will hold their own news conference, 12 noon, 15 seconds from now. what you're looking at, left-hand side of your screen is the podium from which speaker pelosi an senator schumer will be speaking. ash, liz, thanks for joining us. all great stuff. neil, it is yours. neil: stuart, thank you very much. the dow is down 66 points as stuart indicated. all this on growing friction between two clear branches of government, the executive branch and the legislative branch, they're not talking to each other. they will not be dealing with each other. the president walking out earlier with infrastructure meeting where same democrats thought he was covering up. he thought it was not worth his time. blake burman from the rose garden with the latest from white house. hi, blake. reporter: this all came together very, very quick. give you color what happened last 45 minutes or so the meeting between president trump, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, other members of administration was scheduled at 11:15. shortly after that we suddenly

got the word from the white house to get ready, there might be a press conference happening that took place a mere 20 minutes or so after that which the president came out and said that he wanted to sit down and talk to pelosi and schumer about infrastructure but the comments that pelosi had made earlier in the day about, that the president is involved in a coverup changed the whole dynamic. i believe pelosi is speaking. i will send it back to you. neil. neil: she is indeed. let's go right to the democratic leadership. >> meeting with the president, follow-up to a meeting we had two weeks ago, where we agreed on a dollar figure. we agreed on the percentage of 80-20 in terms of responsibility and we discussed some priorities about infrastructure. it was agreed at that time we would return today to talk about how we would cover the costs of such a proposal. last night, time in between the president was making some sounds

we questioned how serious could be if he was saying he was saying. last night he put forth a letter, unless we pan the u.s. mexico canada free trade agreement, we couldn't go forward with infrastructure. we didn't see those two as related but the fact is, hopeful, optimistic and, seeing the necessity for a big infrastructure initiative for our country, we went in the spirit of bipartisanship to find common ground with the the president on this he came into the room. made a statement that he made was, i won't even characterize it, but i will say this, when i say that after he left, thomas jefferson when he was president of the united states tasked his secretary of the treasury to put forth a infrastructure proposal for the, initiative for the country.

it was followed lewis and clark expedition of the louisiana purchase. it would be about, it would be about erie canal, cumberland road, things like that to build into america. 100 years later, 100 years later teddy roosevelt did his infrastructure big initiative and it was called the establishment of the national parks service, the green infrastructure of america. we had hoped that we could give this president an opportunity to have a signature infrastructure initiative to create jobs, to improve the quality of life, to just do so much for our country on ongoing, not only jobs it created by building but the commerce it would promote. that included roads and bridges and mass transit, well,

broadband into rural america and other underserved areas, clean water, wastewater, all of the things that have enormous needs. the american society of civil engineers says it is in the trillions, the deficit we have. we're talking about a couple billion dollars. for some reason, maybe it was lack of confidence on his part, that he really couldn't come match the greatness of the challenge that we have, didn't, wasn't really respectful of the of the congress and white house working together. he just took a pass. just makes me wonder why, why he did that. in any event i pray for the president of the united states and i pray for the united states of america. i'm pleased to yield now to the distinguished democratic leader of the senate, mr. schumer.

>> well, thank you, speaker pelosi and to watch what happened in the white house would make your jaw drop. we democrats believe in infrastructure. we believe our roads and bridges need repair. we believe that rural america, as well as inner-city america needs broadband. we believe to bring clean new energy around the country, a power grid modernized and updated. we believe in modernizing our transportation fleet in electric cars. we believe in all these things. despite signals in the previous few weeks that he might not be serious, we went forward. we came here very seriously. the president asked in his letter last night, where would democrats spend the money on infrastructure? i was prepared to give him a 35-page plan, detailing this in all the areas i mentioned and more that have the broad support of senate and house democrats.

we were interested. we are interested in doing infrastructure. it is clear the president isn't. he is looking for every excuse whether it was let's do trade first, or whether it was, he is not going to pay for any funding, or whether today there are investigations going on. hello, there were investigations going on three weeks ago when we met. he still met with us. but now that he was forced to actually say how he would pay for it, he had to run away. and he came up with this preplanned excuse. one final point, it is clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. it was planned. when we to the in the room, the curtains were closed, the president, there was a place for him at the front, so he could stand and attempt to tell us why he wouldn't do infrastructure.

and of course then he went to the rose garden with prepared signs that had been printed up long before our meeting. we want the president to do infrastructure. we want, our congress to perform its constitutional responsibilities and create jobs, create income, create wealth for the average american. we can do both. it is clear the president doesn't want to do any of that. >> just would add this one thing, that we had a very distinguished delegation to the congress, very power "full house" and senate, as you can see, distinguished leader on the appropriations committee, congressman -- senator patty murray, mr. carper the ranking member on committee of jurisdiction that oversees what we're talking about here. rich neal, the chair of the ways and means committee of the house. our distinguished democratic leader of house, steny hoyer.

where is dick durbin? did he leave? senator whip, assistant -- whatever the title is in the senate -- >> number two. >> debbie stabenow of michigan a leader on all of these issues in her committees in the congress. our assistant speaker mr. luhan of new mexico. distinguished whip of the house, democratic whip of the house mr. clyburn, i love saying chair, the chair of the transportation infrastructure committee appropriate to this discussion, mr. defazio, and the top democrat on the finance committee in the united states senate, ron wyden. so we came with heft, with commitment, with knowledge, we hoped with a shared vision of creating this great jobs initiative for our country and

in the spirit of president eisenhower when he instituted the highway, interstate highway system. it was important for jobs an mobility. it was a national security initiative. and it was bipartisan. lyndon johnson and sam rayburn in the house and senate, president of the night, dwight eisenhower, we hoped that we could do something comparable. unfortunately the president isn't ready for that. thank you all very much. [reporters shouting questions] neil: there you have it. the two branches of government, the executive, legislative, are essentially not talking to each other. they're not going to deal with each other. they're not going to so much propose a single piece of legislation with each other. democrats say they came to the white house in good faith to follow up on a plan the president hatch ad little more than a few weeks ago, to at least pursue something which

they both agreed, spending on infrastructure, help build up, repair our roads and bridges, our utilities you name it, given all this impeachment talk and that the president is covering things up, atmosphere was not set to do that. the president also pointed out apparently left this meeting earlier that in such an environment it is hard to get almost anything done and nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, as you indicated here, you just heard, were talking about prior presidents who entertained working with the other party to get and move on infrastructure. of course they were not being investigated at the time and people weren't throwing around terms like impeachment or coverup, any of that. so there is a big difference there. in such an environment it would seem to be a leap anything could get done. get the read on capitol hill, what happens now. chad pergram there, our senior capitol hill producer. chad, what happens now?

reporter: remarkable thing, mitch mcconnell, two meetings working out spending and raising with mick mulvaney,. steve: and things were going swimmingly in the meeting they decided to meet yesterday afternoon. mcconnell thought it was possible they could forge an agreement by the end of the day. basically the president today throwing down the gauntlet. this throws everything off the track, any spending deal, debt ceiling agreement. to say keeping government open in the fall. infrastructure, unclear how they could get that back on track. the pay-for would always be a question. what we've seen in just the past couple of days here, since monday afternoon, neil, there has been a distinct ratcheting up by house democrats, conversations, members saying maybe we should go for impeachment. david cicilline, democratic congressman from rhode island, a lower tier leader in the membership, we have to go for

impeachment. elijah cummings, chair of house oversight committee, said be very careful, be about freshman members who are vulnerable, that could be a problem for them. there is a divide. i asked house speaker nancy pelosi multiple times. she said there is no divide. only those of us in the press. what really happened here, neil, when the speaker came out an made those remarks about a coverup, that seemed to inflame everything. remind me after quote in the "the dark tower" by steven king too many shaking hands holding lighters near too many fuses that is the volatility we have e white house, and that we have here at capitol hill. neil: you raise an interesting point. the stephen king analogy brilliant, i didn't think beyond infrastructure, the two-year budget ideas kicking around and solving the debt ceiling issue before we're on the brink but it seems to at least for the

time-being doing exactly that. reporter: steve mnuchin, this morning he spoke with our colleague hillary vaughn and said that was a priority. i asked chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell yesterday why would they be willing to go along with the president when he gave agency to his administration officials to come to negotiate. mcconnell said the alternatives are pretty bad. we have to deal with democrats and maybe we can get an agreement everybody can live with. the president at some point, if they are going to keep the government open, they will have to deal with democrats whether he likes it or not. the fact that oil, that the water right now is so ultrapoisonned, won winders how soon they could get back on track. here is the other key, neil, this might be where democrats maybe overplayed their hand. there was a lot of conversation about should democrats even be talking about impeachment? could they be perceived going over the line when it comes to investigations? and at least from the

president's perspective they went across the line that could be a problem for them, especially trump favored districts that democrat performed so well in to win the house of representatives in the midterms last year. neil: real quickly, chad, you're a great student of political history as well. the comparisons were made with prior presidents like eisenhower of course, who really got our infrastructure spending going with the national highway system all the like, they use other presidents going back to jefferson and the type of spending that went in that regard, you know, going back to lewis and clark but the difference in both of those cases there are others, is that the president in question wasn't under investigation to the degree this one is? >> yeah. that is the pall hanging over this the fact pelosi had the meeting to serve two purposes to buck up the troops, with all the investigations, subpoenas, court cases win we had on monday to try to tamp that down, drive down both sides of the street.

that is the balancing act for nancy pelosi. that calls into question what can you accomplish politically? this is where we have to go back to the 19th century president buchanan, certainly john tyler who came in after william henry harrison died. look at models where there was such loggerheads between the president and congress. those are probably the operative models. you have to go back almost 200 years to look. the case with john tyler, he was president for three years, 11 months. they basically got nothing done because the congress didn't respect him as being the first person, came in the line of succession being vice president, becoming president. that was a real problem. you can imagine having that pall over the tyler presidency. now we have this investigation. i'm not quite sure they get anything back on the track. i asked a senior white house democratic source we got word meeting ended so abruptly. what the heck happened down there, they said quote, nothing good, neil, nothing good. neil: i remember covering the

john tyler administration. it was exactly like this. chad, you're amazing. good student of history and a good fan of stephen king novels. this is looking scary. "wall street journal" james freeman. market watch irjared levy how all the uncertainty plays out. a nonplussed reaction right now, area. what do you make of that? >> i was surprised futures were not moving lower, listening to all this stuff and i wish there was little bit more truth and more candor on both sides. this posturing, we know trump wants to deal. everybody does. we know the democrats most of them want a deal, let's be honest what each side wants, what they're willing to give up, bring to the table. the fact that pelosi accused trump of covering up, listen, you can't say something like that which sort of implies impeachment, yeah, let's make a deal, buddy. it will not work. i don't know if this shuts everything down.

this cause as delay in infrastructure spending bill. companies like martin marietta and others that depend on these sorts of deals. they will see some pressure. heads of those companies, what do they do from here? how do they plot out the long game? let's back up, see how things sort of evolve hopefully. there is i don't think it will happen, maybe some sort of an agreement, work towards, something more beneficial. it scares me. i'm surprised markets are not moving lower now. neil: what is interesting about this whole thing, james freeman, typically markets enjoy gridlock. they typically are okay. >> signs were pretty good. neil: there is that but this has another element to it, an uncertainty about where investigations go. you really can't blame the president for being a little bit riled up when it is given as fact that nancy pelosi saying he engaged in a coverup and that is

just taken at face value. so it reinforces nothing is going to get done but i don't know if the typical gridlock view holds this go-round, what do you think? >> it makes sense. investors are not freaking out about the latest noise from washington just as they haven't throughout this presidency. the press conference you showed, it is very hard to take the democrats seriously when they're, being so dramatic about what was essentially a meeting where the president said, i would like to do the trade bill first before we do the infrastructure bill. this is not some huge scandalous event in our history. seems kind of reasonable that he might have a different schedule. i think a lot of people might prefer the trade issue to get addressed first. neil: that was more immediate concern he had. the way it was played, either this or we don't move on infrastructure, i think was a premature reading of that but having said that, jared, i'm

wondering what happens now? you remind me in the past markets abhor uncertainty. we're going into uncertain land here, forget about the infrastructure thing, even that trade deal goes through, we don't know the impact that will have on very real threats with china and tariffs that are almost going to go through. so that is a lot to chew on? >> it is. i mean, i don't know that, listen, look at the market the way they're reacting right now. we have a lot of knowledge and expectations, right? we know china is playing hardball. we know trump is playing heart ball. we know that america has the upper hand in those talks. the fact this is a step back, more than the realization you know what? democrats are being sort of irrational here. let's see how this thing really plays out. i don't, in some, we're not overly concerned about it. if the dems really stop

infrastructure put a halt to every deal getting done it harms the whole nation and costing them an election. this is foolish to carry on. this is posturing and way more media exposure more people are accustomed to. neil: i think you're right about that. james freeman, we're getting news, panasonic, the japanese tech concern is suspending of supplies of certain component to huawei technologies. wear to get that is going on in the background and china the deal with them seems to be floundering amid all of this? >> we see xi xinping sort of warning the chinese that they have to be ready for a long march here. i think this is a, should be a cause of concern to markets, whether this is the "art of the deal" or whether this is a long-term trump strategy to weaken china, to move manufacturing out of there until they kind of resume the reform path that got interrupted by the old school communist xi xinping. i think, if the president wants to say this is a long-term

effort to counter china i think it would help him to cut zero tariff deals with others especially in asia share, we shall see. not happening yet. ii want to thank you both. the dow down 69 points after all this. more after this.

the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪

>> how would you like to be the treasury secretary of the united states on a day like this? you will appear before congress and get grilled on president's taxes and china and get filleted on all this stuff. hillary vaughn on capitol hill where that just happened. reporter: treasury secretary steve mnuchin telling the house financial services committee it would be unlawful for him to pass on the president's tax returns, saying he will only do it if the doj orders him too. mnuchin says under oath he never discussed handing over the president's tax returns to the president or anyone else in the white house.

but on trade, mnuchin says the fourth round of tariffs are ready to go with china in the next 30 or 45 days. but he says he does have his eye on the how that will impact consumers, saying he is spoke with the walmart cfo, bret biggs yesterday, about possible price hikes, but iowa congresswoman cindy axne, questioning mnuchin's confidence that these costs will not be passed down to consumers? >> can you tell me what costs these tariffs will put on these american families? >> i don't expect there will be significant costs on the american families and that's something we are absolutely focused on. >> have you done research on this. >> i have. i just said i have spoken to the all major companies that provide consumer goods. >> if you've done research on this, how come we haven't seen this research? i haven't seen it. i don't think my colleagues has seen it? why hasn't that been passed on to us insure constituents in the district have not paying costs of this? >> let me comment. the last tranche is under investigation.

reporter: estimate by the trade partnership, if trump moves forward taxing all $325 billion worth of chinese goods it would cost a family of four about $2,000 a year. he also insists that they are preparing a package though, to bail out farmers, specifically hit by these tariffs. i asked secretary mnuchin why is he deciding to bail out some industries like agriculture and not others? >> we're going to have a 301 process and look at exceptions that impact certain consumers. people talked about diapers and other things. that can't be sourced other ways. we'll be very careful on this but the farmers are being personally retaliated for political reasons. reporter: but mnuchin says he talks with over 100 different ceos around the country and keeping track what they can source from other countries and what they cannot. for those items they can't, he says they're working on an exclusions package that will also make these items essentially separate from any tariffs that hit.

he said he is also thinking about items that, people that rely on fixed incomes need to purchase and also families as well. neil? neil: hillary vaughn, doing a great job following this drama on capitol hill. to hillary's point how this could affect average consumers, you, when you go to the store, forget about couple weeks from now, how about right now? depending on the retailer you're betting mixed reads. jackie deangelis joins us on that. reporter: neil, that's right. in terms of tariffs it's a risk for retailers as we move forward and something we're watching closely. the board you showed, it is a tale of two retail stories in terms of earnings. i will start with the good news because the baseline picture isn't really that great. target is trading higher based on a beat. comp digital sales were up 42% for the quarter. investors like the fact digitally speaking because it is competing with amazon, for example, that target is doing better in that area.

now lowe's saw an 11-cent miss on the other hand. that stock is trading a lot lower. it also slashed its full-year guidance. after we saw home depot yesterday saying its same-store sales growth was the slowest we've seen in at least three years. then you turn to in order -- nordstrom, department store, cutting sales guidance. first quarter was hit on slow sales of full-priced women's clothing. that is really the bread and butter here. it also tried to roll out a new incentive program. that hit the bottom line as well. so you can see that the retailers are really struggling to come need here and when we get these earnings reports or get something happening with the guidance, there are really mixed reactions and they are drastic in terms of the stock prices, neil. neil: thank you very much on that, jackie. let's get the read on what the legitimate impact will be. it depends on the retailer but if you ask footwear

distributors, retailers, they have a very, very different view of things. that ceo, wrote a letter to the president warning of catastrophic effects of these tariffs, some are already being felt. matt, your letter sort of outlined exactly what the impact would be on just that industry? well, you spell it out? >> the letter we sent to the president, neil, was one alerting him to the fact footwear specifically already pays exorbitant duties has been doing so since 1930. our duty bill was $3 billion on chinese goods when it was $1.5 billion. we want to alert the president government is taxing consumers today, any additional tariffs under section 301 from china would be catastrophic for our consumers. neil: have you heard back? >> we have not heard back. the out pouring of interest and concern from our consumers real.

when you talk to a family purchasing shoes at a match retailer on a shoe could almost have 92% duty rate if this goes forward, they have to be concerned about where the cost increases will come from. neil: you heard already, matt, i'm sure about the carveouts the president is hoping to make. certainly farmers, up to $15 billion worth of exemptions or credits that president hopes to make up for pain they're feeling right now. other industries could get relief as well. have you her anything back whether yours would? >> we have not heard back, but what is concerning about the exclusion process that secretary mnuchin mentioned in the clip, they have not lawn of ad exclusion process for list 3 bumped from 10 to 25%. the thought we would have exclusion process in place and time for the catastrophic event for list four is not something we're hanging our hat on because at that point the light switch has been turned on, 25% duty is

applied. consumers see it back to school and holiday. neil: spell it out, this is beef a lot of this wave hits. obviously you're looking out toward that but a lot depends how long these tariffs remain in effect, is that right? >> that's right. we don't take for granted tariffs would be short term because the fact ours are in place for 90 years. our members are thinking about other sourcing opportunities. your previous guest talked about opening markets with duty at this-free asian countries. we have that in place with the trans-pacific partnership. if we reconstitute that. that would be amazing. a lot of ability not to move because of capital intensive. kids footwear, almost 100% of children's footwear is made in china. and we have to buy kids footwear, i have three daughters. we have to buy shoes very consistently constantly as kid's

feet grow. we'll ask working families to pay the bill when our members and brands and retailers can't move that quickly to get the product out of china. neil: you don't have any locales you can get same material from. >> no. fact i'm glad you raised that. if we moved to places like vietnam we were doing before president trump took office, a lot of inputs and materials come from china. much of the value is housed in china. that is what a lot of people are not thinking about when it comes to this relationship. neil: matt, let us know if you hear back from the white house. matt priest, thank you very much. footwear distributors retailers ceo. we're monitoring that, we're monitoring collapse of what appears to be once promising infrastructure talks. both sides pointing the finger at the other. the bottom line nothing is going to get done, after this. how do you gauge the greatness of an suv?

is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the mercedes-benz suv family. greatness comes in many forms. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease and financing offers. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't.

flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

neil: you know i know everyone

is frantic about these infrastructure talks collapsing in the middle of this back and forth on whether there will be impeachment hearings or whether the president is deliberately covering things up, which obviously got his goat but what i'm worried about promising talks about debt ceiling, budget issues, coming up with a two-year budget which would take a way political pressure and fear that builds around these things that looks like it is falling by the wayside. read from former congressional budget office director, douglas holtz-eakin. doug, that is my big concern. i was not that optimistic one way or the other something was done on infrastructure whether you support that or not. i think most americans would support getting our finances in order or at least our budgetary process in order, that doesn't look like it is going to happen? >> i agree with you, neil. the two things congress has to do this year, the president has to sign, are some sort of budget deal which avoids a draconian cut in the defense budget, and a

sharp cut in non-defense discretionary spending. to either raise or suspend the debt limit which we've seen this movie before. failure to do that, threatens treasurys and liquidity of the global financial markets. those are must-do items, sooner put in require view mirror, better off for the economy and for everybody. i'm with you. i don't think infrastructure has to happen. the democrats would like the president to help them with that. obviously true the usmca doesn't have to happen. the democrats would like democrats to help him with that i expect sparring with that but core budget issues have to get dealt with. neil: each side has to blame the other. we saw a little bit of that today. >> yeah. neil: i wonder if we're on the debt ceiling brink, you've been there many times, how does that play out? >> this has to happen. if the unthinkable thing for the u.s. to fail to pay on on a

treasury, default on it that would shake confidence in treasurys, everything in the world more expensive, all financing. the dollar and the treasury are poo important. that has. brinksmanship happen in the past. markets get nervous. we've seen this movie before. trying to avoid that would be a good thing. everyone knows that it would be best to keep the budget deal and debt limit separate not link them. i think they will try to link them, get leverage on the budget deal knowing they have to do the debt limit. it will be interesting september. neil: help me out with this. it comes up every time we push it to this stage, what would constitute a default? you talked about, if you don't make good on treasury payment, an interest payment, what have you, but it extends to other areas as well. could you explain those? >> well, i mean the trigger is the treasury can no longer come up with the cash to redeem the

principle on a security or pay interest in timely fashion and that's the trigger but at that point you run into further complications down the line. they are not going to have cash to service programs. that means they're going to have to make some arbitrary decisions about who gets funded and who doesn't. is it social security or medicare? do we continue to pay government employees or cut them back? almost unthinkable, when you go down that rabbit hole of budgetary consequences. it really needs to be taken care of, taken care of promptly. neil: the markets don't seem to fret about that. more attention in the headlines on wires now about infrastructure and likely deal there, sort of frittering away. reality of far more important issue is lost on people. >> it is infinitely far away in market and political time. this has to be done august and september. neil: that is a century from now. you're right. >> you and i both know they're

worried about china tariffs. that is right now. they're worried about infrastructure talks falling apart. that is right now. nancy pelosi, suggesting at that the president is involved in a coverup, that is right now. when all that clears away, those two things need to be done. neil: you're right right about it. douglas holtz-eakin on issue you should be concerned about. not that the infrastructure is not important, keeping lights on, social security, medicare, payments on the debt is far more pressing issue and global implications. you can say infrastructure not so much. qualcomm getting really real walloped here on antitrust ruling that did not go its way. here is the fear on the qualcomm ruling, that it will have pervasive effect on technology in general. i'm working to keep the fire going for another 150 years.

♪ for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to make connections of a different kind. at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. 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? 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.

neil: all right. qualcomm's stock is sinking after a judge ruled that it violated antitrust laws but this has a spillover effect. deirdre bolton with the latest. reporter: this is a huge legal hit to qualcomm. a federal judge siding with the ftc saying qualcomm's patent licensing practices strangled competition. their words, not ours.

qualcomm's stock is down 12%, the most in two years. a federal judge saying that qualcomm unlawfully squeezed out rivals in the cell phone chip market and also charged excessive royalties. the judge may four key rulings how qualcomm has to do business in the future, here they are. yaw qualcomm must renegotiate licensing deals with customers. it must license patents to rival chip-makers at fair prices. it must refrain signing exclusive agreements with phone makers like apple that blocks competitors to that market. it must submit to monitoring for the next seven to 10 years to make sure it follows that order. qualcomm says it will appeal. the legal counsel says we strongly disagree with the judge's conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and application of the law. worth noting the timing. a fcc lawsuit filed in january 2017. three days before president trump's inauguration, presumably a case that the obama era ftc

felt urgency to have heard before its time was up. if you look at the effect on the markets you will see other chip-makers falling. intel, broadcom, micron, skyworks, nvidia. the fallout effect is clear. neil, there is bullish case, bearish case to be made about qualcomm itself. some people say basically this company will have tough sledding ahead for a long time. others say you know what? qualcomm is important to building out 5g. that is something that president trump and the administration cares about. so it will be protected in the long term. in the meantime, neil, back to you. neil: in the meantime a messy ride. thank you very much, deirdre. latest between t-mobile and sprint whether the two will get together, enter the justice department as a gate crasher here. charlie gasparino with more breaking news. >> another messy situation. earlier there were reports that the justice department staff, the staff of the doj antitrust

has decided they will oppose the deal. they recommended a lawsuit to block it. here is what we know as of now. that doesn't mean it will not change later in the day, as of now, from what we understand, that is the staff, the policy guys. the makan delrahims of the world, head of the antitrust division, his immediate staff makes the decision whether to go forward to block the deal. they have not decided against the deal. here is one other thing that is interesting, white house economic advisors from what we understand believe, that means the policy guys, kudlows, mnuchins, those types, the white house itself believe there is really no antitrust concern here on this deal merging. these two companies, bringing, even though you're going from four wireless carriers to three because it will be verizon verizon, at&t and combined sprint t-mobile, policy advisors have a line in with makan

delrahim and his staff, they are on board. they think the combined company will be stronger and compete on wireless pricing better than if there were two weaker companies. they're sold on it. i just want to make real clear here to everybody, as you're following the story, sprint took a hit today, i believe on a reuters report, basically regurgitation what we know, the staff hates this deal. the staff is essentially part of the deep state. neil: now does the staff, unanimously rule this way? >> the staff make as recommendation. neil: so they go, here's our case for not -- >> we think you should kill this deal because we think going from four to three is problematic. neil: can they be overruled? >> they are often rover ruled. sometimes you don't hear about it. you're hearing about it, a little officially you're hearing about it now. they may be worried that delrahim will follow the advice of the white house, essentially

approve the deal, not challenge it in court. it is never over until it's over. i can only give you what i know. the staff hates it. they want to kill it. neil: huawei, all the other headlines? >> they're described as the deep state. there is a lot of obama administration people in there, believe in strict interpretation of the clayton act which is ruling act on antitrust. if you limit number of providers that in of itself will create a anti-competitive environment. the staff is against it. delrahim is undecided right now, okay? he and his staff, from what i understand, as of a half hour ago, it could change in a half hour have not made up their mind. can tell you the white house itself from the economic and national security standpoint, not just economic but national security -- neil: who appointed delrahim to his job? >> president trump. i'm telling you, if he goes

against this deal, let's say he agrees with the staff, he will be opposing donald trump, every economic advisor in the white house, every republican who believes in you know, who believes that this is part of the free market you know. neil: right. >> his buddy at the fcc ajit pai who just approved it based on conditions, seems like, i'm not saying he is going to approve it, i'm not saying he is not going to listen to his staff but i'm saying -- neil: looks like took wind out of the sales of the stock. >> we should put an intraday. it is off a little bit off its lows, based on what i was reporting. you're right, it took a huge, a lot out of it. a little bit off its lows but yeah, on these reports about the staff but i'm telling you there is a feeling inside of the trump white house that we need one company here, that strong, to compete against the other two and of course, you were just

talking about -- neil: you might be down to three regardless. >> sprint might go out of business. that is another thing. neil: right. >> i want to make it clear here, one of the things the white house is worried about is 5g. deirdre said about qualcomm. they're worried about it here. this company will be on the forefront of 5g. if you are worried about the chinese -- sprint will not make it on the 5g, in the 5g competition by itself. t-mobile is better company but have ard hear time. sprint has spectrum that, that, excuse me, sprint has spectrum that t-mobile could utilize in a combined company. this makes sense for -- neil: what about other mergers in the industry have been approved, albeit with counters and all that. >> they may just get more concessions out of this, neil but i'm telling you at that i'm not saying they will approve it. i don't know what is in makan

delrahim's mind. it is his decision. he may make up his mind in half an hour or a day. the staff may be against it but it is his decision and by the way the white house wants this deal done. neil: you mentioned the white house, i want to get a poll on "qunnipiac poll" out. 71% of americans think the economy doing well. >> right. neil: they are not giving president the credit. >> he has never gotten the credit. i think what it will come down to, you saw it during the last election, when he has his, whether it's biden or kamala harris or whoever, two of them, the american people will make up their mind, is it worth getting rid of donald trump for this? and if it is bernie sanders, is it worth getting rid of donald trump for some guy that will take the country radically to the left when the economy is going at 3%? the american people -- neil: you don't think we're there, even though this comes in the face of a very strong

economy for which the president normally would get credit just as we disproportionally blame him when things are bad, he is not -- even in some battle ground states he won, he is not trailing. >> he is trailing. neil: some are doing extremely well, record low unemployment in pennsylvania. >> he is trailing there. neil: doesn't make sense. >> but i know. it comes down to personality contest. one other thing, neil, is there any, people who watch fox love donald trump, trust me. it is my family in queens, i get it. not everybody loves him. as a matter of fact most people don't like him. they don't like his antics. doesn't mean they won't vote for him compared to the alternative. he suffers from that dislike because of the twitter stuff and some harsh commentary and because of his antics. he suffers with them. that doesn't mean he is not doing a decent job on the economy. sometimes you just vote the economy, you know what i'm saying? particularly when it comes down to bernie sanders?

i tell you this, i'm plugged in with a lot of people in the biden campaign, they think if any of these other guys get in there, it is not him, it is over. he is only one he can win, easy, given his appeal in the midwest. that is them talking, not me. neil: still early the thank you very much. charlie gasparino. we'll get the read with south dakota republican senator john thune. all the latest development as well. powerful player in the united states senate, what he makes of this impasse which is probably an understatement of the after this. so, jardiance asks... when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. right. actually, you're still at risk

for a fatal heart attack or stroke. even if i'm taking heart medicine, like statins or blood thinners? yep! that's why i asked my doctor what else i could do... she told me about jardiance. that's right. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? yeah- with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c.

ask your doctor about jardiance today. [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.

we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home. ...or trips to mars. $4.95. delivery drones or the latest phones. $4.95. no matter what you trade, at fidelity

it's just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. neil: all right. we are finding out a little bit more about the infrastructure talks the president had with democrats and they didn't last very long. we will be getting the read from south dakota republican senator john thune on that and more. first to blake burman on what might have been a briefer meeting than we were even told originally. blake? reporter: neil, it was 100 minutes or so here in washington earlier today that sort of crystalized the lay of the land within this city and the politics within it. let me just sort of walk you through it real quick. earlier this morning up on capitol hill, nancy pelosi held a meeting with democrats about the way forward in dealing with president trump. she walked out of that meeting and said the following right here. watch. >> no one is above the law, including the president of the united states, and we believe that the president of the united states is engaged in a coverup.

reporter: she said they believe the president of the united states is engaged in a coverup. that was 10:10 this morning. about an hour later, pelosi and schumer got here to the white house to hold a meeting with president trump on infrastructure. i'm told that meeting lasted a matter of minutes. once the president got in the room, he said what he had to say, got up and walked right out of the room. he then went into the rose garden for an impromptu press conference. >> i walked into the room and i told senator schumer, speaker pelosi i want to do infrastructure, i want to do it more than you want to do it, i would be really good at that. that's what i do, but you know what? you can't do it under these circumstances. so get these phony investigations over with. reporter: about 15 minutes after that, pelosi and schumer were already back up on capitol hill and they went before the cameras as well. schumer saying he feels that the

whole thing essentially was a setup, that this was the president's intentions from the get-go. >> it's clear that this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. it was planned. when we got in the room the curtains were closed, the president, there was a place for him at the front so he could stand and attempt to tell us why he wouldn't do infrastructure and of course, then he went to the rose garden with prepared signs that had been printed up long before our meeting. reporter: a source here at the white house told me the white house was planning on having a pretty robust discussion today with democrats on the way forward on infrastructure, but when nancy pelosi came forward this morning, and essentially accused the president of a crime saying that he is involved with a coverup, just like that, it changed the whole dynamic with everything and you got to wonder if nancy pelosi full well knew that she would be coming over here to the white house to try to make a deal with the president on infrastructure or

at least progress the possibility, why would she go ahead and accuse the president of a coverup? she had to have known at that point that the meeting over here was not going to go well and it didn't. neil: you know, whatever you think about the president or whatever, you're going into a meeting and saying essentially that's a high crime and misdemeanor right there. why should he talk to you? all bets are off, right? reporter: it's one of those things i think in any profession, whatever you do, people might say mean and nasty things about you and that's just kind of a line of work and especially in this town, people know politics is politics and we often hear stories about how they snipe at each other back and forth and then go have dinner later that night. but this is different. because the speaker of the house of representatives was accusing the president of the united states of a coverup, essentially accusing the president of a crime, that sort of takes it to a much different level. neil: yeah. all right, let's talk about, you know, bridges. reporter: let's talk about

infrastructure. what do you want to do, $2 trillion, great, everybody, thanks. exactly. neil: great reporting. blake burman at the white house. what is nancy pelosi going on to charge the president with something like that, a coverup? that is an impeachable offense and she says it's already met the standard by her thinking. do other democrats share that thinking and is this a preview of coming attractions. who better to sort this out than the former deputy assistant attorney general under bush 43, tom dupree. tom, she has just laid it out there, no doubts about it. the president engaged in a coverup. do you know of anything that you have read in the mueller report or heard elsewhere that makes that the case? >> you know, i'm not aware of that, and frankly, it's not clear to me from the speaker's remarks whether she's referring to something that was discussed in the mueller report or whether she's referring to what from her perspective is ongoing efforts to stonewall her investigation. so i think she obviously has a

bone to pick, to say the least, with the president. i think it was notable that she made that strong condemnation minutes before she was going into the meeting with the white house. it's clearly a strategic move on her part. look, it's very vague. who knows what a coverup means and she obviously provided no evidence or further detail on what she meant by the charge. neil: the president is already tweeting on this, referring to the fact that nancy pelosi and chuck schumer will, quoting here, never be able to see or understand the great promise of our country. they can continue the witch hunt which has already cost $40 million and been a tremendous waste of time and energy for everyone in america, or get back to work. but they really want a do-over. you can't investigate and legislate simultaneously. he goes on to tweet it doesn't work that way. you can't go down two tracks at the same time. let chuck, nancy, jerry, adam and all the rest finish playing their games. i assume he's talking about jerry nadler and adam schiff. meantime, my administration is achieving things that have never been done before including unleashing perhaps the greatest

economy in our country's history. he goes on to write the democratic leadership is tearing the u.s. apart but i will continue to set records for the american people. nancy, thank you so much for your prayers. i know you truly mean it. obviously referring to nancy pelosi earlier saying she was praying for him. obviously nothing gets done on the legislative front. you can interpret that one way or the other whether that's a good or bad thing but it's very clear the well has been poisoned enough now that the two sides will not see eye-to-eye on this. i'm wondering whether, justified or not, if the comment nancy pelosi has made are inching democrats one step closer to impeachment hearings. >> i certainly think it is. look, if you accuse the president of criminal conduct, it begs the question, if that's really what you believe, why don't you have the courage of your convictions and actually begin these proceedings. look, i think from the president's side it's very interesting. he's playing hardball. he has made a strategic choice to put the democrats to a binary choice. it's either investigations or infrastructure.

what are you prioritizing. it's interesting, my sense is there are a lot of folks in the democratic caucus who maybe have increasingly persuasive voices that are saying we want to do investigations, we want to do impeachment and infrastructure and other legislative matters have to take a back seat, so be it. neil: you know what i don't understand, the difference between starting an impeachment hearing versus just going on with hearings and getting witnesses to come forward and talk to you, the kind of subpoenas that have been asked of the administration officials by jerry nadler and his committee. do you make it differently when you formally say these are going to be impeachment hearings? >> i think you do in a few respects. number one is my sense is that congress would actually have a stronger hand in trying to get information, documents, testimony, from the president and white house officials if it were in the context of an impeachment hearing. just because we know that although congress obviously has powers to investigate and has oversight ability, the impeachment power is one of the most serious things you can do

under our constitution and the gravity of an impeachment proceeding i suspect would give the democrats more authority to say we need to have testimony before we make this momentous decision. other thing i would stay, i think an impeachment hearing would really crystallize the charges because they would have to proceed on the basis of specific charges and they would not be able to do what they are doing right now which is cast a broad fishing net for all sorts of things, the president's personal life, business transactions, family members, all of that. they really have to narrow the scope of their inquiry to the specific charges in an impeachment hearing. neil: you've got to prove it if you've got enough to go ahead with a coverup charge. that's a big deal. >> that's for sure. neil: thank you, my friend. i do appreciate it. let's get the read from senate majority whip, south dakota republican john thune. senator, always good to have you. what do you think of the escalation of these hostilities, if that's the way i can explain it, where democrats are now making the charge led by nancy pelosi it's a coverup, the president is guilty of a coverup? >> well, there's no question that she went to her caucus this

morning and they must have lit her up, because she came out of that and essentially, you know, dropped the equivalent in political terms of a nuclear bomb right before going in to meet with the president in trying to come up with a solution on a major piece of bipartisan legislation. i just think she is under a lot of pressure from her left. she clearly caved to them and i think she blew up any discussion that she could have with the president basically coming out and accusing him of a crime without any proof of that, and even around here, as i think your previous guest pointed out, you know, politics is politics, it's hardball, we all understand that but when you do something like that, then go down and try to sit down at the table and negotiate with somebody in good faith on a major legislative issue, seems like it's going to be a pretty heavy lift. neil: you think the talks at the white house on infrastructure would have been a little bit longer than a few minutes had she never made the coverup

statement? apparently chuck schumer was of the opinion that this was all preordained, the president because of some of the impeachment talk on the hill, was going to cut this short regardless of the coverup comment that came later. >> i don't believe that. i think the president sincerely wants to do something on infrastructure. i think his team has been, as you know, there has been a lot of conversations about it. he had the previous meeting with the democrats at the white house. i do think that this was triggered and ignited by pelosi's statement this morning. she clearly wanted to blow this thing up and she succeeded in doing it, and for the democrats now to come back up here and say oh, yeah, the president all along wanted to do that, i just don't buy that. i don't think he had any intention of going into that meeting. i think he was prepared to discuss with them a path forward on infrastructure and they certainly blew and missed an opportunity which gets to the broader point and that is are they going to choose to investigate or are they going to try and choose to legislate. she has conflicting pressures within her caucus about that but i think the dominant view in her

caucus and one to which she seems to be listening right now is to investigate, impeach, harass and that's going to make it very hard to legislate. neil: you know what i'm more worried about, you and i have gotten into this before on the debt issue, the budget issues, there, progress was being made. i think that's even more important than infrastructure, depending on your point of view, obviously. now those talks seem to be dead. i'm wondering what this is going to mean when we get closer to august when we essentially could risk running out of dough. >> i agree with you that that is more important. clearly infrastructure is an issue we should deal with long term but i think everybody knew that was going to be a pretty heavy lift given the fact nobody wanted to figure out how to pay for it. but we do have to fund the government. we have to have a budget cap still. we have to, you know, we've got to make sure we raise the debt limit so that markets don't collapse and those are things that are going to require

bipartisan cooperation, and when the democrats go down this path and choose this course, it makes it that much more difficult to do the things that congress has to do, but those are essentials and hopefully people can put aside all the rhetoric and come together and figure out how to get that done. as you know, earlier this week senator mcconnell met with speaker pelosi and also with kevin mccarthy and chuck schumer, and i thought made some positive forward progress. hopefully that will continue because those are things that just have to get done. neil: but they're not going to. >> well, they need to but she makes it that much harder. and i know her caucus, that's where they are and they think they are speaking on behalf of certainly on the far left in this country, but that's not where the majority of americans are. most americans are in the middle. they want to see their government get results, get things done, particularly when it comes to the things they care most about, and that's jobs and wages and opportunities for their kids. i think those are the economic

issues that most americans want to see their congress address. neil: senator thune, thank you very much. all right. we have a lot more coming up after this, including the brouhaha around the treasury secretary's comments on capitol hill. not so much having to do with any of this back and forth on whether the president engaged in a coverup, but that the effects on tariffs are going to be no big deal for you. after this. this is your car.

you had a good run, but it's time to sell or trade it in, and you need to know what it's worth. with truecar, just enter your license plate and see your car's value in real time. sports package and low mileage? nice.

incident with a shopping cart... not so nice. sunroof? real nice. within minutes, you'll have a true cash offer and you can head to a local certified dealership to cash out or trade in. enjoy a better way to sell or trade in your car with truecar. 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. ♪

i thought we were close to an agreement. we were beginning to set up a date for the two presidents meet in a signing ceremony. would have been great for our farmers, for our companies, for our american workers, and unfortunately, china is taking a big step backwards. neil: treasury secretary on capitol hill today. we were that close and apparently now we are suddenly that far and then some. the administration is promising to make good on those directly impacted by all of this, including our farmers. jeff flock has been really looking into the farming community more than any other reporter i know because they are in the line of fire on all of this. he joins us now in illinois. hey, jeff. reporter: yeah, digging into it, neil, almost literally here today. we're actually digging in some of the richest, most productive farmland in america. look at that. isn't that incredible, dark,

productive dirt. doesn't matter how productive it is because right now, because of these china tariffs, specifically soybean farmers, you farm thousands of acres and soybean farmers really hammered now, because of these tariffs. >> we are, and we just really hope that there's going to be some kind of resolution to these tariffs or some kind of compromise is going to happen or they will be rescinded so that we have a little better idea of how we're going to come down to -- everybody's got to make a profit here. reporter: last week we were out at the hog farm and somebody tweeted me and said hey, that's one farmer's opinion. what do farmers really in general think. we sent out a survey, our producer put it together, illinois farm bureau, sent it to all of their members in illinois. we thought we would get 20, 30 responses. we got almost 700 responses and surprising to me, a lot of farmers are starting to lose confidence in the ability of the administration to get this done. put the numbers up, if you

would. you'll see maybe a third beginning to lose confidence, they say. another third, fairly confident. another third not sure. one thing almost everybody agrees on, that is farmers are taking the brunt of this hit. 9 out of 10 farmers that we surveyed said you know, we're getting hammered. now, some of them still say that's going to be a win for the u.s. we've got to tough it out. are you past the point of toughing it out? >> we are certainly getting there. i know in our own operation, we really want to see something come to a head here where there's some kind of, where they are rescinded or some kind of solution because we need some help out here in the farmland, in the heartland, and all of us are hurting and you know, we've had a drop in our prices there, where they dropped about 30% there or 20% and you know, we just want to be able to raise a crop and receive a fair price and open up the export market. reporter: we hear the maybe the president tomorrow will announce some sort of aid for these

farmers. they would rather not have aid. they would rather have free markets and make money the old-fashioned by by selling their crop. i guess we'll see. neil: you've got to wonder, the $15 billion the administration supposedly is promising from the money he's gotten from the tariffs will even be enough. reporter: right. you know, when you think about how big agriculture is and how big a hit it's taken, i think that's just help them pay the bills a little bit. i don't know that it's going to be enough. neil: jeff flock, thank you very, very much. we always like to remind you jeff has done a great job of that, the people who are in the direct line of fire in all of this and whether you're republican or democrat, they are the salt of the earth. they are the ones who are suffering the most. we do know the treasury secretary of the united states is saying the impact on all this, farmers notwithstanding, will be minimal and that they have done studies within the treasury department that shows that, of many who were questioning the treasury secretary today wanted to know, get a better sense of that data and where he's getting that

from. dave dodson joins us along with ben phillips and scott martin. scott, to the notion na the treasury secretary was raising that this will not have the severe impact that's been reported in the media, what do you make of that? >> i don't know what else he's going to say. i think, you know, it's like anything in a relationship. let's call this maybe a relationship with china. i'm probably getting too personal here, but there's one side, the other side and the truth is somewhere in the middle, right? we have all been through that. he doesn't want to come out and say really i think what the devastating let's say impacts may be but i did a little very unofficial report or research before i came on the show today and if you're home or at your office or at the airport watching us, you can do this, too. look around what's near you or what you have in front of you and see what's made in china, what's made overseas, because it's pretty striking of the things you have, how much stuff

is not made here. what the president wants to start doing. so how much more we have to adjust supply chains and everything going forward really speaks to that impact that steve mnuchin does not want to talk about which is bringing back stuff to the united states which is obviously a very big task. neil: you know, dave, one of the things they mentioned, that is the white house, the label that hits you, the 25% tariff, but that it won't be passed along to consumers that high. while i agree that maybe 10%, they can absorb and not pass it on to consumers or working with their chinese suppliers, they can limit the impact and many of them have, 25%, even if you cut it by five or seven percentage points, you're still talking about a double digit increase. >> yeah. well, you know, as mike tyson said, everybody's got a plan until i hit them in the face. that's really what happened. neil: there is that. good analogy. >> yeah. our thought was we were going to tweet a few tariffs out to china, they would come to their knees, we would get a better deal and we're done, move on to

the next priority. but china thinks in terms of generations. we think in terms of quarterly earnings reports. what's happened, we can see it now, yes, the initial tariffs were not passed through to consumers because it's difficult for importers or manufacturers to pass tariffs immediately through to consumers. but that will absolutely change over time because make no mistake, a tariff is a tax. this idea that chinese -- the chinese economy is dumping billions of dollars into our u.s. treasury is not how the real world works. short term, no impact on consumers. i agree with the treasury secretary. medium term, there is no way around that. i think the really interesting thing is what's going to happen long term. there's a lot of countries now that want to elbow their way into the trade between china and the u.s., and that's why it was sad to listen to the soybean farmer in the earlier segment because what's happening is countries like russia are now taking advantage of this and building soybean infrastructure. that will permanently reduce prices. neil: interesting. you could make a flipside argument on that and say well, the good thing is interest rates go down. that's the growing talk, a number have said governors, i

believe, talking about maybe a cut in interest rates later in the year. what do you think of that offsetting this? >> that is one potential offset but that's more concerning if you are starting to talk about rate cutting. usually that means it's because growth is slowing. as we know, global trade is driven just higher global growth, it's driven higher stock prices, lower inflation. you flip that, you start losing that. you slow down growth, lower asset prices and potential for high inflation, that's all bad for markets. that's what we're worried about. rate cuts are concerning. neil: one of the things that comes to mind here is if the president doesn't see any progress or promising talk out of the chinese and lately he's not, they talk about the fact that no talks are scheduled, nor do they envision them any time soon, the chinese president, not saying he's sounding bellicose but he is sounding increasingly intransigent with remarks he makes which makes you wonder whether that in the past has gotten the president to sort of up the ante, whether he moves

ahead on putting these higher tariffs on the remaining chinese goods that come into this country, better than $300 billion worth. what then? >> if it comes to tit for tat, i think the next line in the sand happens to coincide with my birth date, june 28th, which is the next g-20 meeting which seems to be the next maybe spot where we can get a deal done or maybe get like you said, some more relations going that may be more productive. but i will disagree with something dave said earlier, if i may, which is i was at a dinner and yes, there were some drinks there, too, but dinner with some local businesses here on the south side of chicago, and they are already seeing the impact and raising prices on consumers and frankly, if you talk to anybody that's built a house say last year versus somebody that's trying to do it this year, building costs are through the roof. the cost of marble, prefab things, crown molding, they have gone through the roof because of these tariffs. to say there hasn't been any impact on the consumer so far seems a little bit myopic to me. neil: you know, dave, looking at

just the market, not necessarily that it's the most reliable proxy on these things, the selloff on the dow, it's been a rather contained, measured response to all of this back and forth. they're not too worried, or that's how i surmise it. are they whistling past the graveyard? what do you think? >> well, it will be interesting to see what happens. i do agree that prices are now being passed through. i think we are past the short term that i was talking about. we are definitely in the medium term. you know, i think that what people don't really know yet is they don't know what the long term impact is going to be. the real blunder, of course, in all this is what we walked away from the trans-pacific partnership. that -- we could have had 11 other countries side by side with us pushing up against china, and now we are doing it by ourselves. what really needs to happen i think is the president needs to go back, we can call it something different, we can paint the house a different color, but we have to go back and get some allies because the thing that china fears the most is not a few months of tariffs. what china fears is a reshuffling of the deck around

the pacific rim, and that involves australia, japan, malaysia, vietnam, and if we can make those our allies, that changes the dynamic with us and china. neil: ben, what do you tell investors? >> we tell investors, you know, to be a little more cautious right now with markets. trade was not a concern until it became one late in q4 really last year. we were talking about it kind of all last year. when the market wakes up to it, they start seeing it in quarterly earnings, that's when the market will react to this. if it's a prolonged trade dispute i think it's time to start thinking about a little more defensiveness, higher bond exposure, lower u.s. equity exposure. neil: thank you all very, very much. want to update you, new york lawmakers have voted to allow the release of the president's state tax returns, the state tax returns, to democrats in congress. the bill is on the way to the governor now. there are a lot of legal restrictions here, whether they can actually do such a thing, but again, in new york, at least, the state tax returns in question from the president dating back a number of years,

they don't say how much, do get a pass by new york law makers on a bill governor andrew cuomo is expected to sign. meantime, a show of force by b52 bombers as iran warns the u.s. of consequences. after this. ♪

play it cool and escape heartburn fast with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. ♪ tum tum tum tums

with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. [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. we're getting new footage coming in of b52 bombers in the gulf. my floor director, who is very well schooled on these matters, pointed out that those were not b52s before, those were fighter jets accompanying the b52s. the b52s are in the shot, just not that shot. a positively jiez fl i apologize for that confusion. anyway, rob o'neill is on where this is all going. this is kind of scary stuff. it's getting a little more agitated. >> it can be scary. the good news is, nobody wants war, even the ayatollah came out on his twitter which he knew

president trump would read, our president likes to get on twitter once in awhile -- neil: he has a twitter page? >> they don't let everybody there use twitter but apparently he can. they are admitting they don't want war. we know they don't want war. neil: but when you get this kind of environment it doesn't take much to trigger one. >> it doesn't and that's the issue. the issue is not going to be with what's his name, the quds force, the revolutionary guard. the problem could be, because we have a lot of ships there, there's a strike group, there's the 22nd expeditionary is over there with an amphib ready group. some of those may be junior officers or senior enlisted that kind of want to get it on a little bit with the navy if they get too close to the fast attack boats. they are going to find out the hard way we have destroyers over there and we didn't name them destroyers because we ran out of names. they destroy things. if that happens, that could potentially uptick something we don't want to happen. but we are there as a deterrent now. this is a normal deployment for the carrier group, the "lincoln"

but they pushed it forward to the persian gulf because now it's time to deter. nothing is serious as having a carrier off your coast. neil: we had your old commander, admiral mcraven on yesterday, and he was talking about the iranians, he wouldn't be surprised, he had 40 years of dealing with them, knows what he's dealing with and doesn't think this will come to blows here because the iranians might be reckless but they're smart enough not to. >> yeah. talking to admiral mcraven, you are talking to probably the smartest guy in the room. he personally dealt with them for decade as well. we have been dealing with them. that's the thing. they are radical, the leadership is, but they are smart. they have been doing it for awhile. they know what they can get away with. they know how a lot of our politicians and public feels, having gone to war in iraq and afghanistan still, both places still going. we're not eager -- neil: but he did say sometimes you will get a difference of opinion within a president's staff. he was obviously alluding to the john boltons who might not be on

the same page as other foreign policy aides but he has confidence in the president's team. >> he does. admiral mcraven really likes secretary pompeo. pompeo's a good one and bolton is, too. not like anybody wants to go to war. the press will say that bolton really wants to go to war. that's kind of his thing. i don't think that's the case. i think -- neil: even the president joked about the mixed signals. >> yeah. well, there's going to be mixed signals. we had people in the obama administration that didn't want us to go after osama bin laden. neil: you are the guy who took that guy out. mcraven was telling an interesting story how after osama bin laden was killed, that they wanted to make very sure that he was the guy, but he was very tall. that's all he knew. he was looking around at his men saying who is about that height. >> the tallest guy we had was one of our snipers and he was 6'2". admiral mcraven asked him to lie down next to bin laden's body which he did. that was the confirmation from some of the relatives inside with the dna later and that as

well, trying to get as many things as we can to make sure it's him. o there was a tape measure, in case you ever need one again. neil: you knew, though, right? when you stormed into that house, you had no doubt. >> i knew, for bin laden, i was sure simply because of three letter agency people. there's a group of women that found him and how confident they were. they turned out to be, one woman in particular, 100% right about 100% of the people inside. she knew where khalid would be. she was frustrated saying if you want a shot at osama bin laden he's on the third floor of this house right now, i don't understand why we're not leaving. i was sure going in, i was sure when i saw him, when i saw him standing up on two feet, i recognized his nose, i recognized his beard was shorter and white but no doubt in my mind when i shot him and it sunk in about four seconds later that we just got osama bin laden. neil: you also tell me in the case of the one helicopter that crashed near the compound, they certainly would have had to hear that. they knew something was up. >> yeah.

inside, they were sure. even if you read the youngest wife, she has on the record report of what happened from her end, and it's the same as mine, and i guess he was saying to her, bin laden, they are here for me. so he was trying to get her to leave. she was there when we went up there. yeah. they had to know we were there. we listened to a phone call one time between the two brothers, his couriers, the cell phone call they had right before my guys killed them, engaged and killed them, they shot at us, too. it was quite a time. we trained so hard, had the best assets we could, best pilots in the world, best air crew, best intel. i was smart enough to carry a sledge hammer and gun. i turned the right corner. neil: just amazing. you hear this all the time but each and every one of you knew you might never get out of that house. >> we were pretty sure. my small team of about eight guys, we were calling ourselves the martyrs brigade because we were supposed to be on the roof of the main house when it blew up. when he martyred himself. we accepted it because of what happened here in new york, pennsylvania and washington and terrorism around the world.

neil: you are a different breed, young man. >> they are out there still, i promise. neil: thank you very much. more after this. ♪ (vo) i know what you're thinking. electric, it's not for you. and, you're probably right. electric just doesn't have enough range. it will never survive the winter. charging stations? good luck finding one of those. so, maybe an electric car isn't for you after all. or, is it? ♪

[kno♪king]

♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home.

neil: here's one thing about being a millionaire. you're rich. that's a given. there are plenty of them now. here's the bad thing, though. they drive up the price of real estate wherever they are when they get that rich. it's going on around the san francisco area. robert gray joins me. reporter: that's right. these folks are expecting 5,000 new millionaires from the ipos from san francisco based companies alone. $5.6 million will get you a duplex here on alamo park in san francisco. this is an area where we have seen sales actually softening a little bit earlier this year but keep in mind, that's because we saw higher rates, fewer transactions on the market with all this new money coming in.

experts are telling us an area we are seeing prices rise by 50% over the past five years, they expect to see those prices go even higher. >> over the next five years, i expect rent prices and home prices to appreciate at least 50%, 100% is also plausible. we are looking at a much more expensive city. reporter: take a look at this. a sign of the times. this is a $2.5 million tear-down shack. that's right. we went and took that, this redefines the term open house, when we were taking a look at this. the reason it's going to be so pricey, they have cut through the red tape to allow them to tear it down and air rights to build above their neighbors so they can have the views out there. they are a couple minutes away from the new billion dollar warriors arena as well. the realtor told us she hopes the warriors will move in. it will take a lot of cash. looking at $4.5 million for that

whole construction project. back to you. neil: i understand you were one of the bidders. touche to you. robert, thank you very, very much. robert gray. great reporting there. we told you a little earlier how this t-mobile/sprint thing is looking dicey. that was from charlie gasparino. apparently the reason now isn't so much the fcc which has essentially written off on that combo, but the justice department, the antitrust staff now saying that it's not a good idea. where it ends up is anyone's guess. former ftc general counsel on all these fast-moving developments. kevin, what do you think? who wins out on this? >> as you say, it's anybody's guess. but it is now in the hands of a sole decision maker, makan delrahim from antitrust. he's known to be an independent thinker, he's known to keep his cards close to his vest. wifr w whichever way he comes out, he will be able to justify. the merged entry will still be

the third player however it comes out. these two players are very far behind in the hunt behind at & t and verizon and if it's really true that they've got this ability to bring out this 5g technology in a three-year period and it may wake up what they consider to be the sleepy duopoly between verizon and at & t, then it could pass. the other thing i think it may well depend on is while makan determines the role of sprint in the marketplace, does sprint right now play any role in the competitive marketplace. if it is so weak as it claims, and that's the honest view, and it's accepted, well then why does it matter if they leave the marketplace? the merger can go forward and you have these innovations that may take place. i do think, though, that it will take more than just the commitments that were made to the fcc. neil: i'm wondering, you could be left with three players regardless, whether this deal goes through or not, and sprint could die on the vine. that would be a compelling

argument for making the merger happen. what do you think? >> absolutely. the opponents of this merger call it a 4-3 and others look and call it 2-3 because without the transaction, what's going to disrupt the market for 5g is it ends up being very competitive. if that's where the market's going, one criticism of antitrust is that it takes a static snapshot of the world whereas it should be dynamic and certainly taking the 5g aspects of this into account would be evidence that antitrust can live up to the challenges it faces today, especially in high tech. neil: we will watch closely. kevin, thank you for stopping by. do appreciate it. >> thank you. neil: the president is getting mixed grades on an economy that almost everyone agrees is strong. why aren't his poll numbers even stronger? after this. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

dad, it's fine. we have allstate. and with claimrateguard they won't raise your rates just because of a claim. that's why you're my favorite... i know. are you in good hands? there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't.

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

call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp. that's the icing on the cake... i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call. neil: pretty good economy. the president not getting much credit for it. a new quinnipiac poll shows 7 out of 10 americans say the economy is good or excellent but fewer than half approve of the president's handling of the economy. in other words, not giving him the credit for it. to the former republican ohio secretary of state ken blackwell, democratic strategist andrew felton.

ken, to you first. you surprised by that? >> no, i'm not. the president's numbers are as good as obama's and several other presidents at this point in his first term. but what i do know is that the cbs poll and a number of other polls are now showing directionally it's moving in the right direction. democrats want to make this about obstruction, they want to make it about russia, but the president has to keep it on growth and opportunity. the democrats want to create an expanded welfare state. this president is building an opportunity society and i think that that is catching on and moving in the right direction in terms of public opinion. neil: you know, andrew, whatever you think of the latest, the democrats leading on subpoenas and going after the president and witnesses to get them to appear before various committees, did nancy pelosi potentially jump the shark with

the proven coverup charge? it's obviously very hard to advance any legislation or work between the two parties when that is the view. could it come back to boomerang on democrats? >> i think what we're seeing today is exactly why the president's approval ratings are where they are, right. in that quinnipiac poll he has a 38% approval rating. that's because of the divisiveness and his antics that he went into the rose garden and acted on today, and his comments on twitter and so forth. if the economy is doing so well, which again, i agree that 7 of 10 americans feel like it's doing good or excellent, he should not have an approval rating that's in the toilet like it is. that's because of his divisive rhetoric. nancy pelosi has not called for impeachment. she was not doing that today. but the reality is -- neil: well, she seems to be hedging her bets a little bit. i'm wondering maybe after that meeting that she had with the democrats, they're telling her to be a little more in your

face. i wasn't there. i don't know. but she's trying to hold back this wave and it's not working. >> well, i think that people are not happy with the president right now. what we're seeing is just childish. his behavior and the reality is i really do believe democrats are looking to get some things done and for him not even to sit down in that meeting today? neil: childish could work on both sides, right? ken, one of the things i do want to know is to the point he makes, no one is doubting the strength of this economy or very few are. it is unusual for a president not to get the credit because he usually will get the blame if things are bad. this president is not benefiting from that. if he can't benefit from an economy this strong, if he's trailing in a state like pennsylvania that now just reported its lowest unemployment rate ever, yet he trails joe biden by double digits, i'm sure you as a republican have to be a little concerned, right? >> well, look, no, i'm not. the reason that -- neil: i think you are a little bit. a little bit. >> the reason i'm not concerned

is that there's a poll that's out that shows that people believe that the president is responsible for the uptick in their income, the uptick in opportunity to work, the uptick in -- neil: so you think it's just a matter of time before it jives? >> absolutely. neil: andrew, what do you think of that? you might be preaching his political demise too soon? >> absolutely not. what we have seen from the bureau of labor statistics is black job growth is down, the black/white wage gap is widening, and -- neil: all those key demographics are looking at record low unemployment. >> it's not about unemployment, though. if you look at wage growth for a second, if you account for inflation, the wage growth -- neil: now you are -- [ speaking simultaneously ] >> if we look at the wage growth now compared to wage growth in 2015 it's lower. neil: that's another argument for another time. thank you. in the meantime, i want to

quickly pass along before we go to break here, the chinese now are offering, offering companies in the country a two-year tax holiday to buffett the impact they could have maybe because of the trade war. that's china's way of saying we are so fighting this. after this. i'm working to make each day a little sweeter. ♪ to give every idea the perfect soundtrack. ♪ to fill your world with fun. ♪ to share my culture with my community.

♪ to make each journey more elegant. ♪ i'm working for all the adventure two wheels can bring. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) . . rol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain,

or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card. and reduce your risk with repatha®. [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. we have officially entered nowhere land when it comes to whether the two sides will talk to infrastructure or let anything else happen.

the fact that things have broken off between nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, the white house, you name it, congressman max rose who met with nancy pelosi on the whole impeachment thing, the democrat, he will talk to us on "your world," 4:00 p.m. eastern time the implications of all of this. we're also monitoring the market reaction the maybe a sign of our times the market shrugged this off, all down 60 points. the impact is more to do with disappointment on the trade front. not much progress being made there. we'll get the read from i am. we'll get the latest from the federal reserve gathering six weeks ago. here so do that, dagen mcdowell, broadcaster filling in for charles payne.

dagen: good afternoon, i'm dagen mcdowell? for charles payne. no deal half pelosi accused the president of a coverup. general schoenberger is at the federal reserve. >> that is major take away from internal discussions from fed officials at the policy meeting three weeks ago. dagen, fed officials feel comfortable monetary policy. they will be comfortable with interest rates for some time. we have not her that language. it appears they're erring on more of a dovish side, digging n they will remain patient even in the face of increasing global growth. better financial conditions and even if we see more moderate growth here in the united states all if inflationai