a big one. what happened? how did this morph into a racist, cruel, inhumane argument? >> i think it's all about optics and it's about the word choices that the president uses. he has expanded upon the immigration policies, many of them put in place under president obama, but because of the fact that president trump uses not so nice language, he tweets all the time about the terrible people trying to come into the country and these

terrible countries they're coming from, it looks as though he hates all of the people who are trying to come into the united states. so so much of it is his own doing, where if he just stops the rhetoric and stops saying terrible things about the people, and simply implemented the policies, i don't think he would get the pushback that he does. because a lot of what he does started under president obama and started under president george w. bush. so much of it is the president's own fault in that he does not use the right language to try to prove to people that he believes in legal immigration. he believes in people coming to the country the right way. people just don't trust him. people don't believe that he believes any of that about immigrants. he thinks -- everyone thinks he dislikes all immigrants and that's mostly his problem. neil: very interesting. thank you very much. good seeing you. >> thank you, neil. neil: now, speaker nancy pelosi has just done something that few have ever ventured to do. not talking about using the impeachment word, but comparing this president to richard nixon. it got me thinking. it happens sometimes, what with

the volatility with oil and everything else and opec. is this the summer of '73 we're looking at? after this. i was ready to make my mark, but i didn't know how. i was working the same job for a few years. i had a degree and some experience but no career. i opened the careerbuilder app and found an awesome job at a company i love. it even built a resume for me with skills i didn't know i had. i applied with a tap. and i start on monday. careerbuilder. work can work.

hey! you still thinking about opening your own shop? every day. i think there are some ways to help keep you on track.

and closer to home. edward jones grew to a trillion dollars in assets under care, by thinking about your goals as much as you do. neil: all right. oil has been all over the map. it was shooting up on news the administration was going after iran, all the way from its oil to petrochemicals and anyone who dealt with iran. shot up on that, falling back today, but it is looking at its first weekly drop in awhile. opec is already warning against the political use of the oil market. that might as well extend to iran. i think they were targeting us as well. larry chover says prices through all this are still going to go down more. how much lower, do you think? >> i'm making the case, oil going down $5 a barrel before i see it going up $5 a barrel. the reason is, we are structurally oversupplied. three and a half million barrels

a day offline, that's not enough to make the market go down, but it requires a lot of heavy lifting. we had great compliance with regard to opec plus. iran, imo with new regulations, creating a lot of demand for crude and above-trend demand growth which hasn't relented. i just don't see a repeat performance of that and i think oil is vulnerable. neil: so let me ask about all these countries the administration is targeting that accept iranian oil. the chinese don't like the idea. they will ignore that. i don't know what's going to happen but even a number of our european friends who say essentially butt out. where do you see that going? >> i look to last year. u.s. right now is operating from point of strength. two-year highs in inventory. they're not going to let the same thing happen that happened last year. very price-sensitive policy is

volatile. if there's any perceived tightness in the market, i think the rhetoric gets lower. beyond that, saudi arabia i think will be a little more reactive as opposed to proactive. i think the white house is very cognizant of that with regard to what happened last year in oil going down in the low 40s. saudi arabia doesn't want that to happen again. neil: when we talk about opec upheaval, a lot of us of a certain age, myself included, remember 1973. that was also -- >> yeah. neil: -- the year of some of the watergate hearings. you put the two together, we talk about a lot of hearings with this president on the whole mueller thing which might or might not amount to anything, and opec friction, what are we looking at? >> you know, we are looking at everything right now. it seems there are some direct parallels between president trump and what's happened in the nixon administration, something you cited earlier. at this point, who knows. are we better off with or

without opec. it's anybody's guess but there's no lack of drama and the fact is all the while, the u.s. continues to grow and lower its price point for shale. so we are far away from being an independent producer. we still need foreign oil but we are getting closer every year and the break-even point is getting cheaper. neil: great seeing you again. thank you, my friend. >> thank you. neil: now to presidential historian on the similarities between 1973 and maybe 2019. for one thing, i'm showing my age, but for another, i'm wondering are there parallels? what do you think? >> yes. yes, neil, there are. but one thing to note is that the problems in 1973 with the hike in oil prices were president nixon's fault. he had wage and price controls and he had much control over the oil supply and the oil drilling which slowed down our drilling, thus made us more dependent on foreign oil and thus more vulnerable to opec.

the situation now is very different with president trump. because we have engaged in fracking and have improved our oil supply so vigorously, opec's, well, their ability to hurt the united states is much less so that trump's position when he's negotiating with iran and dealing with venezuela, is a much stronger position. neil: you know, the thing about it, too, we are much more, to your point, of an energy provider ourselves. >> yes. neil: that's nothing to sneeze at, 12, 13 million barrels a day. is it your sense the president can force the issue, that is, to alienate or isolate iran? it's one thing for china to say, you know, screw you, and russia to have the same posture, but some of our friends, they are in a difficult spot. if you are in germany, france or italy and dealing in this oil on the black market or whatever market it's trading in, you need it, right? >> right. you do. of course, president trump is

trying to get saudi arabia and other nations to fulfill the gap that is left by iran. whether he will be able to -- neil: they say presently they are not going to do that, right? >> okay. so it's going to be a tough go. it will be a tough go for president trump on that point. but on the point of american power, vis a vis oil, america's in a much better position in 2019 than it was in 1973, when president nixon was at the mercy of opec and experienced a very bad situation with angry people with the high price of oil, which hurt him during the watergate proceedings. neil: yeah. i forgot about the price controls in effect. leave it to you, my friend, to wake me up a little bit. on the upcoming summer and the likelihood of hearings that might or might not go anywhere, i was reading some interesting press at the time going into the hearings back in 1973. the consensus was they really

weren't going to amount to much, and that it was going to be short and sweet. i'm simplifying it. then we learned of the existence of tapes. then there was the john dean cancer on the presidency thing. there were surprises that came up that summer that obviously those hearings went longer, they got far more widespread, in the fall of '73 we have, of course, the saturday night massacre and all things escalated beyond what anybody thought they would be. do you see, i know it's tough to call these things, anything like that that could happen here? >> i think the situation is very different. it's interesting to compare them, though. the very first special prosecutor we ever had under president grant was fired by grant and then you had archibald cox who was fired by nixon in effect. and he fired his attorney general, elliott richardson, for not firing cox. all of that was completely legal. president trump could have fired

mueller, that would have been not politically wise, but he had the power to do so. he never did it because trump said i'm not guilty of obstruction of justice, so i have no reason to fear an investigation. president nixon, on the other hand, had every reason to fear an investigation because he had problems of his own doing. his white house tapes revealed that indeed, he had been obstructing justice and so he tried to stop the release of those tapes. that was what the crisis was about. neil: my only point was it veered out of control, at least what most thought would happen that summer. >> yes. neil: to your fine point, there's nothing that indicates any surprises like that, it's based on his conclusions are already out but you just wonder. >> yes. you do. the democrats back in 1973 were slow and deliberate and the chairman of the house judiciary committee said i want these investigations to be conducted with honor and with integrity so

that our children and our grandchildren will be proud of the work we have done. and they even brought in many republicans who became persuaded that that's what this was all about. and president nixon resigned. we did not undergo a constitutional crisis. it was actually fairly smooth. neil: yeah. he famously said whatever happens with these, they will be meaningful but they won't be long. he was right. >> they were long. neil: thank you very much. historian extraordinaire. we have an historic rally going on. the dow up 211 points, the s&p flirting with another record close. i think the dow is at about a percent away. anything can happen. probably will, in the next, what, two hours and 15 minutes. is that right? until 4:00? i think that's right. more after this. (indistinguishable muttering) that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game.

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.

we are very close to a deal with china but it's a question of whether or not i want to make it. we're going to make either a real deal or we're not going to make a deal at all. >> are you optimistic about a june meeting? >> i think we can probably do that, yeah. i do. i think we can do that. neil: the president optimistic that something can be done with china. to these new jobs numbers, actually kind of force china's

hand to do something because we are doing quite well, thank you. china, not as well. fox business's deirdre bolton here and politico white house correspondent gabby oher. i'm wondering how that plays out. if you have a strong employment report historic, china gets wind of it, hears it, says all right, they are doing very well, kind of without us, you know. what do you think? >> it definitely puts the president in the position that he wants to be in, cutting into the final round of these talks with china. you have the chinese vice premier coming to washington next week to reconvene talks with secretary mnuchin and as many of the president's advisers, himself and his vice president included, have said over the past few weeks the president is eager to cut a deal but he's not going to go back on any of the structural things that would need to be in some type of agreement. vice president pence was interviewed yesterday and said that the president's favorite

two words on this negotiation strategy is we'll see. so he's still very willing -- it sounds like a parent. he's definitely heading into this feeling good. his advisers are. i talked to larry kudlow recently who said they are very optimistic but at the same time, despite all of the strength in the economy, they're not looking to cut a deal if they don't feel like it's going to be good for the american people. neil: there was talk earlier on, the white house dismissed it, they were willing to shelve a lot of the security checks on this, the cyber stuff and all that. the white house denied that but if it were true, the white house was indeed in a bit more of a rush than it lets on. >> we were talking during the break how strong the economy is, it's firing on nearly every cylinder and if you are going to negotiate a trade deal of this magnitude with the biggest trading partner that we have around the world, right now, why would you not do it now, right,

because you have the strength. tariffs which have been maligned by the press and maligned on this program and this network, fact of the matter is they are not creating inflation, they are not slowing down our economy. i think we have a position of strength and -- neil: that's a good point. they were so dangerous, so onerous, they would have evidenced themselves by now. >> we would have seen it clearly in inflation and probably would have seen it in economic growth and certainly some industries are impacted but it's not being pushed along to the consumer the way we anticipated it would be, thus being inflationary. so maybe now is the right time to play this out the right way. >> even earnings, 70% of the s&p 500 have reported and something like 75% have exceeded earnings expectations. so any overall growth, you know, it's not amazing but it's up -- neil: the president is meeting right now or just receiving the prime minister. just wanted you to be aware of that. he has been meeting with quite a few folks lately but want to keep you aware of his doings, comings and goings.

go ahead. >> i was going to say, most people were looking for earnings to even fall quarter on quarter, not 2.5% but still, the point was falling and they are up net-net so far, 1.5%. neil: where are we in that? >> we are 75% of the way through. we are almost in the home stretch. neil: it would take a lot to go south or be contracting. >> yeah, for the most part even sales is growing which is always a good sign. but i think to your point, there are some concerns that maybe, i know some people who are more willing to criticize the president say okay, he's so desperate to get a deal done that maybe he's going to walk away from the chinese with not all the teeth that should be in this deal but i think even the people who criticize the administration also say u.s. trade rep robert lighthizer is not going to walk away without teeth and secretary mnuchin seems to be doing the same. neil: i think of something mitch said which is important. you want that strength as close to the election as possible to maintain it. you could say the same thing about maybe a china deal. if you do one right now, you

lose the oomph by election day. i'm not trying to say structure it that way, but you are going to get more bang for your buck the closer to the election, right? >> absolutely. there's a dose of politics that's certainly driving the president towards wanting to make a deal with china but look, even before he met with the north korean leader, there's a lot of discussion that president trump strictly because of politics wanted to cut a deal with north korea. that he was going to give up all of these concessions that his top negotiators at the state department didn't agree with, and that didn't bear out. we saw him leave that summit in vietnam with the north korean leader walking away from the opportunity to cut a deal because he wasn't satisfied with what the north koreans presented. so i would just caution against those critics who are routinely saying he's going to cut a deal with china and he's going to, you know, screw the u.s. over when he does it. we didn't see that bear out in north korea and i am skeptical just based on what i'm hearing from white house sources that that would happen this time around. >> there's one thing. we made a deal with mexico and

canada, and that still has not been ratified by congress. that could be a political stumble. so the white house may want to wait million the last minute on the china deal so they don't have the misfortune of trying to get it passed through the house and having the house give the thumbs down on it. there's a reason politically to potentially slow play a little bit. but china, on the other hand, wants to slow play past the general election because they don't know who's going to be negotiating on the other side of the table. neil: you know what is interesting, whatever your views of the president, you like him, dislike him, think he's a bull in a china shop, the same global leaders who snickered at it are the ones who are in a world of hurt right now. not that his 43% approval rating and to gabby's point, over 50% on the economy, is enough to secure re-election, but he's in much better stead than they are. >> i think so as well. when you look at this unemployment, lowest level since 1969 and that's a 50-year low.

i heard what you say, maybe it's too soon to have this kind of good news for it to show up in polling but most americans care do i have a job, yes or no, do i feel like i am fairly paid, yes or no, and can i more or less afford the things that are important to me and feel like i have something left over pocket change, right? so i think for most americans, at least these statistics are showing us wage growth, first time in ten years, i mean, the economy is doing so well that should help but to your point -- neil: the consensus, something you touched on before, is a dicey thing, the consensus is kind of what you guys are saying. strong economy, we're well into our tenth year of a bull market, yada yada, nothing on the horizon that could disrupt that. sure, maybe by election day to sustain this kind of momentum would be pushing it, but for it to be completely reversed is unlikely. that is kind of, like the same with the consensus earnings, wall street view, inflation view, the fed does nothing for the rest of the year view, that

is everyone's opinion. >> yeah. i hear people in the trump campaign talk often about what it's going to look like a year from now, the economy. is it still going to be doing as great as it is under the first two years, two and a half years of the trump administration, or is something going to change and is it going to dramatically impact their election. neil: it would be great if it was 3.2%, it would look paltry. >> there are certainly some people who think that 18 months from now, we might be heading toward another recession. neil: but that's what i'm saying. if you want to be a contrarian -- >> that's a little tougher. >> it's hard to be a contrarian. you have to pick, you know what's interesting, in the fourth quarter you looked at the data and found the dark side of every number. now it's really hard to find the dark side of some of these numbers. because they are all very, very strong. neil: even though the unemployment rate, i'm giving a dark side, was forced down by a lot of people jumping out of the labor pool. >> yeah, but if -- neil: it would have been 3.8%. >> also if you look at the

broader view of the employment, the u6 number, that stayed flat. neil: so glad you mentioned that. >> somebody had to do it. haven't done it all day. neil: thank you very much. have a wonderful weekend. a lot more on this including the president's meeting with the prime minister. stick around. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. back then, we checked our zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed! but ocuvite has vital nutrients to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.

. .

neil: the question is, will bob mueller ever talk to any of these congressional committees? apparently the judiciary chairman gram has sad mueller it

he wants to provide testimony regarding barr an everything else. so far no word back. invite is out there. jerry nadler of the house judiciary committee talked about getting mueller but so far no response from mr. mueller. let's go to my buddy charles. hey, charles. charles: good afternoon, everyone. i'm charles payne. this is making big money. breaking right now the economy is booming. markets firmly in the green following stellar jobs report. the unemployment rate falling to the lowest level since 1969. the private sector adding 66,000 more jobs than wall street expected. we'll break down a few highlights and a few lowlights for you. a bombshell report how president obama's administration spying on the trump campaign during the 2016 election campaign season. could this be an underlying reason why democrats want to discredit william barr? facebook bans