anyone who has ever been down, in whatever it is, with that kind of determination. ashley: never give up. melissa: never give up. that does it for us. ashley: "bulls & bears" starts right now. david: breaking news. we are awaiting brand new details from the white house at any moment on trade as president trump turns up the heat in his battle with china, with threats of new tariffs. this on the same day china's lead negotiator was set to arrive in d.c. for what could have been the final round of talks. the entire delegation are responding to the president's threat by not getting on that plane in beijing yesterday. hi, everybody. this is "bulls & bears." i'm david asman. joining me to weigh in on this, kristina partsinevelos, kevin kelly, jonathan hoenig and gary kaltbaum. ambassador lighthizer and treasury secretary mnuchin holding a briefing right now on the very latest on the china trade talks. we have a reporter in the room

with those guys. we will give you the details as soon as that meeting wraps up. first, the president getting strong support for his latest tariff threats from a very unlikely source. key democrat senator chuck schumer, who tweeted the following out. hang tough on china, president trump. don't back down. strength is the only way to win with china. so, gang, is schumer right? >> oh, joy. more tariffs, yay! tariffs are not something a country pays to another country. it is a tax on the business and to the consumer there is nothing i like about it. i think the president was putting on the squeeze knowing that the chinese were coming this week for negotiation and trying to put them on the spot. but i have to tell you, i just don't like anything about this. i know he's trying to get a better deal but i got a sneaking suspicion when all is said and done we will end up with some sort of truce and china will end up cheating again. let me repeat again, there is

not one thing i like about tariffs. >> i don't think anybody likes anything about tariffs but we also can't calculate the cost of the lost i.p. and all the revenues that could come from that. microsoft has complained about it numerous times, all their software has been pirated over in china. we have been seeing for decades dupont was complaining about how actually china stole the color white and the i.p. behind that. you are seeing a coalescing of countries and companies behind this president from germany to even senator chuck schumer. i think this is actually very important and if the only effective tool that this president can use to get the attention of the chinese is tariffs -- >> kevin, how effective has it been? this is now a year plus later, we are still saying oh, just hang on, the president -- >> i don't know. look at the gdp. have you looked at the gdp? we are seeing companies reinvest in their businesses. you are actually seeing the country do very well in almost every leading economic indicator from the non-manufacturing pmis

to the manufacturing pmis. i think we are doing quite well right now. because of the politics of deregulation and all the other policies put through. >> specifically leave out those who are hurt by the tariffs like farmers, for example. i know you didn't mention them. farmer bankruptcies up about 30%. or something, what about something as convenient as people who are buying a washing machine, who have seen the price of that washing machine -- >> it's a durable good. people are buying them every single quarter, jonathan. listen, this is the way -- >> billions and billions of dollars -- [ speaking simultaneously ] >> it's a billion and a half dollars a month. how deceptive is it for the president and maybe for you to say china is paying these tariffs. peter navarro said the same thing on this show. it's malarkey. consumers pay those tariffs. americans pay those tariffs. conservatives used to be against taxes on americans. not anymore. >> i will take the middle ground here and say you both have made

very good points. the fact enforcement is still a contentious issue which is why the united states seems to not end this trade war which at the point i think jonathan brought up agriculture. that's a huge deal, huge deal. so many of these farms are going bankrupt. we can bring up just the trade that has plummeted to china, this is the latest graph i grabbed from the u.s. customs. we can pull that up, maybe we have it, maybe we don't. you can just see visually there on the screen just how much it's plummeted and that's affecting americans. that's the issue. maybe they don't all buy washing machines but what about soybeans? what about corn? david: we are in the middle of negotiation, gang. just to reemphasize for those just tuning in, our man edward lawrence has been at the meeting between treasury secretary mnuchin and our chief trade negotiator, mr. lighthizer. we are beginning to get headlines coming in. edward is running to the microphone as we speak. what about the fact that to kevin's point, we have these blowout numbers, job numbers. nobody was expecting numbers as

good as we got last friday. hold on a second. let me finish my point. what president trump is doing, and to use your word, gary, he's squeezing the chinese because he knows that they are desperate and we are definitely not. he is playing that hand. this is a negotiation as larry kudlow says, we're on the 5 yard line, this is when things get tough. we have the best hand because we have the best numbers. no? >> i am not arguing economic numbers. i think the economy's great. i think the employment figures are fantastic. what if china gives him the certain finger this week -- david: they can't afford to, gary. they cannot afford to. they are going down. >> wait a minute. it's been a year and change, and they still haven't cut a deal. so on coming friday, trump in the tweet said he's going to raise hundreds of billions of dollars from 10% to 25% and you

know what happens if that happens? that's all i'm saying. the outcome will not be good. david: we are going to edward lawrence, who has just come out of that meeting with u.s. trade rep robert lighthizer and treasury secretary mnuchin. what are the headlines? reporter: the tone is completely different. they are using terms like substantially backwards talking about the chinese. the latest round or latest agreement that was handed to the u.s. delegation over this past weekend, basically walked back almost everything they had agreed on, it sounded like, from this briefing with secretary steve mnuchin and u.s. trade representative robert light hiez hiezer. secretary mnuchin said in order to go forward with this, they would have to have china put back all the concessions they made and go forward in good faith on that last 5% that needs to be finished with this agreement. but this briefing said that basically, tariffs are going into effect at 12:01 a.m. friday morning, thursday night into friday, so friday we will see the first day of tariffs

increase from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of chinese goods. they say there will be a notice then in the next couple of days to then add the additional tariffs of $325 billion of chinese goods imported at 25%. you will see that process starting. so the tariffs can go into place right away on friday, then the process starting within the next two days to basically tariff everything china imports into the united states. the tone of this meeting was not the hopeful tone that we heard from last week. secretary mnuchin had said that last week they started to hear some grumbling but they believed they could work through some of the changes the chinese had put forward. this was at their meeting in beijing. but then over the weekend, they got an updated version, apparently it was completely changed where they had rolled back almost all of the concessions that the chinese had made across all the categories. it wasn't just one specific category. david: the panel wants to ask you a question but i want to start with one myself.

the president tweeted out over the weekend that they had essentially weaseled out, my word, not necessarily his, they weaseled out of things they had earlier agreed to. were there any specifics during this meeting with mnuchin and lighthizer about what those things were? reporter: no. they would not give specifics as to what they were. he did say it was across multiple categories which leads you to believe they had some concessions on enforcement, possibly that category. they had concessions that they had made talking about changing their laws in terms of protecting intellectual property. again, no specifics were actually given to us but they just said across multiple categories, the chinese walked back the concessions they had made over the past several weeks. >> edward, it's kristina. i have two points. the first one, for everybody on the panel, we are talking about the president and his negotiation tactics. we saw the market today, they pretty much saw his bluff which is why we saw the upsell. given all your contacts in washington and to pretty much mitigate the debate that's been going on in the panel, do you think this could extend well beyond friday? do you actually believe he will

follow through, like what's the sentiment in washington with putting the tariffs at 12:01 a.m.? reporter: i would say it's almost 100%. they will follow through. now, the chinese delegation is coming to the u.s., we were told, thursday and friday. secretary mnuchin and u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer have not spoken specifically with liu he, the vice premier, but they do expect him to be at those meetings on thursday and friday. if they cannot come to an agreement after thursday, at 12:01 friday morning, we are told the tariffs will go into effect. there's no maybe in their language. the tone of this pen and pad, the tone of this meeting between treasury secretary and u.s. trade representative changed completely from what we had heard. this will happen. >> is this completely predicated on the i.p. theft session? it seems like they were able to come around on a lot of other parts when they had been negotiating with the chinese. is this the hangup, that that is happening in the negotiations? reporter: it's not one specific

section. we are told it's across multiple sections. the insinuation is that yes, i.p. theft is one of those, but again, they said basically, the entire agreement, they are going across the entire agreement and rolling back concessions they have worked for over the past few weeks and months. this was a major change. this wasn't just minor tweaking. it was a major change to the agreement that the u.s. had worked out with china, and again, they are talking about substantially backwards is the way they are going, is the terms they were using. >> tremendous reporting. it's jonathan hoenig. last year we saw the president and the administration offer up a $12 billion bailout, in effect, for farmers as a result of the impact they are feel from the tariffs, the retaliatory tariffs. was there any talk about more bailouts that will be required if the tariffs extend further on? reporter: they did not talk about that. this is something the administration will have to address, the political fallout of all of this. at this meeting, they just talked about what had happened

over the last, you know, weekend or so, then going forward, what will happen in terms of the tariffs and the additional tariffs of $325 additional tariffs, the steps that will be made in the next few days to get those imposed. >> gary kaltbaum here. was there any talk about repercussions of raising tariffs on the number two economy in the world? i believe you said all imports, all exports. i mean, that's some pretty big stuff there. reporter: that question was asked, i will refer to my notes quickly because i did just get out of that meeting. they said that the president right now, they are in the process of doing a summit coming here but let me just get to this one -- here, they said the president said he is prepared to do exactly what he needs to do going forward. that retaliation question was asked and that was the response to it. so the president obviously ready for whatever china is going to do. he understands the consequences and he does follow through with

his word, according to treasury secretary steve mnuchin and u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer. in the meeting they are saying the president is prepared to do whatever he has to do going forward now. david: that is the biggest fear, that there is going to be a big retaliatory move, we will get into a real official blowup trade war between the number one and number two economies in the world. but interesting that chinese censors have been scrubbing any information from all the media in china about disagreements between the united states and china on these trade negotiations. so they are -- if they do something that leads to a trade war they have a lot of explaining to do. granted, it's a communist country. they don't have to do the explaining we do in a democracy but it's going to be very difficult because it's going to seem like it's coming out of nowhere, right? reporter: one point, first on your first point, there isn't much more china can do. they have pretty much tariff'ed about everything the u.s. has going in, or they could tariff just about everything, but it's still only half or less than

half of what we bring into our country. the argument here at the white house is they need us more than we need them. so there isn't a lot more they can do. the products they are tariffing, some of them are a different level. 5% tariffs they put into place on things chinese citizens use a lot. their economy is showing a lot of weakness so if they retaliate even further against the u.s., there could be significant repercussions for them, greater than what we feel here. so the feeling within the administration, a feeling in this white house, is that they need this more than we do, so these tariffs will force them to come to the table and make these changes. david: guys, i know we can do this all night but we have run out of time. edward lawrence, good to see you. thank you for the breaking news. also happening at the white house this afternoon, a golfing legend receiving the highest medal of honor that a civilian in the united states can get. tiger woods set to arrive any moment. we will bring you all the pictures as they come in live, as well as the medal ceremony set to begin in less than an hour. democrats now admitting

we're experiencing a strong economy, nice of them to do that, but wait until you hear who's getting the credit. more on that coming next. how do you determine the durable value of a business in the transportation industry without knowing firsthand the unique challenges in that sector. coming out here, seeing the infrastructure firsthand, talking with the people behind the numbers creates a different picture. once i know what a business is truly worth, we can make better informed investment decisions. that's why i go beyond the numbers. ♪

the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. it's toughcold turkey.king so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

the economy is doing well. i don't have to give trump any credit. what we are looking at is the ten-year rebound from the wall street crash of 2008. >> we have had policies in place starting with president obama that have aided that recovery. >> when i walk around my block, ask people the numbers that donald trump touts are really making a difference in their lives. people on my block, i'm the only presidential candidate that lives in a low income inner city neighborhood, talk to folks and they tell you i have to work two jobs just to keep myself in housing. i love that trump is taking credit for a recovery that started under obama. david: 2020 democrats now copping to the strength of the economy but they say the credit doesn't really belong to president trump but rather, president obama. white house economic adviser larry kudlow firing back. listen. >> on the wage front, rising 3.2% overall, the bottom quarter, 4.4% wage increase, the

blue collar people have had the best wage growth so what mr. booker and some others are saying is simply not true factually. david: how can democrats take credit for this economy after we see 3.2% gdp, historic job numbers, two years into this administration's tenure? >> because for the democrats, what creates wealth, what creates a good economy, is government. government spending, government takeovers. but when we talk about the economy, we are talking about the people in the economy, the free entrepreneurs, the profit-seeking business people who are creating the jobs, creating the wealth. not government spending, stimulus and regulation. so that point, well senator sanders is correct we have had a ten-year expansion, the democrats have not aided it. in fact, what aided it has been the tax cuts, the deregulation that has let productive entrepreneurs thrive and flourish in a free economy. that's where wealth comes from. >> today i brought up the subject with a trader at the stock exchange.

he said from a democratic point of view, maybe the argument is obama kept it low for so long, growth at 1% to 2% for about six years it was a springboard for what we are seeing right now in the economy. a positive factor we didn't touch on is productivity. this past quarter we are seeing productivity at levels we haven't seen since 2010. the big concern, i think maybe gary will bring this up, too, is yeah, we have this great economy but what cost is it going to come to in the near future when you talk about the level of debt that is not only held by the government, the interest payments that the government has to pay but the level of debt by all of us? david: well, gary? >> debt and deficit, there's an eventuality to it but right now, the economy is on all cylinders. look, these democrats have never seen a tax hike they didn't like. they have never seen a tax cut they did like. the fact that they're saying this is obama, i remember in the sixth and seventh year of obama, they were blaming bush for why the economy wasn't as strong as it should have been when you have interest rates at 0% for

eight years and the printing of $5 trillion. i give trump a 100% grade on getting rid of regulations and the tax cuts and getting this economy accelerating again. >> i echo those sentiments, but i think it's also important to note that the democrats actually shouldn't be giving president obama credit. they should be giving the federal reserve credit, as you alluded to. >> as i said. >> yes. you know, this is a core fundamental difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. unfortunately, when we saw cory booker talking about he lives in a low income neighborhood, that neighborhood is a product of the big government that new jersey and newark has, right? they actually think they should take more of the tax payers' money and they knew better what to do with it. those policies have not worked for those neighborhoods but we have also seen asset inflation which is hurting those neighborhoods, and that's because of the federal reserve's policy -- david: you say the policies aren't working for people in depressed areas. for all kinds of folks, particularly those at the bottom

of the wage group, granted, there is still a lot of people that are on welfare, et cetera, but the people who are working whether it's asian americans, latin americans, african americans, they are doing just as well and they are seeing an increase in wages faster than the people at the top. >> there is still a huge gap, when you bring up income disparity, you bring up wealth gap. i know, you're laughing and obviously i had to bring it up. david: everybody is doing better, though. >> no. you are seeing a huge portion, if you take -- you look at all the statistics, the wealthy, the top 1%, they have -- david: the lowest 20% are growing faster than the top 20% over the past six months. [ speaking simultaneously ] david: nothing will ever make everything equal unless we are equally poor. >> every data point, every economic statistic for every group has gone up over the last two years. i can't say that any louder or any clearer.

david: jonathan, five seconds. go ahead. >> really quickly, kristina keeps mentioning the poor in america. keep in mind that 67% of americans when you look at the world stage, are considered wealthy or considered rich. the so-called poor in america are actually doing quite well. david: that's the last word. coming up, the trump administration is sending a bold mess yage to iran after a serie of quote, troubling threats, amid a very violent weekend between israel and gaza. the impact on the middle east, coming next. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes.

it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

ifor another 150 years. the fire going ♪ 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. ♪ tthis is where i trades. and manage my portfolio. since i added futures, i have access to the oil markets. and gold markets. ok. i'm plugged into equities.

trade confirmed. and i have global access 24/7. meaning, i can do what i need to do. then i can focus on what i want to do. visit your online broker today, to learn more. we have continued to see activity that leads us to believe there's escalation that may be taking place so we're taking all the appropriate actions, both from a security perspective as well as our ability to make sure that the president has a wide range of options in the event something should actually take place. david: secretary of state mike pompeo on tensions between the u.s. and iran after the u.s. deployed a carrier strike group and bomber task force to the

middle east following a number of quote, troubling iranian threats which u.s. officials are calling very real. national security adviser john bolton hoping to send a clear, unmistakable message to the regime. let's bring in foreign policy analyst and heritage foundation now. does iran really have the stomach for war with the u.s.? >> well, i think this announcement coming from john bolton sends actually the right message to iran, based upon the intelligence that is available which does suggest that iranian forces are possibly planning some kind of action against u.s. forces inside iraq. there are still about 5,200 u.s. troops based inside iraq and certainly i think iran has the military strength within iraq certainly to strike against u.s. forces, so what this signaled today from the white house sends to iran very clearly that the iranian regime is playing with fire in terms of any kind of

aggression against the united states and its allies. this is a very robust message being sent here and i hope the iranian regime will heed the warnings here and back off. >> this is gary kaltbaum. what are the odds that some of this intelligence or all of the intelligence came from israel and what does this have to do with the fact that israel is being bombarded right now by hamas? >> well, there are reports that some of the intelligence may have come from israel. that hasn't been confirmed yet. but i think that this latest measure by the white house should be viewed within a larger context of action against the iranian regime on many, many fronts. so you have the u.s. sanctions that are being applied against iran. you have also seen the designation of iran's revolutionary guard called a

terrorist organization recently. also, the united states is certainly assisting israel in defending itself against an array of iranian-backed terrorist movements that have been raining rockets on israel. david: we will talk about that in just a moment, about the israeli side of it. but go ahead. >> it's kristina. i'm just going to bring it back to just talk about the iranian side. the u.s. has done quite a bit, you had 2,000 special troops but you had the president pull out, withdraw unexpectedly so now it's down to about 400 special troops than creates a vacuum. iran wants to take over the middle east so what should the united states do militarily and diplomatically to assure that doesn't happen? >> yeah, that's a very good point, actually, because iran clearly has major strategic ambitions inside syria and i think it's vitally important that the united states sends a message as well to iran that it is also playing with fire in terms of any further intervention in syria, and i

hope -- would hope that the u.s. administration will reconsider its earlier pledge to withdraw all u.s. forces from syria. i think it's important the united states maintains military fronts in syria and iraq, especially in order to ward off any iranian influence and intervention, and i think that you know, what you're seeing with today's announcement certainly is the world's super power flexing some muscle here, and it's vitally important that the united states stands up to not only to iran but also to russia as well, and other regional powers who have an interest in asserting some kind of influence in the middle east, which of course runs counter to u.s. strategic interests and it's vital that the united states maintains a strong, robust military presence in the middle east, including in iraq, including in syria, but also a naval presence as well.

that of course is the purpose of the -- of sending the u.s. carrier group out. david: i want to switch back to something we already have been touching on, which is what's happening in israel. there had been a cease-fire reached between israel and the hamas forces inside gaza. they control gaza. comments of ilhan omar notwithstanding. netanyahu says they are preparing for a larger conflict. i want to know what your thinking is. is this just the beginning of something a lot bigger? >> well, it could be. and you know, the fact is hamas and its allies including the islamic palestinian jihad which is directly controlled actually by tehran, they fired about 700 missiles into israel over the past few days, and this really is an act of war. israel is rightly defending itself against this terrorist aggression here. and let's not forget who is

directly behind these attacks on israel. it is certainly iran. so iran certainly risks sparking a wider regional war here and i think that the u.s. strategy at the moment of course is to stand four square with the israeli people but also to send a signal to iran there are clear consequences if they decide to try and spark some kind of regional conflict. that's a regional conflict they simply will not win. david: great to see you. we appreciate it. we now know that boeing knew there was a major issue with one of its safety features but failed to alert the faa or the general public. did they break the law? that's next.

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.

david: well, more problems for boeing as the company reportedly didn't tell pilots or airlines that a safety feature on its 737 max jets was not working until after one of their planes crashed in indonesia last year.

jackie deangelis has been following the story all day for us. jackie, it's unclear, some pilots were told, some were not, right? reporter: good evening, david. that's right. it's sort of unclear right now that boeing 737 max, of course, continues to be a problem for boeing. the aerospace giant. boeing acknowledging on sunday it actually knew of a key safety feature defect in the 737 max jet in 2017, but the company says that it concluded that the feature actually wasn't needed to safely operate the plane. boeing actually said when the issue was first discovered, it found that the existing functionality was acceptable. it also wanted to make clear that engineers knew of the problem, upper management didn't. a company statement reads in part when the discrepancy between the requirements and the software was identified, boeing followed its standard process for determining the appropriate resolution. senior company leadership was not involved in the review and first became aware of this issue

in the aftermath of the lion air accident. so remember back to the lion air accident, that's actually after that incident is when other airlines that operate the 737 found out about the problem as well, like southwest airlines, for example. this particular safety indicator has been very controversial, not just for the reasons we're talking about, but also because one piece of it was standard, another part that made it fully functional was optional. it was an add-on feature. if it was all working properly, it was actually designed to let pilots know when there was a problem with the pitch of the plane's nose and remember, that's believed to be an issue in both of these deadly plane crashes. so a lot to dig into. david: what a mess. jackie, thank you very much. bringing in fox news senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. so judge, does this leave boeing open to criminal negligence? >> well, the reporting of our colleagues at the "wall street journal" which has been extraordinary, would indicate yes. boeing of course, as jackie so

nicely reported, has come back with sort of a ferocious response, as one would expect. so if the reporting of the "wall street journal" is correct, if boeing knew of defects and didn't report them to the faa and didn't tell their customers who bought these jets from them, then boeing is exposed to civil liability and potential criminal liability. we will start with the more incendiary. the potential criminal liability is this. you have a duty to report defects. you fail to make the report and as a result, innocent human beings died. what is that called? that's called criminally negligent homicide. that would mean that a decision was made by some person not to report something that the law requires boeing to report. the potential civil liability is just as catastrophic for boeing, because if plaintiffs' lawyers can show that boeing by silence deceived its own customers, they will then ask to remove the caps

on the liability per deceased person imposed by the warsaw convention. this may also affect boeing's insurance carrier's covering of this and could expose boeing to having to become suddenly self-insured on these matters. we don't know where it's going to go. they obviously have a strong defense but the "wall street journal" did extraordinary reporting. >> judge, isn't the main question here from wall street looking at this is we are going to see an unprecedented fine from the faa to boeing, right, something that they would have never seen before. we have even seen facebook set aside over $5 billion, initially three, for breaking rules. is that the main worry for shareholders or is it that unlimited cap from -- >> i think it's the latter. i don't know what the government's fine will be. it's easier for the government to fine you than for a jury to impose liability on you, because the standard is so low. the regulators have so much more

authority. on top of that, the president's threats to increase the tariffs on china so a lot of factors in play here all at once. >> did you guys hear just within the past 12 hours, 900 inspectors are looking to let go and they want to replace those 900 inspectors are technology improvement? that's just another side case to announce to all of this. i wonder if the ceo should step down. this is a hypothetical situation. if you were defending boeing, what would you do to try to mitigate any type of those lawsuits? >> you mean if i just learned about it today? >> if you were counsel. >> i would be as open and honest as i can be, which according to jackie's report, boeing has been. they readily acknowledge what they knew, when they knew it. they were not honest until today after the "wall street journal" piece came out. but look, one must assume, this is a fascinating question, one must assume that the truth will eventually come out and when one assumes that, then counsel

advises you to tell the truth from day one. they cannot reconstruct history. had i been advising boeing all along, i would have said report this stuff. you don't tell the customers. >> you don't think they had legal counsel on the sidelines? >> i don't know if they ever talked to their lawyers about this. >> judge, this gairs kais gary . i was going to ask the other side of the question. somebody going after boeing. what are the top three things they will hit them on as far as litigation and you know, boeing i think said today something to the effect of they have no clue how much this is going to cost which means a heck of a lot, i gather. >> gary, this is fact-sensitive, meaning a fact finder probably a federal judge, will determine what boeing knew and when it knew it. to the extent of silence or deception on the part of boeing, the more the silence, the more deception, the more a jury will come down on them. that's pretty basic. >> judge, it's jonathan hoenig.

thanks for being with us. these crashes are terrible, your heart goes out to the victims but air travel is unbelievably safe. your chances of dying in an aircraft accident are about one in five million. your chances of dying walking down the street are about one in 500. aren't these victims and families of victims going to have to prove this particular sensor was integral to these planes actually going down? it's a harder case to make than you initially think, no? >> yes. the way it would work, the bellwether case, one plaintiff with all the power and mieght o their lawyers and experts against boeing. the way that turns out will be the same for all of the others. boeing wins that, it's off the hook. boeing loses that, it will have to start selling real estate. david: we have to leave it there. >> muilenburg will not be happy with me but this is a real mess. david: wouldn't you like to be the mediator in all this? >> i would love to be. david: meanwhile, you will love this. the "new york times" editorial board just published a shocking

headline unlike anything they have ever published before. we will tell you what that is, next. the lexus es. every curve, every innovation, every feeling. a product of mastery. lease the 2019 es 350 for $379 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. 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. this year, ancestry isn't celebrating mother's day. we're celebrating colleen's day. julia's day. marie's day. and all the one-of-a-kind women we call "mom." ancestrydna tells a story as unique as she is... ...with an engaging new experience that can help her

uncover rich family details. give her ancestrydna for ...denise's day... . and at just $59, grab one for jeff's day, too. order a kit at ancestry.com at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪

beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

david: the liberal "new york times" has just issued a shocking editorial entitled, get

this, congress, give trump his border money. the editorial begins with two sentences that contradict just about everything the "times" has written up about border policy until now. quote, president trump is right. there is a crisis at the southern border. can you imagine? to gop strategist and former g.w. bush senior staff member, brad blakeman. bre brad, does this mean democrats realize they were losing the battle on immigration? >> absolutely. it's there for everybody to see. we have 100,000 a month coming across our border illegally. we are being overwhelmed by people individually and with families who are sick, who have made long journeys and have become now a burden to the united states. and also a danger. i think the "new york times" is only stating the obvious but where were they? this has been going on for decades. the fact of the matter is government's primary responsibility is to prevent harm, not merely respond to it when it comes to our doorsteps.

>> i guess that's why i'm a little confused. thank you for being with us. where in american history has there been this tradition of the american government taking care of, housing, providing all this humanitarian aid, for people who show up at the door? during ellis island's heyday, people were processed to come into america but they weren't housed and clothed, as i understand. why isn't this something both democrats and republicans are getting behind when it's against our tradition here in the states? >> because it's reached proportions now that cannot go unreported. the press is finally showing what's there to be seen and that is we are being overwhelmed. we don't have the personnel. we don't have the beds. we don't have the doctors. it's become such a burden on local economies now, and local jurisdictions, so i think what happened in america is what we see happen time and time again. it has to reach an absolute chaos point before government realizes that something should be done. >> brad, gary kaltbaum here.

they say politics is about momentum. is there a possibility that an op-ed from the "new york times" that has a lot of tentacles can start momentum to at least get something done on immigration that hasn't been done for the last 20, 30 years? >> i don't put any hope in one "new york times" editorial based on the years of underreporting and misreporting of this crisis. it's up to democrats and republicans. i do know this much. president trump is a deal maker. the president is not steeped in ideology. he's transactional. he understands what needs to be fixed. democrats have got to get over the delusion and meet the president halfway. it's got to be border security, it's got to be more border agents, it's got to be more detention beds. it's got to be a lot of things but this president is willing to deal. the problem is you can't deal without the other party at the table. >> you think this is the "new

york times" signaling to the democratic candidates they need to come up with plans and policies to address this crisis because so far they have been exceptionally mum on this other than saying america is a great nation that should take everybody in with open arms and have no repercussions for that? >> it's a shot over the bow. i think it's something the president now and his team need to exploit. the president needs to get back with his team to the border and further expose the horrors that are happening there. it's up to democrats and republicans to act in good faith and come and fix this problem. david: brad, we have some breaking news that just came in. treasury secretary mnuchin denying democrats their request to see president trump's tax returns. in a statement that reads in part, the committee's request is unprecedented and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequence for all taxpayers. i'm determined that the committee's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. the department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return

information. this from the treasury department. not a big surprise. we knew this was coming. what do the democrats do now, brad? >> well, they can try and get it through extraordinary means, perhaps from the courts, or legislate it but it would never pass the senate, the president would certainly never sign it. the president is a citizen like everybody else and enjoys those rights and protections we all do. the fact of the matter is, congress may want something, but they may not need something. the something they don't need is the president's tax returns. david: very quickly, i want to make a final switch. you have this plan to pay for infrastructure, it's called the maga plan. explain quickly how it works. >> when our country has faced great crisis like a world war, world war i and ii, we sold war bonds and they were directed bonds at the spending of the national interest. i think we should do the same with infrastructure. let consumers buy them at their local bank. let institutions buy them. let's spread the investment over the generations and a lifetime

of the improvements themselves. we shouldn't be burdening me or you, the current taxpayer, with a bridge or tunnel that has a life expectancy of 50 plus years. david: by the way, democrats would never accept make america great again bonds, right? you would have to change the name. it's a great idea but i'm sure they would have to change the name for them to accept it. great to see you. thank you. switching gears with us. president trump rolling out the white house red carpet for masters champion tiger woods as he gets ready to honor the pro golfer with the presidential freedom award. but some critics are raising questions about the president's pick. we will tell you why, coming next. (ding) 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. ♪

david: we are moments away from the presidential medal ceremony for none other than tiger woods seen with the president set at the top of the hour. the highest civilian honor to the golfer after the dramatic win at the masters in less than a he is reportedly designing one of his golf clubs, he is not a tremendous athlete but he is a great comeback story and has broken barriers in the game, so doesn't matter that the president and tiger have done business together ? >> i think tiger woods is a natural selection for the medal of honor that he will be receiving one of the reasons why

is because of some of the issues we have had in the country which is an opioid addiction and he went to rehab for matt and coming from the depths of despair to hitting the height of his professional career and coming back he is deserving of it. people will try to find some way to attack the president but he will not make or break the trump that. >> is a fantastic comeback in 43 years old, i wonder if it's a way to show an america african-n coming to the white house. obama went to oprah and she lobbied for him, joe biden as well. that is a. >> there is nothing better than a comeback story in this world. this is one of the greatest comebacks of all time. i guess the critics had a

critique and they could come up with this. traumas left, does not matter. >> i would love to see the him honor. tiger woods have it. david: that deliverables and bears. elizabeth: breaking news, you're looking to get a live shot the president is about to present tiger woods with the presidential medal of freedom, one of the highest honors given by the president. we will take you to the rose garden in just a few seconds. trumps tax returns. we will go to washington for the details. >> the treasury department just released a response asking for the president's tax returns, in his response he says that it presents